Spring 2012

Spring 2012
by ani

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

New answers tagged

1

The main reason is data management. A stills camera can freeze an image in the sensor using a shutter, then take it's sweet time reading it out, compressing it if desired and writing it to a storage device. A video camera has to capture and readout the image within one frame time, the encoding and storage can be pipelined to some degree but they still ...


2

Reading 33Mp at 25 fps with 3 8bit channels per pixel is nearly 20Gib/s (order of magnitude estimate based depending on how the Bayer mark is dealt with etc.). On-chip compression trades this against the need for real-time processing on the sensor. This is clearly possible but expensive, power hungry and bulky compared to still image readout rates (at least ...


2

We examine a photograph for detail and pictorial information. We look at video and movies for different kinds of information having to do with flow and sequence. If we had the technology, we'd use it. Everything we have now is a concession to limited materials and processes. There are many phenomena that await such technology to reveal their secrets to ...


5

Do you have a display(TV) that could utilize 100mp? Also, capturing 30fps of 100mp images... Not going to happen in today's world without a serious cost. Why do stills need this? For printing large formats and for post production cropping abilities.


0

There are several types of "editing". For example: 1) Just adjusting contrast, brightnes, etc. Advantages on doing it on a larger file. None. 2) Sharpening must be done on the final image, for example on your 500x500px one. 3) If you need to get detail from an image, for example take a specific sample on some point of the image to make the white balance, ...


0

If you mean scaling: You should do most of your edits on the original image size. That way you edit once and resize/reuse the final result for print (large size) and viewing on the screen (smaller size). If you do the edits on your 500x500px, you need to do it all over again for print and again in few years when resolution of displays increases and you will ...


3

You will not get the same result at all. When you start with your 2000x2000 pixel image you have some scene or subject in it. If you crop it down to 500x500 pixels then you will only have 1/16th of the subject in it. However if you have a 500x500 with the same but lower resolution content, you will have an entire subject. What you can do instead is scale ...


0

"Image Resizer for Windows" is a great free utility in less than 1MB for Windows users. All the images that are 5 MB or 10 MB can be cracked down to less than 200kb, with almost the same clarity. The problem is: these 10 MB images have a resolution of 4000 X 3000, but your phone or computer is only a 3rd of that, making it feel almost same. So unless you are ...


0

in windows i use a program called RIOT (Radical image optimization tool). Until now is the best i know of. http://luci.criosweb.ro/riot/


0

Given a resolution and quality level, there exist several other image file formats that can give the equivalent, but store the data more compactly than does the old standard JPEG. Some options include JPEG2000, identified by the .jp2 extension, is a somewhat older format that just never got popular. It uses wavelet transforms rather than jpeg's DCT (...



Top 50 recent answers are included