How to determine quality of digital pics
RSS feed
Email alert
You must sign up or login to contribute to the APC forums
New user
2 posts
Posted: 03/12/2008 2:12 PM
|
Hi,
I'm really unhappy with the quality of the digital photos that my relatively new camera takes. Its a dual function video and still camera- promoted as taking 5 megapixel still photos.
However, the photos are really grainy and with low resolution- even on the 'best' settings. The technical help suggested that I open the photos in paint and re-set the 'stretch/skew' settings to 60% - but isn't this just changing the size, not the quality of the photos?
I'd like to prove to them that the photos are not of standard 5 megapixel quality- but I don't know how to do this. I've right-clicked on the photos and the properties show 2592x1944.
Thanks!
|
|
permalink
Digg
Slashdot
send to a friend
|
Why is the tag-line so damn shor
New user
209 posts
Posted: 03/12/2008 3:12 PM
|
Sarina wrote:
the properties show 2592x1944.
That's 5038848 pixels or 5.03 mega-pixels. Pixel count doesn't directly relate to quality of the image a camera takes. But before you condemn your camera out of hand, have you tried using different resolution from the camera, and different settings on your graphics software.
There aren't too many monitors that will display a a 5MP image at 1:1 zoom.
What Camera are you using? What picture format? JPG? RAW? TIF? etc? What image software are you using? What is your intended purpose for the images? A4 prints? Happy snaps? net or print images?
|
|
permalink
Digg
Slashdot
send to a friend
|
New user
2 posts
Posted: 03/12/2008 7:12 PM
|
Thanks for replying -
The camera is a JVC Everio 575 and the picture format is jpg. The purpose of the pictures is mixed- personal and for work (which might get used in brochures/report covers). I don't usually print the photos for myself, but I do print to send to friends that don't have a computer. I set the camera to what I thought were the best settings - Fine (when I have a choice of Fine or Standard) and 2952x1944 (there are other options) and 400iso.
Not all the photos are terrible, but many of the photos appear grainy regardless of the conditions (e.g sunny, cloudy, indoors, outdoors). This is especially noticeable on skin tones or for photos where the subject is more than about 2 metres from the camera.
I am just using windows picture and fax viewer, and I've looked at them on my laptop (hp compaq using XP) and my desktop (Acer using vista) with no change.
|
|
permalink
Digg
Slashdot
send to a friend
|
Why is the tag-line so damn shor
New user
209 posts
Posted: 03/12/2008 8:12 PM
|
I don't know that model but have seen some excellent stills taken from an older Everio.
Your doing the right thing to take your photos at the highest resolution possible, the only trade off is the file size you have to deal with particularly when emailing.
Try some other options for the ISO setting, a fast ISO should be fine in sunlight, but on a long exposure will often give noise and graininess like you describe. Usually for happy snaps the auto setting on your camera will give the best results. I did say usually.
The stretch/skew advice you were given may not have been the best advice, it will change both the size and proportions of the image, what you need to do is re-size and with the "maintain aspect ratio" option ticked which will change the resolution to something more usable but will not otherwise distort your image. Experiment with some shots at lower settings too which should be adequate for everything other than large prints.
If you can get your hands on photoshop or Paintshop Pro and try resizing and adjusting the Gamma etc of your images. They wont do the impossible but they can often cure many of the photography mistakes we all make sometimes.
Persevere a little with your camera, and try a few different settings, it should be capable of quite reasonable results.
|
|
permalink
Digg
Slashdot
send to a friend
|
IT the final frontier
User
78 posts
Posted: 03/12/2008 11:12 PM
|
A video camera function is just to produce moving pictures, I doubt this can produce nice snapshots.
If you are willing to buy a photo camera then I suggest you to look for the Samsung camera, starting from 8 Mega pixels this camera cost under $100.
I have a 10 Mega pixels model (Samsung) this cost me below $300.
The quality is reasonably good, with several settings.
If you want to modify some aspects of any picture try to make a copy of the original and save it in TIF file format, why? well this a lossless format and widely use in commercial print; if you use and save a JPG or JPEG file format you will ruin your picture.
If you want a serious results then look for a Digital SLR camera, being this option the most expensive, there are several brands in the market, look for the reviews on the most popular models, its up to you.
try either the GIMP or Net Paint, If you can afford a bit more there are several more applications with a cost around $300 or less.
The decision is yours, good luck!
|
|
permalink
Digg
Slashdot
send to a friend
|
Why is the tag-line so damn shor
New user
209 posts
Posted: 04/12/2008 8:12 AM
|
Halcon wrote:
I doubt this can produce nice snapshots.
It can!
|
|
permalink
Digg
Slashdot
send to a friend
|
I plug into everything like USB.
New user
112 posts
Posted: 09/12/2008 4:12 PM
|
You must remember - a video camera is primarily made for video.
Standard Definition video requires a sensor with just 720x576 resolution. High definition is only 1920x1080 though some sensors can get away with 1440x1080 or even 1440x540 or 1920x540 by using "wobulation" - a sort of "doubling" of resolution through some very hacky interpolation or physical optics movement.
What you wanted was something comparable to 5MP. There's only 2MP or thereabouts in HD at best so the rest of the pixels are being "made up" and can never reach the same resolution as a real genuine 5MP camera. You can try lowering the ISO as that usually lowers grain but you might have blurry pictures as a result.
The extra pixels are made via sharpening and interpolation from a lower resolution sensor. This is the same trick used by cheap no-brand cameras and webcams to advertise a 640x480 webcam as having 8MP image size. Some also use interpolation from movement - as the camera isn't perfectly still, some movement would yield a bit more "information" but even that's hopeful - most of them aren't as sophisticated.
I hope this helps you understand your dilemma.
To show quality, unfortunately, the only way to do this properly is a subjective "side by side" comparison. I suggest you bring in a laptop and show them test shots of identical subjects using both cameras and do a side by side, maybe even with a lower resolution camera that looks better. Unfortunately, the most you can discern from a 6x4 print is only ~ 2MP ... so it might be difficult to be convincing with small prints - you'd probably need large prints if you don't want to go with a computer.
|
|
permalink
Digg
Slashdot
send to a friend
|
New user
1 posts
Posted: 17/01/2013 5:01 PM
|
It's a informative thread for photographer.Thanks member discussing here.
|
|
permalink
Digg
Slashdot
send to a friend
|