Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: BFSMP on April 21, 2016, 02:16:05 pm
-
I have a friend who's daughter wishes to enlarge some photos from 18.5mb which is her camera's maximum resolution to 50mb for a competition with Blackpool transport
Is there anyway this can be done using a resizing download like Light Image Resizer.
If so could anyone please recommend such a site.
Thank you.
Jim.
-
Don't think so Jim.
The original 18.5mb is the max it will ever be.
-
It can be done, and many photo packages will include the function, but the results are usually iffy and it's not recommended.
The software has to add pixels based on what's already there, which usually means it ends up fuzzier or pixellated, but it can be passable with some pictures.
-
thanks for the input, guys, and it is as I thought
Blackpool Transport has organised a competition to advertise the "finer points" of the town whereby the finished image has to be 50mb, which I presume would then be used for advertising purposes.
My mate's daughter is at college doing a photography course for A level and has been told by the tutor to take the photos at the camera's maximum resolution. Her dad questioned this and took the camera down to Currys where he had bought it for her and asked about it, a Canon 1200dEOS.
The Camera expert told him that the maximum they sell at the present time is a 24.5mb res camera, and if she wanted to go down the route of a much higher resolution camera then the camera would need to be a medium format camera at around 3K starting price.
Is this a ply by Blackpool transport to restrict entries just to professionals, I wonder, and to eek out the riff raff of the world with point and shoot Dslr's.
Jim.
-
As plague says, you cannot add what is not already there. Resizing larger only ever copies adjoining pixels to fool the eye into thinking its larger. You cannot gain definition and in most cases the picture ends up just being fuzzy.
-
Just read your last post Jim, resizing a pic larger is different to original resolution! Its complicated but I'll see if I can explain. Take a photo of a plain painted wall and the size could be 2mb. Take a photo of some very jazzy curtains and the size could well be over 50mb. It is the detail you are including in the photo that pushes up the final mb, so with a 10mb camera you can still cram in loads of detail which would take your final image over 50mb's. Give it a try and check the size of the print you will be surprised.
I would say they want a large size over 50mb's because its possible they want to enlarge to poster or billboard size for advertising purposes. The bigger you go the more pixellated the image becomes, so starting with something large makes the end result easier.
-
thanks Brian, and yes, I understood that......it was very informative but also very easy to understand for an old fluff like me.
Thanks.
Jim.
-
Are we talking file size here?
If so I have a Canon 6D DSLR which is a full frame camera and the raw files on that (max resolution at ISO 100) are only about 25mb - 30mb in size. If they specify over 50mb file size then you need a Canon 5Ds or 5DsR which sounds kind of unreasonable for a competition!
Craig.
-
The other reason for a high res photo is to enable 'crops' of it to be blown up. But I would agree with Craig that asking for 50MB is rather over the top as few members of the public likely to be interested in entering with will have cameras capable of that file size.
Colin
-
Yes, definitely sounds like the person in the council that set up this competition, doesn't know anything about cameras and photos. Bet she/he asked the publicity dept. 'what do you need for a billboard size poster?'
-
I think you are right on that matter gents, and it is probably to rule out your average photo shooter.
The other catch is, that it also states, I believe on the "rules", that all photos submitted for the competition are then deemed the property of the organisers and as such, they can do with the best of the batch what they want.............and the prize being an apple I pad, which will appeal to many younger people as it was circulated around the colleges in the area,doesn't equate with the value of the prize in relationship to the value of the photos submitted as in the long run will be far less.
A cunning way of aquiring a lot of good publicity photographs for little outlay.
Jim.
-
It would cost the Council more than a couple of Ipads to have a
professional photographer do a publicity shoot for them.
Targeting young students seems a bit shortsighted as they
will find it very hard to source the cameras for the resolution
required.
Ned
-
Another thing that can mess with the file size is the format
A jpeg and a BMP file of the same resolution picture would be massively different in size even though the actual image is the same quality
-
Take a photo of a plain painted wall and the size could be 2mb. Take a photo of some very jazzy curtains and the size could well be over 50mb. It is the detail you are including in the photo that pushes up the final mb ....
Another thing that can mess with the file size is the format
A jpeg and a BMP file of the same resolution picture would be massively different in size even though the actual image is the same quality
Anyone involved in the sort of photography being discussed in the OP would probably have a fit at the mention of jpeg. It's a 'lossy' compression format, ie, it junks detail to make the file smaller. (On many photo-processing softwares you can actually alter the quality to make a smaller but less correct file.)
The mention in the first quote above is only true of 'consumer' cameras which usually save their pictures as jpg. The sort of camera used for this competition would use RAW or some other 'pro' format.
BMP is an uncompressed format. RAW is also basically uncompressed, but also un- or little processed and probably needs work on the computer to make a good picture.
I imagine that the 50MB file being requested will be in one of the uncompressed, or at least lossless formats.
-
RAW format can basically be summed up as being akin to the negative film roll we used to get from cameras, whereas a jpeg is like the finished print. Since the advent of digital I have very rarely needed to use RAW format, jpegs have always been enough and certainly for online publishing jpegs are way more than enough. But for manipulation before final use in programs like Photoshop then RAW gives the most versatile use. But again I've always had acceptable results using jpegs.