Help with sizing still shots

[discv]

Severely off topic, I know- but someone here might be able to help.

I am trying to include in an adobe document some still shots that will be around 3.5 in x 2.5 in.

So, should I take the shots at say 10 mega pixels- then reduce the image size
or
Would it be better to shoot at 1 mega pixel- which would need less reduction?

My problem is that I am downloading property survey images to third party software ( so trial and error costs money) and the photos in the completed reports look really bad.

 

[paulajayne]

Shoot at high and then insert into doc, click on image and using the corner/side handles drag it to the size required.

 

[discv]

Shoot at high and then insert into doc, click on image and using the corner/side handles drag it to the size required.

Thanks for that. But my problem is that it is not me that actually puts the photo into the document. This is done by the 3rd party software. And their support is akin to that of DJI.

 

[cruz_ctrl]

Severely off topic, I know- but someone here might be able to help.

I am trying to include in an adobe document some still shots that will be around 3.5 in x 2.5 in.

So, should I take the shots at say 10 mega pixels- then reduce the image size
or
Would it be better to shoot at 1 mega pixel- which would need less reduction?

My problem is that I am downloading property survey images to third party software ( so trial and error costs money) and the photos in the completed reports look really bad.

if the photos are to be printed then you should shoot at high resolution. then adjust physical dimensions, set resolution at 300dpi and color mode to CMYK before sending.

 

[discv]

Thanks for your efforts guys- but I just cannot get a handle on this.

For the life of me, I can't grasp the difference between taking a shot at 1 mp or taking a shot at 8mp- then reducing it to 1 mp

 

[4wd]

Your original 8mp image will be at least 4000 pixels on the longest side most likely.
The file size will probably be at least 5MB.

To include in a web page or PDF document there's no need for that so you can resize it in advance, a common internet size now is 1024 pixels longest side but in dial-up days 640 pixels was considered adequate.
That will reduce the files size from several MB to under 500kb and it will still look perfectly OK on a computer screen.
The time to upload/download/send in an email will be drastically reduced, especially useful for those on slower connections or pricey mobile data.

However the reduced size means you now don't have so much information in the file of course.
If you try to print the 1024 pixels wide image it will look grainy if printed at anything above postcard size.
The original file would look fine on A4 paper or even poster size depending on the quality of the original.

Taking the shot at lower resolution originally means it already contains much less information and reduces your options.
A lot of shots benefit from being cropped, sometimes quite substantially.
If you use a larger size to start with you can still get a good resolution image from only part of the frame.
Since memory cards and computer drives are now remarkably cheap there's rarely a good reason to take the shot in low resolution to start with.

 

[discv]

Thanks 4wd. Stay with me!

Are you saying that a 5MB photo reduced (not cropped) to 500KB will be better than a photo shot at that smaller size.

 

[discv]

Here is an example of what was a reasonable shot



My daughters photo skills have room for improvement- but that doesn't explain the pixelation.

 

[4wd]

The small one will be OK taken small but why do that unless you only have a 64MB memory card like it was 2002
If you want to crop or print it later you might wish you used a larger size.

Your example is quite poor quality. look at the saw tooth edges along the radiator or window frames for example.
It almost looks like a video grab yet it's still almost 500kb. (actually I'm not sure that's due to taking it at low res - but does illustrate how you can soon get a pretty grotty image after saving again)

It's dodgy territory recommending software but you could do worse than free Irfanview which has an excellent resizing tool and allows you to manually set the JPG compression when your resave.
If you do download that watch you uncheck options to install any piggyback programs like yahoo toolbar.

 

[discv]

The above shot I lifted from a report after it had been submitted to the 3rd party software.
The 'saw tooth' effect is not present in the original.

The reason that I would like to shot at low resolution is that the photos are only for 3.5 in x 2.5 in images in the reports.

Also, when my daughter is compiling the report on site, she can put the shots into the report app as she goes.
Well that's the theory. Problem is that the tablet cameras are rubbish, and few tablets have flash.

So we have her tablet paired via WiFi to a half decent camera. But we need to cut down on the transfer time. Some reports have 60+ photos.

I'm starting to think that the problem is with the report generator provider.

Many thanks for your thoughts

 

[paulajayne]

In this case Size does not matter, shoot at the highest resolution and then in the application that you are putting the picture into drag to size or define the size.

Word will save a file in PDF format.

Select INSERT and then PICTURE choose the picture you want and click OK, when in the document click on the picture them using mouse click and hold on a corner or side handle and drag it to the size you want.

To save as a PDF select file, save as and then choose PDF format.

HTH