sayjann Posted April 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 thanks Jazz,just the info i was looking for. only a difference of around 300 Baht so i might as well get one in the UK and take it with me. thanks again Guys for the help provided. always appreciated when People try to help....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 sun and beer --------------------- sun and sex, my dear Sayj, sun and sex...... :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayjann Posted April 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 'Sayj' long time since i heard that expression,that was how my good friend Carew always addressed me whenever we had a Beer together in London Town..... anyone seen him or heard from him lately? sun and sex?,no Beer then then?........... are you a lightweight sanucker?........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ultras67 Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 One thing I found is that virtually nowhere is selling the older Smart Media. I trailed round Fortune and only found 1 place that had any and they only had 1 card. Pantip was almost as bad. Strangely, it seems to be a lot more available back in the uk. So if you think you need to buy a card, buy it before you come to thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayjann Posted April 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 problem solved........ e-mailed Mother Dear in the USA and just asked her to see what the prices were like out there,just wanted to compare them. she arrived home yesterday and had bought me a 128 MB card as a present. will allow 799 pics and i think that will satisfy my needs for all my 'cultural' pics......... :hubba: thanks for all the ideas and help Guys.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusty Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 799 pics on a 128Mb?Methinks you have mucked up on your calculations somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayjann Posted April 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 methinks me right.......... i always set the resolution to lowest which allows the most Pics. have no problems with the quality and i find them just as good as the highest one. to me the only reason to have the best/highest resolution is if you want to make large enlargements and all i need is little old 6x4 or 7x5 on my screen. none of them will be printed as all will be for my viewing only. the Camera displays the # of Pics left and i actually put on my anorak and walked around the house and took 799 Pics and downloaded them. all fine and just erased all the images from the card afterwards...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlton68 Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 Hi Sayjann, as you said it depends on what you wanna do with the pics. So I don't want do question your decision. A good camera still makes good pics at low resolution, better than a bad one with high resolution. And I'm always surprised at what low resolutions jpegs give good viewable pics. Had to see and try why I always choose highest resolution, best quality. I have a camera with 4 megapixel, highest resolution 2304x1712, at highest quality size of pics is 1,5MB up to 2MB. Card is 256MB, camera says that around 124 pics will fit on the card. It is a pessimistic count as it usually is good for 180 pics. At resolution 640x480 and lowest quality camera tells me that it will fit more than 2200 pics on the card. Since I have the 256MB card I never had the problem of it being full. This ever happens I will buy a second (and bigger) card. Storage is cheap. Now I tried and took the same pic with both settings, getting two pics 1,6MB and 80KB. Viewed on the computer at size 5x7 inch they look almost same. I had to look hard to see differences. The low-resolution pic is a little blurry. Then I looked at them at full screen. To say the low resolution pic hurts the eye is keeping it mild. I do that more often I have to see a doc. Why should I view my digital pics on the screen any lower than full screen? And low resolution pics aren't fit for that. I am sure getting the pics printed there will be a difference as well. Have to try if there is a difference between the pics when I put them on DVD and view them on the TV. For me low resolution pics is wasting money (could have bought a cheaper camera). Not sure if my eyesight in ten years time is as good as now, I might be happy to view my old pics at full screen. While I always can buy a better camera in the future I can never improve pics already taken. Sayjann, I think you will regret your 'low resolution' decision some day, but that's 'up to you' of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomc12 Posted April 22, 2005 Report Share Posted April 22, 2005 carlton68, ".....at highest quality size of pics is 1.5MB up to 2MB." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought it took 3 bytes/pixel. Thus, a 4 megapixel camera should be making 12MB picture files at the highest setting. You must be limiting picture size or have some file compression going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlton68 Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 tomc12, might be rigth that the pic would be 12MB when stored as bitmap. But it'sstored as jpg which is a compressed format. I just saved one of these jpg files as bmp and it gave me 11,2MB. Congratulations. Well, camera saves the pics as jpg, I just can choose between three different compression profiles. Not sure, but I think this is kind of standard for most cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.