More is Better
Posted April 13th, 2003 @ 03:33pm by Erik J. Barzeski
I agree with Sven-S. Porst in his rebuttal of Dave Weinberger (who thought his 2.1 megapixel images were 830MB) on the issue of whether to capture larger images or smaller images from a digital camera.
I've always taken my images on the highest quality setting available. I think of it as insurance. CD-Rs are cheap enough that if I run out of disk space, I'll offload some images. But the insurance? You never know what you'll need an image for in the future - it could be a 24" x 36" poster - get and save as much information as possible now.
Once you lose data, it's gone. You can compress, but you can't go the other way.
Donate Life
Posted 13 Apr 2003 at 4:47pm #
The MB rather than KB was a momentary lapse in an otherwise unblemished record of total rightness and accuracy. ... Um, sure. But I actually do know the difference between the two.
That aside, I agree with you. The one drawback is that shooting large does cut down the # of photos I can put on my datastick before having to upload 'em.
Posted 13 Apr 2003 at 6:24pm #
Speaking as a photographer...buy a 2nd (or larger) card. I shoot w/ a Canon 1Ds with RAW + simultaneous small JPEG for editing. I get ~70 images to 1 GB. I generally cary 3.25GB on me when I'm shooting, and I'll often have my Powerbook in the car so that I can download images and free up a card. Granted I'm probably shooting more than most people, but w/ the price of storage dropping so low, there's no reason that Canon Powershot camera can't have a 512 or 1GB CF card.