OK, my mission in life now is to figure out how to take tiny pixel pictures with my digital camera so I can FINALLY create a gallery &/or post pix. I just got the tailgate (sans the arms) and front grill with painted letters put on today, so the outside of the truck LOOKS like it's done. So stand by.... I've been blabbin' for a while now about getting pix done... they should be up soon!

Daryl

 

>OK, my mission in life now is to figure out how to take tiny
>pixel pictures with my digital camera so I can FINALLY
>create a gallery &/or post pix. I just got the tailgate
>(sans the arms) and front grill with painted letters put on
>today, so the outside of the truck LOOKS like it's done. So
>stand by.... I've been blabbin' for a while now about
>getting pix done... they should be up soon!
>
>Daryl

Daryl - be glad to walk you through posting your pics if you run into any problems.

George

Truck restoration - does the fun ever start?
See my 1956 F-250 in progress at www.clubfte.com/users/earl/index.html

 

George

While we are on this subject I have a couple questions on digital PICs. I generally turn my camera way down if I know I am taking a PIC for use on FTE. Would I be better off if I just took high res PICs and reduced then on my software. Am I hurting the quality of my PICs by snapping the shots at 640x480? My camera is a 3MP and obviously capable of much larger. I do understand the difference in PICs size if I print them and I know the file sizes will be huge until I dial them down on the PC.

'fenders

 

'fenders,

... here's my take on it (while George is still sleeping).

I have a 2.1 MP Canon and it has three settings (all pixel): High (1600x1200), Medium (1024x768) and Low (640x480).

I only use Medium. That's perfectly enough even if you have them printed on photo paper at a photo center as long as you stay with the standard pic size (we have it in mm and it is 90x130mm which is roughly 3.5" x 5").

Then my camera allows to set the compression. Again three settings. Normal, fine and super fine. I stay with fine. That gives me a file size for my pics in the 180 to 280 Kbyte range and allows to fit approx 200 pics onto my 64 MByte memory card.

For my web site (and since I only have 10 MByte free) I downscale all pics to 256x192 using the FOC (free of charge) Microsoft Picture It ! 2000 software (which I think came with my computer). That brings the file size down to just 15 to 25 Kbyte. Still good enough to show details. Guess you have seen it at http://www.ford.gmxhome.de

I do understand that George prefers to store everything at max resolution as memory on computers costs close to nothing these days. Certainly also a way to go. He can always downscale to any resolution he wants while I cannot upscale over and above the 1024x768 I am using.

Finally a word about digital cameras. It is not only the resolution that counts. We have compared pic quality between 3.2 MP brand x and my 2.1 MP Canon (Digital Elph) and found that the Canon was much better. Guess there must be quality differences between these photo chips they use. Guess also the optics play a role. That's why you can get even 4 MP cameras at prices that the good brands only sell you a 2.1 MP for. I am totally happy with mine. Just had it for less than 10 month and already have close to 2,000 shots taken.

 

"I do understand that George prefers to store everything at max resolution as memory on computers costs close to nothing these days."

Kai

Yes George lives on a server farm in Ohio. He has a couple hundred acres to raise all these high res pictures.

My Sony is a pretty decent camera. There is definitely a difference in the optics between cameras. I've had low end cameras in the past and did not like it. I have also learned how important the quality of your photo software is to picture clarity.

'fenders

 

Kai is right on the money. 120 GB drive - $180. 256 MB flash card - $80. You might as well get all the res you can initially since all it costs is a little extra transfer time.

The other thing is that I'm never sure what I'll end up using the pic for over the years. I've gone back to pics I've taken a couple years ago and zoomed in on small areas to see details I couldn't remember. If I had used a low res originally just to get a postable pic I would not be able to do that.

George

Truck restoration - does the fun ever start?
See my 1956 F-250 in progress at www.clubfte.com/us ers/earl/index.html

 

Thanks, George... recalling my recent frustrations in my failed attmepts at posting a Gallery, I'll likely take you up on that! Let me give it one last try "for the Gipper" first though (just gotta see one more time if I can do it or not)... glutton for punishment! but hey, isn't that a fundamental personality trait for those who endeavor into restorations???

Talkatcha soon... and thanks again,
Daryl

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 09-Jan-03 AT 06:30 PM (EST)]George

My question was not quite answered yet. I understand the possibility exists I might wish a picture was higher resolution sometime later. There are many times I am sure I don't need the PIC later. Such as when I sell something like a grill for instance. My main question was this. Do I get a higher quality PIC if I take it at higher resolution and reduce it with my software. Two example below, does one make a better picture.

1. Take a PIC at 640x480, post it or email it as is
2. Take a PIC at 1280x960, reduce it to 640x480 with my software and post.

Thanks
Dewayne

 

Answer to your main question (if you are SURE you never want to get back the high-res image or zoom in on a small area of the image):

Most of the cameras and the PC image editing software packages use similar algorithms to reduce the number of pixels in an image. JPEG is probably the most well-known set of image compression algorithms around although it's certainly not the only one. Whether you have your camera take a 1280 x 960 photo and reduce it to 640 x 480 internally, or, transfer the entire 1280 x 960 photo to your PC and then use an image processing package to reduce the size to 640 x 480, you're pretty much going to get the same results.

Other ramblings:

That said, there are sometimes noticable differences in the quality of the ending image depending on how good an algorithm the camera or software package uses. As with anything else, you need to read reviews of cameras and software packages before you buy.

In addition, as Kai mentioned, camera CCD quality and other features like image stabilization vary between manufacturers and sometimes even in a single product line.

These minor issues can affect whether it is better to let the camera handle the image sizing or to do it with software on your PC. Since I doubt we have any hard core image mavens here on FTE (including me) - these minor issues are probably irrelevant for our purposes.

George

Truck restoration - does the fun ever start?
See my 1956 F-250 in progress at www.clubfte.com/users/earl/index.html

 

George,
I figured out how to take smaller pix with my digital. that was easy enough. And, I THINK I created User and Picture Galleries ("Daryl's Cherry 59") too. I just did it (Sat., 10-11-03 @ 7:15pm PST) and checked, but they're not there. Maybe they take overnight to post?

I'll check in the morning or later tonight. If it didn't work, I'll take you up on your offer to help me get it done!

Daryl

 

Daryl

You got it and she sure is purty!!! Nice choice on the red and chrome theme. It was brilliant I tell you.

'fenders

 

Ya'all think SHE's real purty, eh? Hate ta tell ya son, but she's a HE and he can turn from purty ta purty gull-dern ugly fastern ya'll kin say F-T-E!

Not sure on a name for him yet... what do you think he looks like? Hank? Boris? Guido? Suggestions welcome...

LOL,
Daryl

 

VERY nice truck and beautiful photos! I'd be proud to drive that guy anywhere.

George

Truck restoration - does the fun ever start?
See my 1956 F-250 in progress at www.clubfte.com/users/earl/index.html

 

much obliged, "Earl". It's real nice to receive compliments from FTE'rs like yourself who REALLY know their stuff. Thanks very much...

Daryl

 

<<<Ya'all think SHE's real purty, eh? Hate ta tell ya son, but she's a HE and he can turn from purty ta purty gull-dern ugly fastern ya'll kin say F-T-E!>>>

OK Daryl, so it's a dude then. Here are a few names that come to mind off the top of my head.......Mr Maytag, General Elektrick, Fred Gidaire, Amos Amana, Westin House.

Like any of those??? Let me know if you need any more ideas. I'll go take a look at the ads out of the Sunday paper.

'fenders