What the heck am I going to do with all these megapixels?

[dreamshark]

I lost my camera. It went on an out of town trip with us and was never seen again. Maybe it was left in the car and someone stole it. Or maybe I brought it home, took it out of my purse, and set it down somewhere in the house. But after three weeks and looking everywhere I finally just gave up and ordered myself a new one. If the old one turns up I'll give it to Thorin. I wanted one like my old one so I could use my leftover accessories would work with it, so I just ordered the newest iteration of the Canon Powershot. Old one was model 800, this one is 890. It's pretty much like the old one, except that the basic $250-$300 point and shoot camera is now up to TEN MEGAPIXELS. Until now I've typically been setting my cameras to the highest supported resolution, and I must admit that the pictures keep looking better and better with each new camera.

But this just seems excessive. What settings actually make sense for an everyday photographer taking digital snapshots of friends, family and bike trips? And what is this "fine, superfine, jagged" setting for?

Comments

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I don't know what "jagged" means, perhaps simply a very low resolution. Anyway, for "everyday" pictures, you really don't need more than 2 Megapixels. A good shot at 2M can be printed at 8x10.

At this point, I'd recommend somewhat more, and look at the computing power of the camera (!). That is, how good are the sensors reading the megapixels. Most cameras these days, at least from a brand name, probably have very good cameras in the 4-6 M range. But, as you've noticed, it's actually fairly hard to find a camera that doesn't want to be on the cutting edge in this regard. I haven't found the 8M I have to be particularly more useful than the 3.2 I had... except sometimes when I need to really crop a shot.

So look for features: Zoom, flash, lens size, max shutter speed, and so on. Oh, and I recommend a camera that takes 4 AA batteries. Some have their own proprietary power supply, and those work but you have to pay attention. Some only take 2 AAs, and they work too but run out of shots more quickly. Get two sets of 4 AA rechargeables and a charger. In an emergency, just get batteries at a store.

Anyway, those are some quick thoughts. Read online reviews...

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

No, no, you're missing the point. I have already bought the camera. I'm just trying to figure out how to use it.

I can set the resolution (number of pixels) to be anything from 640x480 to 3648x2736 (10Megapixels). There is another unrelated quality setting that ranges from "Normal" (represented by a quarter circle with jaggy edges) to "Superfine" (a very smooth quarter circle).

I got a 2G memory card, so there's room for hundreds of pictures even at the highest possible settings. But 10M pictures are huge files.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Is there a movie setting? Sound? Ignore them.

Without reading the docs, I'd say you're save at the "Normal" setting. I don't see how it could be unrelated to the pixels; possibly a "sharpness of focus" setting where the lower setting will speed up the shutter lag. The real thing to do is try it out. Take a bunch of pictures at different settings and see how it looks on your computer.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

"Is there a movie setting? Sound? Ignore them."

Ignore what? The features or the settings?

This camera has sound recording and various movie modes. I've never used either feature on previous cameras, but I'm thinking I should start figuring out how to use them. Mostly I find features useless if I have to descend into a menu to turn them on or off. This camera allows some very limited reprogramming of a couple of the buttons on the back that might make it easier to use audio or movie (but not both at once: I have to choose).

Have you ever used the "audio notes" features for annotating pictures? It seems like a good idea, just kind of awkward to use.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I ignore both, frankly. The movie setting on my camera is one of the few I haven't bothered to test. I may put in my 4G card and try it sometime.

I've tried out the audio notes/sound feature on my camera. I wish it didn't have it, so the space and computing power could be put to better use, but alas. It works, and even plays back, but is, as you say, a bit awkward. If I want to keep audio notes, I'll use my iPod w/mic, which I carry in the camera case. (I spent almost as much time looking for a good case as I did looking for the camera.)

And yeah, the others are probably right about the "normal/jagged" settings. Seems a waste, to me, to take a high res picture and then worry about the compression. Either take a medium res pic and have medium compression, or just leave it on high. If the settings allow, set the camera to 4 (or 6 or whatever) when taking the picture and the highest compression. Again, experiment. (Use the audio to make notes as to what picture is on what setting...)

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

I did get a 4G card (it was only $5 more than the 2G, so why not?). I've never given the video capability much thought. But I always try out all the features with a new camera, and must say the built-in video gets better and easier to use with each iteration. I took a little video of Bucky the Turtle swimming around in her tank, and I must say it looks pretty nifty. I wonder if I could figure out how to post it on YouTube?

The one situation in the past where I've found the video feature useful was entertaining little kids. They love having their pictures taken and seeing the result on the LCD screen, but videos are ten times better. If you aren't already the Favorite Uncle at your family gatherings, add on-the-spot video interviews to your repertoire and you'll blow the competition out of the water!

[soarhead.livejournal.com]

Guessing about how you use the camera and images, I suggest that anything above say 6 megapixels is probably overkill unless you plan to make a sizable print.

The normal to superfine setting controls how much compression is used when converting to JPEG format. Its somewhat a matter of taste. The more 'jagged' settings may introduce compression artifacts that some find objectionable.

[guppiecat]

soarhead, you should go vote in my poll.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

That's about what I was thinking. Specifically, the choices are:
S 640x480
M3 1600x1200 (2M)
M2 2272x1704 (4M)
M1 2816x2112 (6M)
L 3648x2736 (10M)

Kind of a big jump between 6M and 10M. I think the max setting on my old camera was 7, which is the setting I usually used. I kind of hate to go BACKWARDS with the new camera, unless there really is no discernible difference between 6 and 7.

If I use the highest setting (10M) and then resize the pictures on my computer, where do the extra pixels go? Do I end up with a lower quality picture than if I'd taken the picture at 6M?

As for how I use the camera: I typically take snapshots of places I've been, stuff around the house and family members. Most of the time I leave them in digital format, cropped and sorted, and occasionally browse through them on the computer. Now and then I upload pictures to the Internet for one reason or another, resizing them first. Very occasionally I'll print a picture for some reason.

I must admit that I now have use for many more pixels than I ever imagined I would need when I started taking digital pictures. For instance, every time I buy a new monitor I can display higher-resolution images in my little slideshows, and I want bigger pictures for desktop wallpaper. Sometimes I go into old pictures and crop out just the heads for some reason. Most recently I was sorting through some pictures I had taken on a bike trip and cropped one down to a tiny spot in the middle of a marsh that featured a couple of Sandhill cranes. That picture would have been much better with my new camera at highest setting (and with the 5x zoom). But I didn't realize until we saw the cranes that I would be taking that type of picture - mostly I was going for big scenery shots.

So... I'm leaning towards using the highest settings all the time, just in case. But I'm wondering if that's self-defeating if I end up resizing 10M pictures back to 4M before I use them for anything.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Actually the big jump is from 2M to 4M; think percentages.

There's no visual / artistic reason not to shoot at your top res and downsize; that's just what happens in the camera anyway if you choose a lower res, there'll be no difference. (The exact software algorithms probably aren't identical, so there will be a difference at the level of bit-by-bit comparison of the files; there will be no visible difference.)

[soarhead.livejournal.com]

I always use the highest possible resolution and also shoot everything in RAW mode. It maximizes the amount of storage space, but that is so close to free as to not be worth bothering about. It does mean I carry around several 8 GB memory cards, but its a small price as well.

It keeps my options open for a very small price.

[guppiecat]

I always leave mine on the maximum number of pixels, so I can crop the photo down if I need to. It's like having a longer lens without the wait (kinda).

I also use SuperFine, as that (in my mind) results in better photos, but does fill up the card more quickly.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

The other setting is jpeg compression level.

I always run mine on maximum size, maximum quality, but I'm weird that way. I'm also shooting almost exclusively RAW mode the last few years (avoiding the JPEG compression issue entirely; I don't think it's an option on your model, and you probably wouldn't want to bother if it was).

Generally higher res normal jpeg compression will look better than lower res extra-high-quality jpeg.

It's certainly true, as DavE says, that a really good 2MP image will look really good printed at 8x10. Still, the option to crop more later is often useful, safety margin is useful, foreclosing options isn't so useful. Disk is cheap.