Yep, but my point is that with digital (rather than optical) zoom, the same thing happens whether it's on the camera or in PS. When you zoom digitally on a camera/phone, all it's doing is cropping right then and showing you the result. It's not really zooming in the traditional photographic sense. My contention is that PS would do that better than the camera, giving a better result, and therefore that digital zoom is something to be avoided(*). I don't have statistical or anecdotal evidence to support that - just a belief that there are few image editing programs that can match PS in its ability to do that.
Anybody know for sure? (*) Unless, of course, one is trying to take a picture to send to someone *right now* in which case digital zoom would be one way to get that done. Unless, of course, the Pre's photo app is enhanced (1.4??, if not, Craig, this would be a good thing to add to the list, since the iPhone can do this) to allow cropping and other basic photo manipulation on the device. Cheers, Don From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Messeder Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 8:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Treo] webOS suggestions for Palm - "official" nomination thread On 2/6/2010 2:53 AM, Don Ferguson wrote: > 5. When it's digital zoom, all it's doing is cropping the picture using the camera's > hardware/software. Which is exactly what I'd do in PS. That's essentially how all zooming is done: The picture appears closer because everything but the subject of interest is cropped away, leaving the subject recorded full frame. In digital, you then have, say, the face using all the pixels available on the camera. Shoot wide and use PS to zoom and you cut the picture to the pixels used by that portion of the pic. You then have to re-interpolate to full dots/pixels per inch. But you don't really have the resolution you'd have if you shot it full frame. . . . snip . . . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
