Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Pete on 19 Jun 2010 09:28 On 2010-06-19 10:04:03 +0100, David J Taylor said: > "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message > news:Xns9D9BBF7C3F59CJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote : > [] >>> You do know that "full HD", and your monitor, are only about 2MP, I >>> presume? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> David >>> >>> >> >> Oh my. >> >> Well whatever makes it look so sharp and clear, I want it. :) > > Yes, I sometimes wonder that as well, Jane! One thing is that the > pixels are right on the surface of the display, with no intervening > optics, and there's no "ink spread" which you might get in some > printing processes. Of course, if you want to crop half the linear > image you've taken, you then need four times as many pixels, so having > that 8-10-12MP camera does make some sense.... > > Oh, and I've seen figures of around 200 pixels per inch for acceptable > photos, and that on a 6 x 4 inch print is 1MP - others say 300 pixels > per inch so that's 2MP. Yes, good 2 MP cameras produced perfectly acceptable 4x6 inch prints. A "pixel perfect" 2 MP image produces a large, sharp, and thoroughly enjoyable image on a good HDTV, sometimes an exquisite image. Most journals are printed at 200 DPI/PPI therefore a double-page image, between margins, is about 7 MP. Occasionally, 300 DPI is used for printing books showing fine art. Some of the top-end printers manage a stunning 400 DPI. A 300 DPI print viewed from 10 inches by someone with 20/20 vision is at the limit of visual acuity: this is termed close scrutiny. For 35 mm film an 8x10 inch print viewed at 10 inches was the accepted reference. It had lead to false statement such as: a 12 MP Bayer CFA camera cannot produce prints larger than 8x12 inches. The correct statement is approximately: To evaluate the quality of an image, print it at 300 DPI on a top end printer and assess the print from a distance of 10 inches, or the equivalent thereof to compensate for vision that is not 20/20. Generally, children are able to focus on objects 5 inches away or less; by our mid-forties the closest distance for many of us is 20 inches or further. At 20 inches viewing distance the print must be 16x24 inches for close scrutiny, which is 150 DPI, etc. etc. Of course, a 48 inch HDTV viewed from a distance of about 6 feet gives a razor sharp 2 MP image. Interestingly, it looks a lot more impressive (and bigger?) than a 4x6 inch print viewed from 10 inches. The iPhone 4 has 326 PPI indicating that it is designed for people with better than 20-20 vision i.e. young people, so no point in me getting one. A much better excuse than admitting I don't have the ability to learn how to use it :-) Jane, as to the low-light aspect, your 2 MP image requirement will effectively boost the ISO sensitivity of the camera you choose quite considerably. As I've written too much already I'll leave that for others to explain if you are interested. I hope some of this is useful and/or entertaining. Good luck with your decision. -- Pete
From: David J Taylor on 19 Jun 2010 11:11 [] > Generally, children are able to focus on objects 5 inches away or less; > by our mid-forties the closest distance for many of us is 20 inches or > further. At 20 inches viewing distance the print must be 16x24 inches > for close scrutiny, which is 150 DPI, etc. etc. Of course, a 48 inch > HDTV viewed from a distance of about 6 feet gives a razor sharp 2 MP > image. Interestingly, it looks a lot more impressive (and bigger?) than > a 4x6 inch print viewed from 10 inches. Showing, perhaps, that there's more than angular subtense when evaluating the subjective quality of images? A good big-un beats an equivalently good little-un. > The iPhone 4 has 326 PPI indicating that it is designed for people with > better than 20-20 vision i.e. young people, so no point in me getting > one. A much better excuse than admitting I don't have the ability to > learn how to use it :-) [] > Pete I was disappointed that when I got my first mobile/text phone about 2.5 years back the instructions were completely lacking in the basics. Even my current model has no instructions about - for example - how to use its built-in "camera". Not even an offer to sell me a Nokia for Novices book! <G> At least my Panasonic and Nikon instructions manuals include the basics for beginners. Cheers, David
From: John McWilliams on 19 Jun 2010 11:46 Jane Galt wrote: > So with this G11, does it have an awesome sharp clear lens? <drool> Prolly! I bought the G3, several generations earlier, but don't know first hand how sharp it is. The G3 is still a very useful compact camera. (4 MP). I now shoot mostly with an 'old' D5. -- john mcwilliams
From: Pete on 19 Jun 2010 13:16 On 2010-06-19 16:11:05 +0100, David J Taylor said: > [] >> Generally, children are able to focus on objects 5 inches away or less; >> by our mid-forties the closest distance for many of us is 20 inches or >> further. At 20 inches viewing distance the print must be 16x24 inches >> for close scrutiny, which is 150 DPI, etc. etc. Of course, a 48 inch >> HDTV viewed from a distance of about 6 feet gives a razor sharp 2 MP >> image. Interestingly, it looks a lot more impressive (and bigger?) than >> a 4x6 inch print viewed from 10 inches. > > Showing, perhaps, that there's more than angular subtense when > evaluating the subjective quality of images? A good big-un beats an > equivalently good little-un. Thank you, David. I thought you would find the words that I couldn't muster. That's exactly what I was trying to say. I get bogged down with attempting to justify my reasoning instead of just telling it like it is. >> The iPhone 4 has 326 PPI indicating that it is designed for people with >> better than 20-20 vision i.e. young people, so no point in me getting >> one. A much better excuse than admitting I don't have the ability to >> learn how to use it :-) > [] >> Pete > > I was disappointed that when I got my first mobile/text phone about 2.5 > years back the instructions were completely lacking in the basics. > Even my current model has no instructions about - for example - how to > use its built-in "camera". Not even an offer to sell me a Nokia for > Novices book! <G> At least my Panasonic and Nikon instructions manuals > include the basics for beginners. > > Cheers, > David Yes, some companies want us to enjoy their products. Commercially speaking, they put the effort into making us want to buy from them again and recommend them to others. The competence of innovative designers is often stifled by the marketing departments. One version of the Toyota Supra being sold with totally inappropriate wheels and tyres is a classic example. -- Pete
From: Jane Galt on 19 Jun 2010 15:51
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote : > "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message > news:Xns9D9BBF7C3F59CJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote : > [] >>> You do know that "full HD", and your monitor, are only about 2MP, I >>> presume? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> David >>> >>> >> >> Oh my. >> >> Well whatever makes it look so sharp and clear, I want it. :) > > Yes, I sometimes wonder that as well, Jane! One thing is that the pixels > are right on the surface of the display, with no intervening optics, and > there's no "ink spread" which you might get in some printing processes. > Of course, if you want to crop half the linear image you've taken, you > then need four times as many pixels, so having that 8-10-12MP camera does > make some sense.... > > Oh, and I've seen figures of around 200 pixels per inch for acceptable > photos, and that on a 6 x 4 inch print is 1MP - others say 300 pixels per > inch so that's 2MP. > > Cheers, > David I havent had prints made in years. -- - Jane Galt |