Re: Digital cameras [was: Re: Microsoft or MacOs executables]
On Thursday 14 July 2005 11:00, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote:
> Le 14.07.2005 11:21:24, A J Stiles a écrit :
> > ... [Y]ou can also use
> > the
> > memory cards in a slot reader; but there's a school of thought that
> > this
> > removal and reinsertion is inviting damage.
> And isertionand removal of this smal usb plug on the camera is also
> inviting damages... on the camera
You're right, of course ..... though the USB has fewer contacts, and hence
less to go wrong. I guess the best solution for the truly risk-averse would
be to use the camera's autofocus system {basically an infrared LED and
sensor} for wireless data transfer, but this might prove too slow to be
practical.
> Of course but you have to take account of the size you want to print
> your pictures. With 1.9Mpix, you cannot get something larger than
> 10x15cm.
My own experience suggests that the limiting point is about four pixels per
millimetre, and I have had excellent results taking 1600x1200px. pictures up
to 24x18cm. These were printed on a HP Business Inkjet 1100 and do not look
"digital". Of course, a less "industrial" printer might give poorer results.
Maybe there is something wrong with my eyes {actually there is -- I'm short
sighted and so can see more detail at close range}, or maybe some
manufacturers are being pessimistic about their products in order to persuade
you to buy a more expensive one than you need. Maybe with poorer quality
lenses and/or sensors than the ones FujiFilm use, there really are issues
with enlargement sizes. {It's possible that some scummy cheap cameras use
interpolation -- that is to say, they create an output file which contains
more pixels than the image sensor contains, by using software to "guess" what
might be in between the "real" pixels.}
I haven't tried a wide enough range of cameras and printers to determine which
is the case. I do know that I would not spend that sort of money without
seeing some test shots -- and nor would I advise anyone else to.
--
AJS
Reply to: