[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 

> 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.


Reply to: