# Keep those camera settings maxxed for resolution - 4k comes



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thought I'd repost this as it comes up. Leave your camera's at the settings with the highest resolution. Memory is cheap and 4k is coming fast and you'll appreciate the extra quality ....even now at 2k it's noticeable ( both my laptop and 27" are 2k )

Leave the setting high - you can't regain the lost information and you don't know down the road you may end up with one of the new screens ( I'm on a Retina ) with 2880 across pixel count - 4 x the norm. 
You get one of the photos up on a 2560 27" and you'll appreciate having the extra info.

4k is coming faster than people understand.
(4096 x 2160 pixels)

Ultra HD and 4K: Everything you need to know | News | TechRadar

4K resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this is a 4k tablet from Panasonic aimed at photographers..










so get all you can on every image....SD cards are super cheap....travel is not.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

A lot depends on the camera. Most point and shoots capture the image at around 2 or 3 MB and interpolate upwards to whatever the cameras max is. If that is the case any version of PhotoShop will do as good a job of upwards interpolation as the camera. 

I did a lot of tests with both my Oly and Kodaks. Several weeks worth in fact. Run the Kodak at 5MP and the Oly at 8MP. Both are somewhat less than max but produce the best working image possible with the camera. 

I suspect that these numbers are either double or quadruple the real capture ratio and for that reason produce superior images as compared to the theoretical maximums.


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> A lot depends on the camera. Most point and shoots capture the image at around 2 or 3 MB and interpolate upwards to whatever the cameras max is. If that is the case any version of PhotoShop will do as good a job of upwards interpolation as the camera.
> 
> I did a lot of tests with both my Oly and Kodaks. Several weeks worth in fact. Run the Kodak at 5MP and the Oly at 8MP. Both are somewhat less than max but produce the best working image possible with the camera.
> 
> I suspect that these numbers are either double or quadruple the real capture ratio and for that reason produce superior images as compared to the theoretical maximums.



I'm curious about where you are getting your information about cameras interpolating up to get to a higher resolution. 

I was under the impression that the number of photosites on the sensor determined the maximum resolution. For example, if a sensor was 4000x3000 then I have a resolution of 12 MP. This is the native resolution of the sensor. Then to get to a lower resolution image, the camera captures an image at maximum resolution and then reduces it to the desired resolution.

Either way, its an interesting technical discussion point


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Kami said:


> I'm curious about where you are getting your information about cameras interpolating up to get to a higher resolution.
> 
> I was under the impression that the number of photosites on the sensor determined the maximum resolution. For example, if a sensor was 4000x3000 then I have a resolution of 12 MP. This is the native resolution of the sensor. Then to get to a lower resolution image, the camera captures an image at maximum resolution and then reduces it to the desired resolution.
> 
> Either way, its an interesting technical discussion point


I was basing that on the effective resolution. I noticed that at max resolution viewed at 100%, the detail just wasn't there. The sensor size on most point and shoots is less than 4.5x6mm, even the old Kodak disc cameras had a somewhat larger negative. So it may well be that even the best of lenses cannot capture that much detail, or it may be that sensors interpolate upwards. Whatever the reason I have found that using lower resolution and interpolating upwards does not result in any detail loss compared to shooting at maximum resolution. 

I have done very extensive testing on the Kodak, Olympus and Canon cameras that I own(ed) and shortcut testing on a Panasonic which I was considering purchasing. The Panasonic had what was supposedly a Leica manufactured lens and the Kodak is using a Schneider lens, so I suspect the lenses were pretty much state of the art. It should be noted that usually there is one setting that delivers the best results. With the Kodak it is 5MP, half of the maximum 10 MP. With my newer Olympus it is 8MP, two thirds of the supposed max of 12 MP. The zoom setting does not seem to matter. Both of those cameras give best results either at max or minimum aperture. If either should pick the intermediate ƒ-stop, usually there is some slight additional fuzziness. The Canon did not suffer from that problem prior to its unfortunate demise.


Please note that I am only talking about point and shoot cameras with small sensors. DSLRs often offer the same max resolution as good point and shoots but deliver a good deal more detail at 100% viewing than their smaller cousins. For this reason it makes a great deal of sense to shoot at max resolution with a DSLR or any camera which uses a physically larger sensor.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

What is RAW anyways?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Lawrence said:


> What is RAW anyways?


RAW is uncompressed image, also has greater dynamic range than jpgs. A typical RAW image may be in the range of 30+MBs whereas the same image compressed to best quality jpeg will be around a MB in size.


----------

