Doug Kerr
Well-known member
The camera of which I speak is a "digicam" - a "digital camera" - so I guess this is the right forum section.
************
I am currently doing most of my photography with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000. This is a fixed lens "superzoom" camera with a 3/3 ("one inch) sensor, and a native pixel resolution of 5472 px × 3648 px. Its lens (a Zeiss, mind you!) has a ff35 equivalent focal length range of 25 mm - 400 mm.
As you have seen me mention before, essentially all my work ends up either on this forum or (much more commonly) on Carla's blog, or maybe being sent to someone by e-mail.
As a result, when I process incoming images, I generally save the processed images downsized to 800 px in the largest dimension (which seems a good intermediate size for such destinations). I usually do this with Silkypix Developer Studio, which seems to use a nice downsizing algorithm (at least based on the visual result as judged on various "difficult" images).
Of course, the potential image quality (when the native pixel resolution is retained), when using "higher" ISO sensitivities, is less than we might expect from cameras with 4/3 ("four-thirds") or 5/3 ("APS-C") size sensors of comparable pixel resolution.
I have not had a chance to do tests of whether the "downsized" images, for a given ISO sensitivity, exhibit less noise than in the "native size" images. (I certainly need to do some testing and observations in this area.) But I would strongly suspect so.
But I also have the option of setting the camera to deliver a 2736 px × 1824 px image (half the native pixel dimensions in each direction). Nevertheless, I would most often then generally downsize the camera output image to an 800 px largest dimension for most uses.
Do we know if I might expect this approach to be advantageous, in terms of image noise at high ISO sensitivities, compared to taking the camera output at native pixel dimensions and then downsizing it all the way in post processing?
I understand that of course one advantage of the latter is that if, especially when not shooting at a high ISO sensitivity, I should find in some case that some image warrants printing at a serious size, I can still do that "optimally", and I give up that possibility if I decide to take the lower pixel dimension output from the camera on a regular basis.
And of course I can also adopt the plan of always taking the "lower" pixel dimension JPEG output plus the raw output.
Thanks for any wisdom you can offer in this matter.
Best regards,
Doug
************
I am currently doing most of my photography with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000. This is a fixed lens "superzoom" camera with a 3/3 ("one inch) sensor, and a native pixel resolution of 5472 px × 3648 px. Its lens (a Zeiss, mind you!) has a ff35 equivalent focal length range of 25 mm - 400 mm.
As you have seen me mention before, essentially all my work ends up either on this forum or (much more commonly) on Carla's blog, or maybe being sent to someone by e-mail.
As a result, when I process incoming images, I generally save the processed images downsized to 800 px in the largest dimension (which seems a good intermediate size for such destinations). I usually do this with Silkypix Developer Studio, which seems to use a nice downsizing algorithm (at least based on the visual result as judged on various "difficult" images).
Of course, the potential image quality (when the native pixel resolution is retained), when using "higher" ISO sensitivities, is less than we might expect from cameras with 4/3 ("four-thirds") or 5/3 ("APS-C") size sensors of comparable pixel resolution.
I have not had a chance to do tests of whether the "downsized" images, for a given ISO sensitivity, exhibit less noise than in the "native size" images. (I certainly need to do some testing and observations in this area.) But I would strongly suspect so.
But I also have the option of setting the camera to deliver a 2736 px × 1824 px image (half the native pixel dimensions in each direction). Nevertheless, I would most often then generally downsize the camera output image to an 800 px largest dimension for most uses.
Do we know if I might expect this approach to be advantageous, in terms of image noise at high ISO sensitivities, compared to taking the camera output at native pixel dimensions and then downsizing it all the way in post processing?
I understand that of course one advantage of the latter is that if, especially when not shooting at a high ISO sensitivity, I should find in some case that some image warrants printing at a serious size, I can still do that "optimally", and I give up that possibility if I decide to take the lower pixel dimension output from the camera on a regular basis.
And of course I can also adopt the plan of always taking the "lower" pixel dimension JPEG output plus the raw output.
Thanks for any wisdom you can offer in this matter.
Best regards,
Doug