Need info on Pixles vs ppi

Originally Posted By: rzimmerman
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



What is the true story with digital cameras?


Does a 3megapixel camera simply take a larger pic than a 2megapixel cam? Therefor the larger image ability?

If I shoot a 640 x 480 with both, will the shots have the same pixles?

Is there a relation between ppi (pixles per inch) from the 2 to 3meg cameras?

No need for great detail, just the basics would help.

Thanks
Rob Z.


Originally Posted By: tallen
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



That’s a darn good question.


I use a 2.0 MP cam, and take all of my shots at full resolution.

Then I down size them for my report.

I can not think of any reason a HI would need more than a 2.0

To be honest my 2.0 pics are not noticeably inferior to my 5.0.

However, when you start printing the pics on high quality paper you can defiantly tell the difference.


Originally Posted By: rmoore
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



640 x 800 is half a megapixel. If you set ANY camera to shoot at that resolution it doesn’t matter how many megapixels it is capable of.


It's not so much a matter of the size of the photo as the resolution.


--
Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com

Originally Posted By: rzimmerman
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



rmoore wrote:
640 x 800 is half a megapixel. If you set ANY camera to shoot at that resolution it doesn't matter how many megapixels it is capable of.

It's not so much a matter of the size of the photo as the resolution.

So tell me about resolution. What inproves one dig cam over another? Assuming they are both the same pix count.


Originally Posted By: jpope
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



tallen wrote:
However, when you start printing the pics on high quality paper you can defiantly tell the difference.


Todd?

I knew what you meant irregardless of what you wrote ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)


--
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738

Originally Posted By: tallen
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Kiss my A$$ Jeff icon_lol.gif icon_lol.gif icon_lol.gif icon_lol.gif




Defiantly? Ok you got me on that one. ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)


Originally Posted By: rmoore
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



LOL…you two stop it!


Rob...The number of pixels for a given photo is the resolution. A 1600 x 1200 picture would effectively have 4 times the resolution of a 800 x 600. As Todd said, that really only shows up when you try to print on large format photo paper, or when it pops up on a screen unrestrained by size parameters. For HI reports, 640 x 480 is plenty, IF you just use the picture "as is". I like to shoot at 1600 x 1200 (about 2 megapixels) because it enables me to blow up small segments of a photo if I just want to print or look at a smaller detail. At that resolution I can get about 110 photo's on a 64mb card (plenty for me).

As far as the more expensive cameras...you will likely get better optics, fancier programming options, etc,. For HI work only, I'd choose rugged (or cheap) "point & shoot" over fancy "bells & whistles" and spend the extra money on a large storage card.


--
Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com

Originally Posted By: rzimmerman
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Cool,


Thanks Richard. That helped.