Digital cameras: is 640x480 ok for web?
Eric Leshao
I know this isn't a 'pure' Fireworks question so please bear with me. If you
can help I appreciate it.
I am planning to buy a digital camera to take photos of stuff I want to sell
online. None of the pictures shall be for print. My question is whether a
640 x 480 resolution camera is good enough to take clear and sharp pics for
the web. After all, whatever pics I take they shall have to be optimized to
60KB or less.
If you know your pixels and/or resolutions or if you have a 640 x 480 (or
higher) camera I would be glad to get your feedback on this.
PS: I don't want to spend too much on a camera hence the 640x480 thing.
digitally yours
Eric Leshao
les...@skyweb.co.ke
Mark Saragossi
By the way I've just upgraded my digital camera so I've got an Olympus
1400XL to sell - 1.4M pixels
How much were you looking to spend - I'm in the UK.
Regards
Mick White
Mick
Todd Williamsen
web. One pet peave of mine, is waiting for a picture to download thats
200k! I have a Olympus 3000 that does 3.4megapixels...quite overkill for
web pictures but great for creating pictures for print.
"Mick White" <him...@mickweb.com> wrote in message
news:3A4F54E6...@mickweb.com...
scruffylooking
website. If your only using if for the web it will be more than adequate.
Only recommendation I would make is to find a camera with a usb connection
to your computer. I connect thru a serial port and it take forever to
download my shots. Forever meaning a few minutes if I have 40 or 50 photos.
Take care.
Robert Barnett
isn't going to be all it could be. A mega-pixel camera will give you a
better quality picture as it is able to capture more detail in the image
than a 640x480 res. camera can.
Taking your camera and my 2MP Oly 2020 and taking the same shot. Now I scale
my shot down to 640x480 my picture will be better than yours just as the
same thing done with my camera over a 3MP would make the 3MP image look
better.
So, basically it depends on what you are going to be shooting with it. The
resolution is more than adaquate, but if you are going to be taking pictures
of things with lots of details you may not be all that happy with it. But,
if you are just take pictures of things like keyboards, phones, cars, etc.
it should do just fine.
My suggestion is to buy one locally with a good return policy and try it out
and see what you think. If it was me I would look in to a 1 mega-pixel
camera which should give you a good balance of price and picture quality.
Also, if you still decide to go with the 640x480 camera I wouldn't spend
more than $150 to $200 on one, more than that and your getting ripped off.
Also, a flash would be a must have. Look at buy.com they have several for
less than $100 that will give you some ideas. They also have a good return
policy, but they aren't local.
Robert
"Eric Leshao" <les...@skyweb.co.ke> wrote in message
news:92neur$9f7$1...@misc.macromedia.com...
Mick White
Robert Barnett wrote:
> Generally, yes. However you do need to realize that the picture quality
> isn't going to be all it could be. A mega-pixel camera will give you a
> better quality picture as it is able to capture more detail in the image
> than a 640x480 res. camera can.
>
> Taking your camera and my 2MP Oly 2020 and taking the same shot. Now I scale
> my shot down to 640x480 my picture will be better than yours just as the
> same thing done with my camera over a 3MP would make the 3MP image look
> better.
I disagree with the above statement, if there's any difference I'd say the
heavily resampled image would fare a little worse.
Mick
>
>
>
LauraK
>640 x 480 resolution camera is good enough to take clear and sharp pics for
>the web. After all, whatever pics I take they shall have to be optimized to
>60KB or less.
>If you know your pixels and/or resolutions or if you have a 640 x 480 (or
>higher) camera I would be glad to get
>your feedback on this.
That resolution would be fine for web as long as you've got excellent macro
capabilities and can fill the lens with the item you're shooting without
getting too close.
In other words, if you've got to crop to get a good looking photo you're going
to come up short of pixels.
The higher resolution cameras also have better auto focus and more features.
Look for a 1.2 pixel or 2.1 pixel. Maybe a refurb if you're buying one that has
been refurbed by the original manufacturer and is warranteed by the oem.
If you're doing small stuff, like jewelry, coins, stuff under 6X6 inches, look
at the Nikons. They've got a good reputation for their Macro capabilities.
webm...@atomicmotorspeedway.com
http://www.atomicmotorspeedway.com
Simon Watkins
detail. 640x480 whether taken at 640x480 or taken at a higher resolution
then scaled down contains *exactly* the same amount of information (read
detail). Agreed the higher resolution image contains more information (read
detail), but nonetheless the smaller image will contain the exact same
amount as the high res image once the larger image has been scaled to the
same size (all else being equal).
However, as Mick says, an image scaled as opposed to taken at that native
resolution will contain artefacts of that scaling - integer rounding errors
(unless scaled to an exact multiple of 2) etc.
Where you may get an improved image is through reduction of focus/lens
aberration etc through reduction of the larger image to smaller. Eg, a
given aberration in the lens may cause a certain amount of captured image
misinformation, that upon image reduction also reduces proportionally.
Overall though, I doubt there'll be any particular gain in using a higher
res capture device and reducing in size over taking natively at 640x480.
Simon
"Robert Barnett" <web...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:92ntrm$n9s$1...@misc.macromedia.com...
Mick White
Mick
Robert Barnett
to the Oly 3030 and taking the same picture of the same object with all of
them and resampling them down to the same 640x480 shows that the new cameras
do capture more detail than the older low-res, non-mp cameras. Even after
resampling.
Take a picture of someones head and then look at the hair. The higher
resolution cameras show much more detail than the older ones.
Robert
"Mick White" <him...@mickweb.com> wrote in message
news:3A4F8A69...@mickweb.com...
Mick White
Mick
Simon Watkins
Simon
"Mick White" <him...@mickweb.com> wrote in message
news:3A4FADB5...@mickweb.com...
> HNY
> Mick
Karl
25 years in photography - owned a store, 12 as semi-pro. Bottom line, shoot
high and resample if you what the best results for many reasons (a few
listed in this thread)
But, to add to that (in a nutshell):
Higher resolution cameras use higher quality CCD's & sometimes more than
one - they typically provide higher color fidelity, better tonal range, and
better contrast than there lower resolution counterparts. (See Digital
Photography Mag for some great comparisions in print and on the web)
A low resolution aquisition gives you no control of how the image "down
samples" which it does (real life is sharper than 640 X 480 ;-}. For
example, if you have the edges of an object in your photo (a red vase
against a multi-color blurred background) the "edge sharpness" is bound to
the location of the pixel that the reflected light hits. it will "round
off" to the nearest "chunky" pixel in lower res cameras. Using a high
resolution capture and down sampling, the photographer can maintain some
control (Based upon the application being used to convert the file) - from a
little to a lot.
Finally, new image formats and codecs are going to be flooding the market
over the next several months, and you can't convert back-up, while you can
always come down!
Just my .02 worth.
Karl
"Mick White" <him...@mickweb.com> wrote in message
news:3A4FADB5...@mickweb.com...