# 5.0 Megapixel camera and 5.0 meg photos???



## Alex L (Oct 25, 2005)

Am I right in thinking that to get the best quality photos from my camera (5.0 megapixels) I need to take the photos in the largest size??


----------



## Ducky (Mar 19, 2007)

Generally, but sometimes large doesn't always mean best, a lot depends on the quality of the camera lens and CCD pickup.

Plus some cameras have an option to store pictures in uncompressed format (i.e Tiff) to retain all the picture data. On my mates camera that makes each picture take up 100mb


----------



## Alex L (Oct 25, 2005)

Lucky I just got a bigger memory card/stick thingy.

This is the camera

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf717/

The image sizes are:

640x480
1280x960
2048x1536
2560(3:2)
2560x1920

It takes 'TIFF' pictures too


----------



## Ducky (Mar 19, 2007)

I'd stick it on the top res and switch it to Tiff mode. Worth checking the review as some cameras activate a form of compression for the highest resolutions which actually degrades the quality.

It also depends what you're using the pics for, if it's web based stuff then no sense in shooting at maximum res etc.


----------



## silver bmw z3 (Apr 30, 2007)

Ducky said:


> Generally, but sometimes large doesn't always mean best, a lot depends on the quality of the camera lens and CCD pickup.
> 
> Plus some cameras have an option to store pictures in uncompressed format (i.e Tiff) to retain all the picture data. On my mates camera that makes each picture take up 100mb


Are you sure it's not 10mb ?! I've never heard of a RAW file being 100MB in size !


----------



## Naddy37 (Oct 27, 2005)

Thats the camera I've got. Cracking piece of kit. However, went to take it to Lakenheath on Friday, turned it on, and ooops the CCD has failed on it.... 

Now I have a cracking camera that I can't use...


----------



## Alex L (Oct 25, 2005)

neilos said:


> Thats the camera I've got. Cracking piece of kit. However, went to take it to Lakenheath on Friday, turned it on, and ooops the CCD has failed on it....
> 
> Now I have a cracking camera that I can't use...


Thats a bummer, although for the price we paid for it we could've got a decent Digi SLR


----------



## Naddy37 (Oct 27, 2005)

Alex L said:


> Thats a bummer, although for the price we paid for it we could've got a decent Digi SLR


LOL I think I paid about £600 for mine a few years back. Typical with each gadget I buy, a few months later and the price literally drops on em...

As I say, it's a great camera. I had taken about 2000+ shots with mine till it decided to conk out.


----------



## Ducky (Mar 19, 2007)

Well his camera takes a 16.7MP shot, I swear he said it was nign on 100mb uncompressed. I will check


----------



## dave_h (May 1, 2007)

silver bmw z3 said:


> Are you sure it's not 10mb ?! I've never heard of a RAW file being 100MB in size !


I have got a Sony F828 & in RAW mode the file sizes are 23mb, so on a 16mp DSLR about 100mb sounds right.

Hence the need for 4gb microdrives


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

silver bmw z3 said:


> Are you sure it's not 10mb ?! I've never heard of a RAW file being 100MB in size !


I don't think a RAW file would be any larger than 4x the number of pixels, i.e. 20MB for a 5mp camera (32-bit colour) however, IIRC, TIFF files store a whole lot more than just the RGB values of each pixel which is why they're used in graphics design and printing - something to do with allowing CMYK separations etc.?


----------



## brympton (Oct 23, 2006)

*Raw, TIFF and JPEGs*

Wow there's some confusion here  Raw files (which the Sony in the example doesn't produce) are literally that - raw and unprocessed image data straight from the cameras CCD or CMOS sensor allowing computer editing of such things as white balance. TIFF files or Tagged Information Format Files are compressed its just that the type of compression used is lossless so the image is not degraded with editing and saving repeatedly. As pointed out in the previous post additional information is stored with the image hence tagged information but its main use (apart from exposure information) would be the retention of "layers" in the more upmarket editing packages such as Photoshop or Photoshop Elements. JPEGs are lossey compressed allowing for very small image files and are probably the most common grahics file used on the internet. All digital cameras shoot in RGB (Red Green Blue) and all monitors produce RGB (either sRGB and/or Adobe RGB). CMYK or Cyan Magenta Yellow and Key (Key Plate is a printers term for black) refers to ink colours and printed output. Anyway, enough rambling to answer the original question, it all depends on what you want to do with the output. Large images give you the most scope for quality enlargements or cropping away the bits you don't like and still ending up with a decent image when printed. TIFFs are great if you are into editing with layers and have plenty of storage space. But if you just want to print 4x6 pics with the miinimum of fuss a smaller image size and JPEG setting will allow you take many more pictures than large TIFFs. IMHO


----------



## bigal76 (Aug 15, 2006)

You might hit 100mb with one of these bad boys

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093003hasselbladh3d.asp

Back to topic though - yes, I agree with what's been said. You might not see much of a difference on the avg 4*6 pic - but you may see some difference on your computer screen when viewing on full screen. If you've got the space on your card and hard drive, and don't mind the time it takes to write to the card, then why not go big - you can always downsize them later.


----------



## pc.iow (May 10, 2007)

As far as i am concerned,you can ramble all day,and all night too if you are going to give me information like that.:thumb:


----------



## pc.iow (May 10, 2007)

bigal76 said:


> You might hit 100mb with one of these bad boys
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093003hasselbladh3d.asp
> 
> Back to topic though - yes, I agree with what's been said. You might not see much of a difference on the avg 4*6 pic - but you may see some difference on your computer screen when viewing on full screen. If you've got the space on your card and hard drive, and don't mind the time it takes to write to the card, then why not go big - you can always downsize them later.


£13900 PLUS vat.:doublesho 
If i had money to burn,it would be one of these,
EOS-1Ds Mark II at £4500 inc vat.
Though my 350D is good enough for most of what i want.


----------



## brympton (Oct 23, 2006)

*Screen images?*



bigal76 said:


> You might not see much of a difference on the avg 4*6 pic - but you may see some difference on your computer screen when viewing on full screen. QUOTE]
> 
> On the contrary, if I only wanted to see my images on a monitor I would only ever shoot in JPEG. let me ramble a bit more  You need to understand ppi or pixels per inch, the average monitor displays 72ppi and for a high quality 4x6 print your image needs to be 300ppi. So a 4x6 image at 300ppi will become four times larger on screen at 100%. e.g 300/72 = 4, times the height (4x4) = 16 and times the length (4x6)= 24 or to put it another way 1200x1800. Given that there are still many people using 15 inch monitors set at 800x600 I would be using a smaller image for on-screen display than a 4x6 print. Setting camera image sizes for monitors is easy it's a direct ratio, setting images sizes for printing needs a bit more thought  Finally, don't confuse ppi with dpi (dots per inch) as produced by a printer otherwise I will have to ramble some more


----------

