| Author |
pixels |
jmbillings
Joined: Sep 28, 2002
Posts: 196
From: Oundle, UK
PM, WWW
|
http://www.dansdata.com/gz059.htm
Interesting - and what some have known all along. Don't get hung up on the no. of pixels people...
|
|
|
IRFCA_WDG-3A
Joined: Nov 24, 2005
Posts: 359
From: Rajdhani Express!!
PM |
That's what the experts have been repeating throughout the ages...
The megapixels don't matter, the picture quality does....Unless you want poster-size prints, that is. If all u want is to save them in ur PC and view them at leisure, 1024x768 is ideal, and 1280x960 is more than enough.
|
siamese plantpot
Joined: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 136
From: way up norf
PM |
but, correct me if wrong here... id have thought that if you have a higher number of pixels you could use digital zoom on it and stiff have a high enough quality image whereas if there were a lower number of pixels to start with this would make the quality possibly too bad?
if you understand what i am trying to say there...
mike
[addsig] |
jmbillings
Joined: Sep 28, 2002
Posts: 196
From: Oundle, UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-07-20 17:24:31, siamese plantpot wrote:
but, correct me if wrong here... id have thought that if you have a higher number of pixels you could use digital zoom on it and stiff have a high enough quality image whereas if there were a lower number of pixels to start with this would make the quality possibly too bad?
if you understand what i am trying to say there...
mike
|
|
For zooming in you are right to an extent - the higher the resolution (ie. more pixels) you have, smaller areas of the image will contain more pixels and have more detail. But that is completely unrelated to image quality. The image quality is to do with the lens (how accurately it focuses the light onto the sensor), the sensor itself and how it reacts to light and so on. For instance, as well as my W810 (2mpx) I have a Nikon digicam. It's a few years old and is also 2mpx. The pictures from both of these devices come out the same size, however the image *quality* from the Nikon is much better - the lens is better so you don't get the coloured blurring on sharp edges, the focus is constant across the whole image (most cellphone cameras will blur towards the corners) and in low light there is much less grain and noise in the image. This is because the sensor is larger so more light falls onto each pixel, so to get a given light "amount", the chip doesn't need to amplify the signal. The phone camera must amplify the signal a lot to work in dark lighting because its sensor is so tiny and doesn't receive much light that it boosts all the "electronic" noise too - this is why K750 low light images have the blue streaks.
What I would have preferred SE to do is instead of making the 3mpx K800 to invest their money into a new 2mpx sensor that is a little larger and higher quality and with a better quality lens on the front. This would have given much improved pictures at the same size as before.
Hope all that makes sense, I think I'm rambling a bit...
|
siamese plantpot
Joined: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 136
From: way up norf
PM |
makes sense from here, cheers. makes my 'educated ramblingsa' sound all the more convincing in the future. the article was an interesting read too
mike
[addsig] |
|
|
Posted: 2006-07-20 15:53
