Reluctance to provide all 'high res'images

  3Toed 12:50 05 May 2003

I cant help but wonder why most manufacturers of beginner and intermediate digital cameras,provide a small ammount of'high' res images ,along with a lot more 'low' res images.Obviously there is a memory problem,but i personally would like to see all high res images,i can then use my own integrity and use a software option on my Pc to lower the quality of formats should i require,say to send via email or post on websites.Forgive me if i have missed an obvious problem that arises from this.Would like to know peoples views on this,to either correct/agree with my line of thought.

  Falkyrn 13:03 05 May 2003

If you are referring to the capacity (either built in or on storage cards) of the cameras to hold a number of images then with the larger file size of "high res" images" you are obviously going to get fewer in any set storage capacity.

Costs have to be cut in some areas to bring an affordable product to market and the memory capacity is obviously one area that some manufacturers have targetted.

In some cases it is also held that your average "joe soap (or josephine soap)" wants simple snap shops to remember specific events .... the difference in some cases of a snap shop taken on a pocket camera and a professionally posed and taken portrait

  3Toed 13:23 05 May 2003

I can understand costs have to be cut,but surely a digital camera that can say take,100 low res and only 20 high res images would be much more use and valuable if it could use its capacity, and take say 50 high res only.I'm sure even the 'quick snappers'would appreciate a better picture quality of there subjects,than a low one.

  mikef™ 14:02 05 May 2003

The reason is it's not AND but OR, in your example above a high res image may be say 1mB in size but the low res .2Mb so the only way you can take more high res images is with a bigger memory card.

  Diemmess 18:31 06 May 2003

Another factor which nobody has so far mentioned is that small images are faster to save and be ready for the next.

So if you are awaiting "the golden moment" or just want to fire off a sequence during a short interval you would be wise to use a lowish resolution or buy a much much more expensive camera.

  3Toed 19:07 06 May 2003

Good points made-i thought i'd post this thread as my Sanyo digicam Vpc G200E(about 6 or 7 yrs old now)performs admirably,giving 60 hi res or 120 low res(yes i know these figures sound questionable-especially due to age)images,and i was looking at up to date digicams in 'pca' and have noticed a distinct lack of quantity in hi res modes.

  Patr100 21:36 06 May 2003

The choice of high or low res is not really down to the manufactuters as such but you as a user. It's a simple fact that a high res image takes up more storage. More storage = higher capacity card = higher cost.

many first time buyers just want something to mess about with so it images can be viewed on the Web or PC monitor = low res.

For printing = magapixel images = high res.

You decide what your needs are.

  3Toed 17:19 07 May 2003

Knowledge broadened,and you have so far helped me in 'looking' at various reasons to have both,but i still remain unconvinced.I figure that if a digi cam manufacturer out there of descent stature and reputation(and there are some good ones)puts there mind to it,they can still come up with a camera to produce an acceptable number of just hi-res images only.No need for low res.Look at my specs in previous contribution to the thread-60 hi res,and thats old technology.An intermediate camera,along with an intermediate price,should surely be possible now.Nope folks,i'm still puzzled as to why this is not a proposition to bare fruit.

  Diemmess 17:57 07 May 2003

We are all talking about low or hi-resolution but nobody is using finite numbers.

I suspect that in the advertising blurb of 6+ years ago what was then Hi-res would now be very low res and low res would be deemed unacceptable now...............
I recently went up market to a 5 Mega pixel Olympus, It still offers 3 resolutions, but in round figures, the default standard is a 14Mb file compared with 9Mb file in its (Olympus) predessor. Also significantly, it was sold to me with a 35 Mb card against the measley 16 MB before!

  wee eddie 18:07 07 May 2003

You appear to be failing to read the responses to your posting.

Your camera has a 'finite' memory: say 16mg.

It is therefor capable of holding that many mega-bits of information.

That may be made up in any way you fancy.

To illustrate this, the Sellers give a number of examples.

1 @ very high (16mg)resolution,

16 @ high (1mg) resolution,

64 @ low resolution

or 2080 @ very low (56kb) resolution (Sorry I have not checked the exact number) to use on your web site.

The first and last items are obviously spurious and would not be mentioned as they are rarely used. Also many of the cheaper cameras limit the variety of resolutions you may use.

You are, of course, free to buy additional memory. You could then take 1000's of high resolution pictures before you download them to your computer. I am told that most photographers carry several extra memory units.

  3Toed 19:14 07 May 2003

Ok,fair enough,thankyou for your thoughts-taken onboard.
wee eddie-with an opening line like that,i might just fail to read your post!-Being a computer aided designer and sending design files all over the world-i am fully aware of breakdowns of differing types of files and there many varying sizes and formats,so i wasnt asking for a line spaced belittling breakdown.
Thankyou for your contribution anyway.
Will leave it there,and close the thread.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

AMD Radeon Adrenalin release date, new features, compatible graphics cards

Artist Pete Oswald on creating relatable characters & his new book

New iMac Pro release date, UK price & specs rumours

Idées cadeaux pour geeks et tech addicts