Q. thanks.
A. The most popular may not be the same as the most liked.
Many people love their P&S camera or the ones on their cell phones (mobiles)
The most used cameras by professionals are the Nikon D series and Canon 1D series cameras. A smaller number use Hasselblad and Mamiya digital cameras
As far as instant print cameras, they produce much smaller images than what you are calling "full size". The closest to doing that would be the Fujifilm Instax 210. It produces an instant print on film.
* Film size : 108(W) x 86(H) mm
* Picture size : 99(W) x 62(H) mm
Many people love their P&S camera or the ones on their cell phones (mobiles)
The most used cameras by professionals are the Nikon D series and Canon 1D series cameras. A smaller number use Hasselblad and Mamiya digital cameras
As far as instant print cameras, they produce much smaller images than what you are calling "full size". The closest to doing that would be the Fujifilm Instax 210. It produces an instant print on film.
* Film size : 108(W) x 86(H) mm
* Picture size : 99(W) x 62(H) mm
This may sound like a stupid question, but hear me out?
Q. There are two .jpg images. Each has the precise number of pixels – e.g., the dimensions are the same.
These were images taken by a professional photographer so presumably he had good equipment, lighting, etc.
On was about 500KB, and decent, but a bit blurry. The other was 10 MB and crystal clear. You could see the dew on the blades of grass, the individual strands of the people’s hair, etc.
I know this sounds strange, but given the precise amount of physical information, pixels, were used, where is that additional 9.5 MB coming from and what goes into making it a better image?
BQ: What is primary reason digital images look better in 2013 than 2003 – technology, or was the technology available in 2003, but the data size of the files precluded them from widespread use?
OK. I thought if two images were say, 1000 x 1000 pixels, and if you viewed said image on a 23 inch monitor with 1920 x 1080 resolution, that they would be *exactly* the same physical size on that monitor.
These were images taken by a professional photographer so presumably he had good equipment, lighting, etc.
On was about 500KB, and decent, but a bit blurry. The other was 10 MB and crystal clear. You could see the dew on the blades of grass, the individual strands of the people’s hair, etc.
I know this sounds strange, but given the precise amount of physical information, pixels, were used, where is that additional 9.5 MB coming from and what goes into making it a better image?
BQ: What is primary reason digital images look better in 2013 than 2003 – technology, or was the technology available in 2003, but the data size of the files precluded them from widespread use?
OK. I thought if two images were say, 1000 x 1000 pixels, and if you viewed said image on a 23 inch monitor with 1920 x 1080 resolution, that they would be *exactly* the same physical size on that monitor.
A. It means the .jpg is the same size,"pixels" have different meanings, size and resolution. The computer can make bigger pixles smaller, either to save space or because the camera resolution is to small eg. 2.2 mp or 20 mp. (megapixles) the size of the file is different because there are way more smaller pixles in the one that the other. Therdore higher resolution. The year difference is because the cameras back then only had like , 1 megapixle and now pro cameras have up to 100 megapixles
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar