News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > Sony Ericsson / Sony > General > post pictures taken with your: sony ericsson K850 Bookmark topic



Depends on what size you are printing in. Here are some recomendations that can be found around on the net:

- To print on 4x6", 1MP is required for good quality and 2 MP for outstanding quality.

- To print on 5x7", 1.5 MP is required for good quality and 3.3 MP for outstanding quality.

- To print on 8x12" (which is smaller than A3), 3.8 MP is required for good quality and 5 MP for outstanding quality.

As one can see, a 3 MP cam is all most people need. Anything above 5 MP is just rediculous unless you are a professional IMO.



--
Posted: 2007-10-17 16:59:20
Edit : Quote


please...i want see same picture with flash!!!!!
i want buy but before i need to see if the flash work for 3 meters...

--
Posted: 2007-10-17 17:00:24
Edit : Quote



Plankgatan I'm sure doesn't care that WE can only print his pictures at 800x600, but he has the original so he doesn't have that limitation.

I have seen a few full-sized K850 pics that I'd be happy to print at A3, and many more that I'd happily print at 8x10. As far as printing in A3 goes, I've got many 5MP photos (from quality digicams) and never really felt the need to print anything larger than 8x10.
--
Posted: 2007-10-17 17:07:30
Edit : Quote


David Pogue at NY Times posted a test here where he asked people on the street if they could see the difference between 5MP and 13MP when printed blown up to 16x24 inches. Interesting reading indeed.

I don't think the 5MP camera in the test was the K850i
--
Posted: 2007-10-17 17:28:52
Edit : Quote


The only time more than 5-6 megapixels are needed is if the original photo composition wasn't very good and a user wants to crop the image a little to improve the picture without degrading it.

Here's a couple of macro shots from today (hope JoJo doesn't mind flies since (kinda) liked the rose!)





_________________
Hope this helps!
Cheers,
Dcuk


[ This Message was edited by: dcuk on 2007-10-21 03:35 ]
--
Posted: 2007-10-17 17:54:31
Edit : Quote




+3 meters is little to far for a small flash...(you need a real flash for that distance) IF YOU WANT REAL SHARPNESS. (otherwise it dosent mathers)

anyway....here is with flash

(for a small flash, its realy good...the light sensor doing a good job)
here is with ~2 meters,




--
Posted: 2007-10-17 18:15:40
Edit : Quote


If you want to double the quality from 5MP then you need to go up to 20MP (double X and Y), so we've got a way to go before the average person will see a major improvement. In the professional market, we're already there - but who needs to print such large images at home? (who CAN print such large images at home?!).

We need larger sensors so we can get noise-free images in low-light, we need optical zoom, we need better video recording.. All of these things will happen, but the inevitable updates to 6, 7, 8... megapixels that will happen next year are just to encourage people to keep upgrading for the most part.
--
Posted: 2007-10-17 18:20:11
Edit : Quote


@AbuBasim ,
The link you posted for NY times ,may i ask then that why are 10 MP Cameras more expensive then 5MP ones ?

I mean then what is the point of having a better megapixel if the Pictures are same ?
--
Posted: 2007-10-17 18:42:52
Edit : Quote


@rockerZ

If you print on paper, there is no point to have more than 5 MP (or even 3 MP) for the sizes most people are printing pictures in. The human eye cannot distinguish more than 120 pixels per centimeter anyway (I guess that's why shrinked pictures look so good).


[ This Message was edited by: Arne Anka on 2007-10-17 20:12 ]
--
Posted: 2007-10-17 20:28:01
Edit : Quote


basic/normal settings



macro



--
Posted: 2007-10-17 21:57:23
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index