A stupid question about resolutions?

[Budgie]

I guess this is stupid... but here goes anyway....

If I have a choice of resolutions, and compression settings, am I better to go for a bigger picture (1024x768) with higher compresion, or a smaller picture (640 x 480) with less compression.. it seems thay both take up about the same amont of memory space.

I am going away with my new digi cam for 2 weeks so I'm trying to balance picture quality with storage space.

Ive just ordered a 128M compact flash card, and following my reconing I can store between 1392 pics - 112 ... should I just go for a number in the middle?

 

[tomson]

I'd buy another card if i was you - i was away for 3 weeks and took about 600 - 700 megs worth of photos - its amazing how carried away you can get.
Or you could find a place to burn your images to cd - most developing places do it.

If you are just sticking to one card then i'd go for a large-ish image with some compression. On my camera here (3.3 mp) using a 128mb card i can get 117 images at 1600x1200 using Fine quality (one down from being uncompressed). Or 75 at 2048x1536 - which is what i usually use.

 

[john039]

Like tomson says.....get another card, they're cheap enough not to have to worry.

I'd recommend you use the best quality setting possibleapart from RAW but thats way too much aggro.
My 3.3mp is only used at 2048 x 1536 superfine compression.
I can get about 77 pics on a 128 meg card.

All I can say is whats the point of having a decent camera then using it on settings that lower the quality of what you could get?

 

[michaelab]

When I go on holiday I take my laptop (tiny Dell C400) with me and download my 256Mb CF card to my laptop at the end of each day so I can start again.

If that's not practical/possible then there are several digital storage devices like those from Nixvue which will do the same thing and don't cost that much.

Always use the maximum resolution your camera can do and then save space by using compression if you have to but I wouldn't go more than 2 compression levels below the best.

Michael.

 

[Stuart Wright]

My take on quality vs quantity is that to match a traditional photo in terms of resolution, you're looking at, in my opinion, 1600x1200 at least. That happens to be the max resolution for my camera, so that's the one I use. I do allow the first level of compression as I don't feel this compromise is visible on the final pictures.
I can get 64 on a 32 meg card and have 3 such cards.
When, in a few years time, I'm looking at photos of special occasions, I'm going to be glad that I had at least this resolution, but will probably wish I had even higher.

 

[Taz]

Originally posted by michaelab

If that's not practical/possible then there are several digital storage devices like those from Nixvue which will do the same thing and don't cost that much.

That looks like a handy gadget to own, how much are they, anyone got one ?

Taz.

 

[minimad]

Originally posted by Taz
That looks like a handy gadget to own, how much are they, anyone got one ?

Taz.

Taz

saw an advert for something similar, IMMSMR it's got about a 20 gig hard drive and costs about 600 quid.

Being a skint scrote, I don't own one. Plus the fact of course my camera doesn't really deserve it (Kodak DC265 - about 3 years old and almost dead)

 

[Taz]

Thanks minimad but its too late now, the Mrs has gone and ordered the 30Gb nixvue!

cheers anyway

Taz.