Hi from Paris,
I bought a Sony-DSC-F717 a couple of years back - went into my list
of "Best-Spent Money" items - gives beautiful photos of 5 Megapixels
(I never change the setting).
The photos each represent about 2 MB, and with that, I can print out a
high quality photo on A4, reasonable quality on A3. My close-up photos
of flowers would make many photographers green with envy. What I mean
is that a 5 megapixel/2 MB photo is enough for me, and I am a stickler
for quality. I have many Rev stacks that display hundreds of jpg
photos, and so I had to scale down my photos for rapid display and
reduced disk space.
I use GraphicConvertor (Mac) - also on my "Best-Spent Money" list. You
can batch scale-down a complete folder, to the size of photos you want.
Just in case I ever want higher quality (and I have more than 30 years
of 35mm negatives to examine), I also have a Nikon DiMage 35mm
scanner, and I CAN scan the negatives up to 100Mb files (what for, I
will never know !)
I scan my BEST colour negatives to about 20 MB, and I CAN print them
up to 1.5 metres x 1 metre posters - much more than the average Yogi
Bear requirements.
The latest cameras are providing more than 15 Megapxels, and
technology will take us much higher within a very short time ! I'm not
sure what that represents in MB, but it certainly is a lot. I'm also
unsure of the need for cameras of this quality for the average user.
Unless you are a professional, you don't need photos of this quality,
so why take them ?
My next camera (I'm in no hurry) will probably clock in at 25
Megapixels, and I will need to upgrade seriously from my iMac with 1TB
in order to be able to store and treat my photos. Maybe 1 photo in a
thousand will require that precision (if I want to push it to a
poster), but I will have to take ALL of my photos at that precision to
do so ! I'll need many TBs to store all of them, and one hell of a
processor ! Don't you think that this is just a little bit "overkill",
remembering, of course that the lifetime of an average photo is about
the same as that of a household fly ! I have three photo categories -
1) photos for the masses 2) photos for those who appreciate photos,
and 3) photos I am proud of. I examine all my photos and decide which
category it goes into, AND SCALE THEM DOWN if they are for categories
1 and 2, THROWING AWAY the originals afterwards. Why waste disk
space ? Did you really want all those megapixels ?
Which brings me to the forum question "I've got photos of 13
megapixels that Rev can't handle". Who wants to push the (Revolution)
envelope that far ?
Let's assume that you are a professional. Don't use Revolution to
solve this problem, it wasn't designed for that - use a professional
photo program like GraphicConvertor. Of course you can alway put in a
bug report, but seriously, don't you think that there are more
important issues to be solved with Revolution ?
If I want to knock a nail in, I use a hammer, not my shoe (which was
designed for protecting my foot). Revolution is fantastic. It does so
many things. Why ask it to wake you in the morning with a hot coffee ?
FWIW
-Francis
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
