PDA

View Full Version : Resizing Pictures



CompuDude
07-18-2007, 21:46
I just posted this on another forum, and realized some people here might benefit from it as well, so here's a tip:

Generally you'll want to take pictures at the highest setting possible for your camera. It's easy to go down in size, but nearly impossible to go up (despite what hollywood would have you believe). It's especially important if you may want to crop photos later. Best to leave it on the highest setting possible (RAW is another discussion entirely, so I'm referring to cameras that shoot JPG pictures here.)

The only issue is sometimes you want to do something with the picture, like put it online in a web page or post it in an online forum of some sort, and now you have this collection of huge 5MP+ pictures that are far too big for simple on-screen display needs.

For Windows users, the simplest, no-nonsense tool I've ever found for quick and dirty photo resizing (note I did not say the best and highest quality, which would be Photoshop and a few choice plugins, but rather simple and no-nonsense) is this little "Image Resizer" powertoy tool right from Microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

Install this, then you can right click on any JPG from your camera (and several other formats as well) and choose "resize". Answer a quick question about what size, and BAM it makes a new one in the desired size. Done. Three clicks, no actual running of standalone programs required.

I'm completely at home in Photoshop. But for quick and dirty jobs (such as a quick scubaboard post of an 8mb photo at a reasonable size) Image Resizer rocks my socks. :)

WaterRat
07-27-2007, 17:22
I like it. I just saw this and haven't used it but does it make a copy of the picture at the lower res? Or does it resize the original?

Note - I like to make a copy of my pictures for editing. That way I always have the original to go back to.

Ron

CompuDude
07-27-2007, 17:24
I like it. I just saw this and haven't used it but does it make a copy of the picture at the lower res? Or does it resize the original?

Note - I like to make a copy of my pictures for editing. That way I always have the original to go back to.

Ron
It makes a copy by default, unless you check the box to specifically overwrite the original.

Ajuva
07-27-2007, 17:40
Good Call!

Venio
07-29-2007, 20:01
I can suggest IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com/), a freeware program that can do a bit more then just resize a picture. Basic color correction, contrast, red eye removal, rotation and so on. Beside it's really good for viewing pictures. I have used it for year now, and I really like it.

CompuDude
07-30-2007, 13:59
I can suggest IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com/), a freeware program that can do a bit more then just resize a picture. Basic color correction, contrast, red eye removal, rotation and so on. Beside it's really good for viewing pictures. I have used it for year now, and I really like it.
I've used it. Decent program, but I prefer ACDSee much more, as it's more user-friendly. Not free, however... unless you know which dark rocks to look under.

Still, even that can't beat the pure simplicity of the free Microsoft plugin.

bversteegh
08-02-2007, 01:01
Adobe Lightroom is awesome if you shoot RAW. And since I have a daughter in college, the academic price is $99 - 3x less than Photoshop.

Free to try for 30 days on the Adobe website - highly recommended.

BTW - the Adobe policy for academic purchase is pretty open, child in K-12, any type of college, work in academia, non-profits, etc - not that hard to qualify.

deepdiver47
08-02-2007, 07:45
I can suggest IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com/), a freeware program that can do a bit more then just resize a picture. Basic color correction, contrast, red eye removal, rotation and so on. Beside it's really good for viewing pictures. I have used it for year now, and I really like it.

Looks good Venio, I will give it a try

Doghouse
08-07-2007, 13:22
Google's picasa program is the only one that would work with the raw format files from my Nikon. The program is simple and works very well.

Take a look at that also. It provides many of the color adjustment and noise removal tools that others don't.

ReefHound
08-07-2007, 13:33
I can suggest IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com/), a freeware program that can do a bit more then just resize a picture. Basic color correction, contrast, red eye removal, rotation and so on. Beside it's really good for viewing pictures. I have used it for year now, and I really like it.
I've used it. Decent program, but I prefer ACDSee much more, as it's more user-friendly. Not free, however... unless you know which dark rocks to look under.

Still, even that can't beat the pure simplicity of the free Microsoft plugin.

I like Bimp Lite (http://cerebralsynergy.com/download.php?view.76) because it allows you to resize and apply other transformations to multiple files at once, applying fiel renaming in the process. I like to run it on entire directories to make thumbnails. It's free.

mike_s
08-07-2007, 13:52
If you use www.photobucket.com (http://www.photobucket.com) to host your photos for your web page or your post on here, you can resize them to a set resolution when you upload them, reducing a step of having to do it with a picture editor.

FYI.

CompuDude
08-07-2007, 14:04
I can suggest IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com/), a freeware program that can do a bit more then just resize a picture. Basic color correction, contrast, red eye removal, rotation and so on. Beside it's really good for viewing pictures. I have used it for year now, and I really like it.
I've used it. Decent program, but I prefer ACDSee much more, as it's more user-friendly. Not free, however... unless you know which dark rocks to look under.

Still, even that can't beat the pure simplicity of the free Microsoft plugin.

I like Bimp Lite (http://cerebralsynergy.com/download.php?view.76) because it allows you to resize and apply other transformations to multiple files at once, applying fiel renaming in the process. I like to run it on entire directories to make thumbnails. It's free.
Interesting, although everything it does, ACDSee does also, and I already have that. :-)

Note that the link you provided was for the Win98 version. WinXP+ users will want this version of Bimp Lite: http://cerebralsynergy.com/download.php?view.52

ReefHound
08-07-2007, 14:39
Thanks for the corrected link. I already have the app and just did a quick google without looking closely.

reservecops
08-07-2007, 20:31
Generally you'll want to take pictures at the highest setting possible for your camera. It's easy to go down in size, but nearly impossible to go up (despite what hollywood would have you believe). It's especially important if you may want to crop photos later. Best to leave it on the highest setting possible (RAW is another discussion entirely, so I'm referring to cameras that shoot JPG pictures here.)I couldn't disagree more. Resolution should be relative to the planned purpose for the pictures.

For me: 99% of the pictures I take are for nothing more than either viewing on the computer or, if I do want to make prints, I rarely make anything bigger than a 4x6 or 5x7. For this, anything over 1280x960 is pure overkill -- and even THAT resolution is (really) much more than adequate.

Compared to "the highest setting possible for your camera", I can fit 3500 or so pics on my 1GB card when it's set to 1280x960 res, but only 800 or so pictures when it's set to its "highest setting possible". Heck, at VGA mode, I can fit 7700 pictures on that card, and that's STILL pretty good res for viewing on the 'puter or printing small prints.

Now, if you're planning on printing LARGE pictures -or- if you want all the detail you can get (to be able to dig deep into the picture to see some finite details), then you absolutely want a nice, big, fat res mode.

But for the average photo taker who's taking shots of the kids playing on the jungle gym or for some pics to send to Grand-ma-ma, HUGE resolution pictures are nothing more than a pure waste of space, both on the flash media card in the camera and for long-term storage.

Just my $0.02.

CompuDude
08-08-2007, 12:35
Generally you'll want to take pictures at the highest setting possible for your camera. It's easy to go down in size, but nearly impossible to go up (despite what hollywood would have you believe). It's especially important if you may want to crop photos later. Best to leave it on the highest setting possible (RAW is another discussion entirely, so I'm referring to cameras that shoot JPG pictures here.)I couldn't disagree more. Resolution should be relative to the planned purpose for the pictures.

For me: 99% of the pictures I take are for nothing more than either viewing on the computer or, if I do want to make prints, I rarely make anything bigger than a 4x6 or 5x7. For this, anything over 1280x960 is pure overkill -- and even THAT resolution is (really) much more than adequate.

Compared to "the highest setting possible for your camera", I can fit 3500 or so pics on my 1GB card when it's set to 1280x960 res, but only 800 or so pictures when it's set to its "highest setting possible". Heck, at VGA mode, I can fit 7700 pictures on that card, and that's STILL pretty good res for viewing on the 'puter or printing small prints.

Now, if you're planning on printing LARGE pictures -or- if you want all the detail you can get (to be able to dig deep into the picture to see some finite details), then you absolutely want a nice, big, fat res mode.

But for the average photo taker who's taking shots of the kids playing on the jungle gym or for some pics to send to Grand-ma-ma, HUGE resolution pictures are nothing more than a pure waste of space, both on the flash media card in the camera and for long-term storage.

Just my $0.02.
You're welcome to disagree, but your opinion flies in the face of every piece of advice ever given by every professional photographer out there.

Now, as it happens, I agree with you that there are circumstances were there is no need to take full res photos... but those special-purpose shots in special situations are not the same as general advice.

Underwater photos should always be shot at full resolution. You will frequently want to crop photos, and the more pixels the better the finished product will be, even after cropping. Period, end of story. We're not talking about kids on the jungle gym, we're talking about small underwater life forms, living in a densely alive medium. I can't tell you how many times I've taken a shot of something and gone home to look at the pictures on a high res computer screen, and noticed some tiny little critter in the picture I didn't notice when I took the shot.

Don't worry about space on your card. Memory cards are cheap. Buy another one if you're worried you'll run out of room. In fact, buying several and rotating them in is a good way to add simple flood insurance... at least you haven't lost ALL of your pictures!

Once you go over your pictures, crop and weed out the bad ones, feel free to resize for particular purposes, such as posting on a web site or emailing to grandma. But if you want to print anything, you will very much want to have the highest resolution originals possible. Even at 4x6, there is improvement to be gained from, at a minimum, a 2 megapixel image (1600x1200). This depends partially on your output equipment.

Now there is a limit, and that limit is called RAW. Shooting raw is an entirely different proposition that requires special workflows, etc., and is really only suited for professionals and advanced amateurs who want to put in the time. But as far as JPG is concerned (99% of the cameras out there), you'll want to shoot the highest res possible.

One last caveat: At resolutions above 5 megapixel, there is a point of diminishing returns as far as print quality is concerned, unless you are doing extreme cropping or printing poster size. But frankly, I can't tell you how many times I have cropped a photo far more than I would have thought I'd want to, and believe me, you're grateful for every pixel you've got in that case.

It's easy to size down. It's not really possible to size up, however, and add in detail that wasn't there to begin with.

Shoot big. Size down later.

reservecops
08-09-2007, 10:37
:smiley2:
[QUOTE=reservecops;19389]You're welcome to disagree, but your opinion flies in the face of every piece of advice ever given by every professional photographer out there.Number one, we're not professional photographers. They get paid for their photos, so they have SPECIFIC REASON to shoot EVERY picture in ultra-high res mode.

Number two, you're paying little attention to what I said was MY justification.

I said, "For me: 99% of the pictures I take are for nothing more than either viewing on the computer or, if I do want to make prints, I rarely make anything bigger than a 4x6 or 5x7."

Now, if 99% of the pictures I take are for nothing more than viewing on the computer (i.e., non-MICRO level stuff) or printing out a 4x6, you're wrong in telling me that I need to take ALL my pictures in the HIGHEST RESOLUTION MODE that my camera supports.


Don't worry about space on your card. Memory cards are cheap. Buy another one if you're worried you'll run out of room. In fact, buying several and rotating them in is a good way to add simple flood insurance... at least you haven't lost ALL of your pictures!When I pack a sandwhich in my lunchbag, I don't pack it in a gallon sized Ziploc bag. WILL it do the trick? Yes. Is there any real need to use up resources, just because I MIGHT re-use that bag in one out of 100 instances? Nope, not at all. Should I pack it in there if I know that I'm going to re-use the bag and it HAS to be a gallon sized bag? Yes, in that situation.

Again ... if I KNOW that 99% of the pictures I take are going to be for nothing more than quickly viewing on the 'puter or printing a 4x6 to share, it makes ZERO sense to spend 5 or 10 times the space per picture.

Bottom line, if EVERYBODY is supposed to take EVERY picture in ONLY the HIGHEST resolution mode that their camera supports, why don't the camera manufacturers design and build cameras that ONLY support one (very high) resolution mode? :smiley2:

CompuDude
08-09-2007, 12:03
:smiley2:
[QUOTE=reservecops;19389]You're welcome to disagree, but your opinion flies in the face of every piece of advice ever given by every professional photographer out there.Number one, we're not professional photographers. They get paid for their photos, so they have SPECIFIC REASON to shoot EVERY picture in ultra-high res mode.
So... therefore nothing they recommend has any weight?


Number two, you're paying little attention to what I said was MY justification.

I said, "For me: 99% of the pictures I take are for nothing more than either viewing on the computer or, if I do want to make prints, I rarely make anything bigger than a 4x6 or 5x7."

Now, if 99% of the pictures I take are for nothing more than viewing on the computer (i.e., non-MICRO level stuff) or printing out a 4x6, you're wrong in telling me that I need to take ALL my pictures in the HIGHEST RESOLUTION MODE that my camera supports.

No, I'm not. You're welcome to do what works for you, but that doesn't make my advice wrong for everyone, just you.

It doesn't matter where you are viewing your pictures, if you end up cropping, which is often the case with underwater photos, you'll want more pixels. I already addressed the advantages of keeping at least a few more pixels than you recommended for printing, even at smaller 4x6 and 5x7 sizes.

"Non-MICRO level stuff"? What's that? Did you mean Macro? The mode you're using has little bearing on the size you should shoot... no matter how big or how wide you go, underwater there is always going to be something smaller that you may want to crop down to... and that's just not going to be possible shooting in minimum size modes.

It's not like it costs a bunch of money to shoot in high res mode, so why are you fighting it as if your life depends on it?


When I pack a sandwhich in my lunchbag, I don't pack it in a gallon sized Ziploc bag. WILL it do the trick? Yes. Is there any real need to use up resources, just because I MIGHT re-use that bag in one out of 100 instances? Nope, not at all. Should I pack it in there if I know that I'm going to re-use the bag and it HAS to be a gallon sized bag? Yes, in that situation.
Lousy analogy. You're ignoring the fact that for many people (again, you're free to do what you want... I couldn't care less what you do individually), there's actually a fairly decent chance they're going to want to crop... or accidentally get that once-in-a-lifetime dolphin shot. With your camera shooting in tiny photo mode, you'll never be able to do anything with it. Why limit yourself when it doesn't cost more, and isn't even inconvenient, which is where your sandwich bag analogy breaks down. It's one thing if you KNOW for CERTAIN that you won't end up wishing you had the larger bag at some point... but (a) the penalty is pretty darn low if you don't have a bigger sandwich bag compared to missing out on a once-in-a-lifetime (or even "best of the trip" photo) and (b) again, it's far more likely that someone will accidentally capture an amazing photo than need a bigger sandwich bag. You can always carry whatever you were going to put in the sandwich bag another way. But missed photos can never be retaken, and missing pixels can't magically be reconstituted.

Setting the camera one way vs. the other... ONCE... has no impact on the rest of your trip, it's not inconvenient, and it doesn't really cost any more. So what "resources" are you "using up"? A 4 gb memory card costs under $20... and soon, will surely cost even less.


Again ... if I KNOW that 99% of the pictures I take are going to be for nothing more than quickly viewing on the 'puter or printing a 4x6 to share, it makes ZERO sense to spend 5 or 10 times the space per picture.
"Spend"? What are you spending to take a 7 mp picture compared to a .25 mp picture? Is there a different in cost?

And again... bully for you. Glad you have something that works... for you. In fact, it's good that you mentioned it for others to read about. Where you went wrong is the vehement "disagreement" language used, because your advice is NOT correct for the majority of users, only people in your exact situation who are FULLY informed and yet still make the decision to limit their choices down the road. That's fine, as a possible alternative for that small segment. But it doesn't make it appropriate advice for everyone, or even the majority.


Bottom line, if EVERYBODY is supposed to take EVERY picture in ONLY the HIGHEST resolution mode that their camera supports, why don't the camera manufacturers design and build cameras that ONLY support one (very high) resolution mode? :smiley2:
(a) There ARE people in your situation. Realtors, for instance, particularly the barely-computer-literate ones, will often shoot at low res just to save them a minor resizing step later, when the photo of the house is destined for a low-quality brochure and web page. So there are people for whom it makes legitimate sense. They are the exception, however... and they're not asking for advice on underwater photography.

(b) Land photos are different from underwater photos.

(c) It doesn't cost them anything to have the option in the menu, and it does benefit a segment of the population.

(d) More modes = more "features" listed on a sales brochure.

skdvr
08-22-2007, 15:25
OK, just to give a good reason why I too will take all my photos at the highest possible resolution. This past weekend my wife took a shot from our boat of me and my buddy suface swimming back to the boat. Well it was a good shot just way to far away to print. So I took it into photoshop and croped it so that I could print it. The photo turned out great. If she had not taken the photo at the highest possible res then I could have done nothing with it except for look at it on my screen. 99% of the time any underwater photos for me will either be looked at on my computer or just 4x6 prints, but I would like the option to do more with them if I want to. I would hate to have something that I would like to work with and not be able to do anything with because I took a low res photo.

Onto the resizing tool. I too use photo shop all the time at work and I have it on my home computer as well. I am really quite comfortable using it, but when I want to do something quick just to post in a forum I just use Microsoft Paint. Just click on Image and then Stretch/Skew and I make the Horizontal and Vertical 20% of the original size (When I am using a 10.1 mp camera) and they are ready to post on here.

Just my .02

Have a good one...

Phil

Aussie
09-06-2007, 00:05
Thanks CompuDude,

Nice little program. Saves me sometime from going into Photoshop and doing it there for quick resizing.

Cheers Aussie

rtrski
09-14-2007, 21:54
...Again ... if I KNOW that 99% of the pictures I take are going to be for nothing more than quickly viewing on the 'puter or printing a 4x6 to share, it makes ZERO sense to spend 5 or 10 times the space per picture.

Bottom line, if EVERYBODY is supposed to take EVERY picture in ONLY the HIGHEST resolution mode that their camera supports, why don't the camera manufacturers design and build cameras that ONLY support one (very high) resolution mode? :smiley2:

I can see your point - storage efficiency - but since my camera comes with this neato dandy USB cable thingy and I can get the pictures off my memory card, I tend to agree with the 'take pics at the highest possible rez' advice. It takes quite a while to fill up a card with even 500 pictures, much less several thousand- plenty of time to download and wipe the card if it 'fills up' because you left it set high.

Besides, for me, while I can pick out the totally crap pictures and just delete them on-camera, there are many I can't easily tell (from a tiny 2"-3" LCD) whether they were as good as I wanted or not (yes, even using a zoom-in review), and whether they might be worth some postprocessing (sharpening, etc)...for that, the more rez I have to work with to begin with, the better the final product. Do all postprocessing at full scale, then resize at the end down to your keeper pixel count. As someone else pointed you, you might even rescue a 4x6 pic from a *crop* of the full frame, whereas if you dropped the resolution, you'd not be able to do that at all without having to resize 'up' and introducing artifacts and blur.

I'm all for not KEEPING all the pics in their original resolution, once I've done the triage to wipe the DOAs, shunt the barely-snapshot-worthy over for digit amputation, and select out the few that are worth microsurgical attention and possible Bionic Picture conversion for extra loving care in the private ward ;) , but for me I'll still probably take them all in the max rez I can underwater. (Ironically when above water with my little point-n-shoot I do often downscale the rez, for just party face-shots and whatnot...I guess it's a matter of knowing I can easily take another mundane personal snapshot, but might never get another chance at that particular underwater shot, so I want to do the "best" I can at that time....which being the beginner I am, ain't that great yet :D)

I've also noticed that Flickr automatically produces several rescaled options of your photos when you upload, from full size on down through several standard type resolutions for download. My admittedly small and weak gallery (one whole trip so far, first time with an external strobe, only about twenty 'keepers', and that's being generous) is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rtrski/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12999383@N02/)

TommyB
09-14-2007, 22:38
This is what I use on linux and on windows to resize etc
http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php

Mainly for resizeing / renaming 1000's of images via a script and or batch
processing

If I want to resize 1000's in some dir I just run imagemagic's convert util


for img in `ls *.jpg`
do
convert -resize 400x300 $img resized-$img
done
or to convert from png to jpg


#!/usr/bin/perl -w


@pngfiles = glob("/var/www/html/tc_pics/tc/images/thumbs/*.JPG"); # load all png file names into an array
foreach $pngfile (@pngfiles) { # go through array
$jpgfile = $pngfile;
$jpgfile =~ s/\.JPG/\.jpg/; # replace .png with .jpg
system ("/usr/bin/convert $pngfile $jpgfile"); # run convert
print("converted $pngfile to $jpgfile\n");
}


90% of the time I'm doing my image converts etc on linux due to the speed

jpep
09-16-2007, 13:12
If you use www.photobucket.com (http://www.photobucket.com) to host your photos for your web page or your post on here, you can resize them to a set resolution when you upload them, reducing a step of having to do it with a picture editor.

FYI.

I too have used photobucket and have set the resize function before uploading for use in posting on other sites. It works great and is easy to use.

I also like picassa for ease of use in making minor tweaks to photos, without having to deal with photoshop.

Question: How can I post pictures here that are already on photobucket? In the ST photogallery, I see that I can upload photos from my computer, but not a remote site like photobucket. I really don't feel like resizing all the pics on my hard drive that are too big to upload to the ST galleries.
Any insights are appreciated. Thanks!

bversteegh
10-22-2007, 23:06
If you use Image hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket (http://www.photobucket.com) to host your photos for your web page or your post on here, you can resize them to a set resolution when you upload them, reducing a step of having to do it with a picture editor.

FYI.

I too have used photobucket and have set the resize function before uploading for use in posting on other sites. It works great and is easy to use.

I also like picassa for ease of use in making minor tweaks to photos, without having to deal with photoshop.

Question: How can I post pictures here that are already on photobucket? In the ST photogallery, I see that I can upload photos from my computer, but not a remote site like photobucket. I really don't feel like resizing all the pics on my hard drive that are too big to upload to the ST galleries.
Any insights are appreciated. Thanks!


To post a picture from an online source (I use Flickr), you use the icon above that looks like a stamped envelop, and past the url for the photo. Or conversely, you can use the following tag:

URL

bperrybap
12-28-2007, 13:59
This is my favorite image tool for resizing, cropping, and image cleanup:
FastStone Image Viewer (http://www.faststone.org/)
Its free and I find I often don't need the artistic and layer features
of PhotoShop but often I do need more than just resizing or simple cropping.
It even knows about many cameras RAW modes and can do batch processing
on files.
For image cleanup, I prefer it to PhotoShop.

I have had trouble with several of the Microsoft photo tools removing
EXIF information and altering the jpeg compression and quality settings
so now I tend to avoid the MS tools.


--- bill

bperrybap
12-28-2007, 14:09
On the whole argument about whether to shoot in full resolution.....
Sometimes I do shoot in a lower resolution because there is a cost to
using higher resolution.
Larger files take longer to write which consumes more battery power
and hence generates more heat which increases the chance of fogging
up the lens.

On the SeaLife DC-500, heat, fogging, and battery life is a big issue.
So if I know I'll be taking a lot of pictures on a dive,
I may drop the resolution down to save battery power.
(Keep in mind this camera can eat up a full battery in less
that a single hour long dive, if you take lots of photos)

Also, reducing the image resolution, reduces the shot to shot time
as the image save time is reduced.

--- bill

RockDoc
01-26-2008, 10:32
I recently found an amazing plug-in for PhotoShop - it is called Genuine Fractals (see onOne Software - Genuine Fractals 5 (http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2)). The main purpose of the program is to up-scale digital images WITHOUT "jaggies" - as you might have noticed when you enlarge digital images, the image gets pixelated. Genuine Fractals upscales the image in a different way - it analyzes the fractal geometry of the image and then generates new pixels using a fractal algorithm. The result? You can upscale an image 500% or more without jaggies. In fact, you can even sharpen the image after up-scale. I've printed images as large as 13X19 (upscaled from 1 MB jpgs from my DC500 digital dive camera) with excellent results. As an added bonus, it has a great cropping feature: you can select the size and resolution of the final image, and GF overlays a mask with the correct aspect ratio. You then drag the corners and the mask moves, maintaining the correct aspect ratio. When you have it they way you want it, you hit enter, and GF crops and resizes. I use this feature ALL THE TIME. Pretty cool software.

Puffer Fish
01-29-2008, 18:12
On the whole argument about whether to shoot in full resolution.....
Sometimes I do shoot in a lower resolution because there is a cost to
using higher resolution.
Larger files take longer to write which consumes more battery power
and hence generates more heat which increases the chance of fogging
up the lens.

On the SeaLife DC-500, heat, fogging, and battery life is a big issue.
So if I know I'll be taking a lot of pictures on a dive,
I may drop the resolution down to save battery power.
(Keep in mind this camera can eat up a full battery in less
that a single hour long dive, if you take lots of photos)

Also, reducing the image resolution, reduces the shot to shot time
as the image save time is reduced.

--- bill
Ok, that just sucks....I did not know that, but that would be one major reason to get another camera...

I get upset because I can only get 2 to 3 hundred...

Yellowone
08-10-2008, 22:12
Infranview is also good..I used to use it to upload pics to my phone :)

kkw_archer
05-16-2009, 23:03
I too will have to give a thumbs up for Irfanview, especially for the price.