Just got back my digital photos and they were awful!!

[waltdisneyworlddreamer]

Bought a new Panasonic DVD video camera prior to our trip. I love the video part! It also has the capability to record stills using an SD card. We took several photos while we were in WDW, sent them off at Wal Mart to be printed. We picked them up tonight and the quality was just terrible. There was not a sharp photo in the bunch. They all had a very sort digital, computerized almost blurry look to them. Is this just because of the quality of the camera?? or was the processing bad? I looked back through my manual, the only thing I can find about the quality is that it is 640 x 480 pixels. Is that just poor quality?

 

[LordAthens]

There isn't anything wrong with the camera nor the processing. Just because it says it can do digital stills doesn't mean you should do it.

640x480 resolution is sub-1megapixel, aka VGA resolution. It's good for.. Wallet sized pictures and you're streching it at that.

For 4x6 pics, you'll want as a minimum a 3megapixel camera, though at this point I wouldn't recommend anything less than 5mp, because there WILL be that one shot that you want to blow up to an 8x10 and you try blowing up a 3mp image to an 8x10, you'll get the same results that you just got.

Bottom line, there is no perfect union of video and camera's. (Yes, I realize there are 2 or 3 out there that do both, but they only do it well, not exellent) Use your Panasonic for video and get a good solid digital still camera for photo's.

 

[safetymom]

3x5 is about the best you can get with a 640x480 camera. My first digital was that image size. I did take lots of pictures but didn't print too many of them but enjoyed them on the computer.

 

[Geoff_M]

For 4x6 pics, you'll want as a minimum a 3megapixel camera, though at this point I wouldn't recommend anything less than 5mp, because there WILL be that one shot that you want to blow up to an 8x10 and you try blowing up a 3mp image to an 8x10, you'll get the same results that you just got.

You are right about the OPs problem, but I'll disagree with the notion that you need 3 MPs for 4x6's and 5 MPs for a decent 8x10. My first dSLR was a Nikon D1 that clocked in at 2.74 MP. I have several 8x10s hanging in my office from the D1. Granted, they are cropped very little, but still you have to get you nose almost against the print before you see any evidence of digital artifacts. This was accomplished by merely re-sizing the image, and applying some sharpening. No fancy upsizing software was needed.

This isn't to say that I'd recommend people getting sub-3 MP cameras today, especially with the low cost of entry level 4-5 MP cameras today, but I want to dispell the notion that 3 MP cameras are effectively inadequate for anything over a 4x6.

 

[safetymom]

I had an Epson 3.3 megapixel camera and I printed many of them at 13x19. Many people commented on the quality of the photo at that size and it was all positive. There were a few pictures that had a lot of detail that looked better at 11x14 but I was very happy with the quality.

If you have a 3 megapixel camera with good optics it can beat a 4 mp camera with mediocre optics and sensor.

 

[Ratpack]

It is probably more the Wal-mart processing than the camera. I took our kid's photo for the Christmas card and had Wal-mart print out the cards and the picture looked funny, so I printed the picture at home and it was photo quality. Try printing your photo out yourself if you have a photo quality printer or have someone else do it. Thedifference may surprise you. Although I will agree with most, still photos from a video camera may not give you the "great" photos you are seeking.

 

[waltdisneyworlddreamer]

Thanks for all of the replies. This was the first time we had used this camera so we were unsure of the quality. I am glad we took our 35mm, so we still have some great pictures from our trip.

 

[bicker]

I don't remember seeing any digital cameras with a setting for quality below 640x480. Is there such a thing?

 

[Lewisc]

640X480 is basically screen resolution. It's fine for taking pictures that you don't plan on printing but just want to display on a computer. Pictures of items you plan to sell on e-bay for example.

 

[bicker]

Oof... My screen is set for 1280x768!

 

[WillCAD]

I don't remember seeing any digital cameras with a setting for quality below 640x480. Is there such a thing?

640x480 is called VGA resolution. It's an old default from the mid-80s when computer screens were only capable of 640x480. Many webcams still operate at VGA resolution, and a few operate at half VGA or 320x240. Some really cheap digital still cameras, like those $10 "pen" cameras that you might see in WalMart or the local pharmacy, operate at VGA or half VGA resolution, and many camera phones do as well.

VGA resolution usually makes for a pretty crappy looking image.

 

[bicker]

Funny -- I'm reading up on this now, because my wife got me a DCR-HC32 MiniDV Handycam Camcorder this year, and I went to check the manual last night about its still photograph resolution, and indeed it is 640x480, as is the video. We will still definitely need to bring our regular camera for still shots, because that's no where near enough resolution for any level of quality, at least for stills. I'm wondering about what I can expect from the camcorder itself.

Does anyone have any advice for best getting up to speed on what this camcorder can do, and what accessories I must get before our trip?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

You are right about the OPs problem, but I'll disagree with the notion that you need 3 MPs for 4x6's and 5 MPs for a decent 8x10. My first dSLR was a Nikon D1 that clocked in at 2.74 MP. I have several 8x10s hanging in my office from the D1. Granted, they are cropped very little, but still you have to get you nose almost against the print before you see any evidence of digital artifacts. This was accomplished by merely re-sizing the image, and applying some sharpening. No fancy upsizing software was needed.

QUOTE]


Geoff_M,

you forgot one very important thing. Your Nikon is 2.74MP using 3:2 ratio whereas most point and shoot have 4:3 ratio. Therefore, a 3MP 4:3 sensor camera only yield something less than 2.3MP for the 3:2 area.

For example, my 4MP 4:3 sensor camera only yields approx 3.1MP for its 3:2 area.

Also, size of the sensor matters. Your dSLR have a much larger surface area than a comparable PS which translates to better colour rendition and better dynamic range. It is something that can only be achieved on a PS with a larger MP. Not because of the larger sensor size but only because typically the manufacturers tend to use lower-quality sensor for their lower-end PS cameras.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Does anyone have any advice for best getting up to speed on what this camcorder can do, and what accessories I must get before our trip?

get a wide-angle attachment lens. Something around 0.7x maginification. You'll be amazed how much side-information you missed without the wide-lens.

 

[bicker]

From what I was reading, Kelly, I could switch the camcorder to widescreen, and then use the 20x optical zoom to get in closer. Do you still think the wide-angel lens would be essential? I'm just floundering here really... it seems a little strange to be thinking about widescreen and special lenses when I don't even have any media for the camera yet!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

From what I was reading, Kelly, I could switch the camcorder to widescreen, and then use the 20x optical zoom to get in closer. Do you still think the wide-ange lens would be essential?

Yup. Basically whatever you see on your screen at the current distance, plus the additional information as if you move back several steps. It's great for cramp spaces and/or if you want to take the entire landscape at once (without panning).

 

[Geoff_M]

you forgot one very important thing. Your Nikon is 2.74MP using 3:2 ratio whereas most point and shoot have 4:3 ratio. Therefore, a 3MP 4:3 sensor camera only yield something less than 2.3MP for the 3:2 area.

But 8x10's aren't 3:2, they're 5:4. I've also printed 5x7 prints in a similar manner from my 2.1 MP Coolpix950, with the 4:3 ratio, the smaller sensor, etc. My point holds: sub-3 MP P&S camera are, in fact, capable of producing exellent prints larger than 4x6. I also wasn't addressing the overall image quality, I was addressing whether or not a novice viewer could tell if the print was "digital". I agree that a dSLR can outperform a P&S camera, just like in the old "film" world.

For example, my 4MP 4:3 sensor camera only yields approx 3.1MP for its 3:2 area.

And by my math, I would have had to crop the sensor area of my 8x10 image to minimum of 2.1 MP (1,312 x 1,640) for those D1 images. A 3 MP 4:3 sensor of 2,000 x 1,500 pixels would yeild up 1,875 x 1,500 pixels for 8x10 format coverage. That's 2.8 MP... not 2.3 MP. That's a lot more than my D1 can offer in terms of raw pixels.

You also need to tell safetymom that what she did with her 3.3 MP camera was mathematically impossible too.

 

[ndelaware]

I would imagine the best resource for what your camcorder will do would be the manual that came with it or Sony's site. For accessories the Sony site lists them here: http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INT...mcorders&ProductSKU=DCRHC32&TabName=acc&var2=
I can tell one thing about my Sony mini DV, when i first got it, a couple of times I recorded video to the memory card by mistake. The quality was no where near what you get on the tape. So be careful to make sure you are recording to the tape. My Sony has a little stop you slide into place to keep to the switch from going all the way to the memory card recorcing mode.

 

[bicker]

I think I'll handle that by not having a memory stick.

 

[Razor Roman]

Funny -- I'm reading up on this now, because my wife got me a DCR-HC32 MiniDV Handycam Camcorder this year, and I went to check the manual last night about its still photograph resolution, and indeed it is 640x480, as is the video. I'm wondering about what I can expect from the camcorder itself.

I wouldn't worry about the video resolution the 480 in 640x480 is the vertical lines of resolution and 480 is the standard lines of resolution for regular NTSC DVD's.

It's funny how 640x480 looks awful on paper, but when it's on a 60" screen from a few feet back it looks great (or at least really good, unless you see HD right next to it)