Android camera only takes massive 22MP pics. I only want 2MP.

[notposting]

Another app suggestion: ProShot

Without camera2 api support there are some limitations (manual ISO, shutter, focus, RAW support are the big ones) but still full featured.

Here's a video overview of the Android version.

(Note: it supports different formats/resolutions, and also has iOS and WP versions.)

 

[notposting]

I don't do the same thing regarding resolution, but can understand having a system that works - certainly sounds like OP has something that works and is satisfactory for him.

Different strokes and all.

 

[cronos]

I don't do the same thing regarding resolution, but can understand having a system that works - certainly sounds like OP has something that works and is satisfactory for him.

Different strokes and all.

Well obviously he's not satisfied or he wouldn't have posted this thread.

Anyway, different strokes are fine, everyone have their own reason so no problem with that, it's the title of this thread that we're making fun of

 

[Insomniator]

Unreal that someone would purposely shoot at 1/10 the quality and then mention 'long term storage.'

 

[shabby]

Realistically, I need 1MP maximum, not 22MP.
Quite literally, 1/20th the resolution is all most people need.
The excess can not physically be displayed anyway.

Bro... you serious? Just because you're legally blind doesn't mean the rest of us are.

 

[Raduque]

Good gravy... I can't facepalm hard enough.

GoodEnough: Please, for the love of God and the rest of our sanity, stop posting. Just... stop. It gets worse with everything you post!

Edit: I really think, as a whole, the forum just needs to start ignoring GoodEnough's posts.

 

[GoodEnough]

The last 3 posters are a good example of people who have no understanding of photography.

The uneducated masses only comprehend BIGGER NUMBER = BETTER (Metallica GOOD. Napster BAD)
"Benchmark geeks" self-select to AT, and therefore are prone to falling for marketing gimmicks.
They are the perfect target for the Megapixel Marketing Myth, a useless metric to get people to mindlessly upgrade their "outdated" products.
They blindly and linearly believe that "More Megapixels = Better Pictures".


People who know the first thing about photos, know this is completely misguided common perception.
The first and last word in photo quality is the sensor and lens, not the idiotic megapixel rating.

I'll say it again.
For photos being viewed online, and not printed into a poster, you DO NOT improve quality on a monitor after 3 megapixels.
A 26" monitor has 2 million pixels.
How exactly do you think a 2 million pixel display can display something with 22 million pixels? It doesn't. It downsamples.
It's actually worse quality to shoot with 22MP than with 2MP, provided you're viewing the photo on a 26" LCD (or smaller.... tablet, phone, etc)

Here is a short article if you want to learn something about pictures and cameras:
http://gizmodo.com/5888552/reminder-megapixels-dont-matter
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/how-many-megapixels-you-need,review-1974.html

 

[GoodEnough]

Can you have too many megapixels?

Having more pixels than you really need can actually hurt image quality. That’s because when you upload an overly large picture to social media, output it to a printer or send it to a photo book producer, your image will be downsized automatically. In other words, the software or upload process will randomly delete pixels without the smarts to understand what might be critical in the picture, such as the sparkle in a child’s eye or the razor-sharp edge of a leaf.

Photos with too many megapixels also take much longer to upload and might even fail partway through. And if you're uploading on the go, you're eating into your wireless data cap more than you need to.

What’s more, even in this era of remarkably inexpensive hard drives and memory cards, extra- large photo files will quickly fill up storage space with unnecessary data that you probably won’t need, use or want.

Of course with the continuing megapixel inflation by camera makers, you may have no choice but to buy a camera with far more resolution than you need. Fortunately, traditional digital cameras, as well as camera apps for smartphones, allow you to adjust the resolution down, which is one option.

How many megapixels do you need for social network photos?

If, like many people, you never plan to print your pictures, your megapixel requirements will be far less. A Twitter photo, for example, measures just 375 x 375 pixels, which equals a mere 0.15 megapixels. A Facebook timeline photo, at 960 x 720, requires 0.69 megapixels.

 

[GoodEnough]

Here is why higher megapixels result in WORSE photos:

"What ended up happening is that the light would go into the well [the 'bucket'] and hit the photo-sensitive part of the image sensor, capturing the light. So if you make the wells smaller, the light has a harder time getting to the photo-sensitive part of the sensor. In the end, increased resolution wasn't worth very much. Noise increased," he said.

The relationship between the number of pixels and the physical size of the sensor is why some 8-megapixel cameras can outperform some 12-, 13-, or even 16-megapixel smartphone cameras.

http://www.cnet.com/news/camera-megapixels-why-more-isnt-always-better-smartphones-unlocked/

 

[Commodus]

Here is why higher megapixels result in WORSE photos:


http://www.cnet.com/news/camera-megapixels-why-more-isnt-always-better-smartphones-unlocked/

There are two major problems with your argument.

First, that particular article is talking about megapixels in relation to sensor size. It's one thing to have an 8-megapixel camera in the physical space of a 22-megapixel one; it's another to simply crop a 22-megapixel shot. It also doesn't say much about how technology is improving the quality relative to resolution. A 12-megapixel phone camera would have been a noisy mess when the technology was new, but modern 12MP cameras can take bright, clean photos most of the time.

The second bit is that you're making some huge (and generally incorrect) assumptions about both downscaling and the value of cropping. You're rarely losing significant portions of a shot when you downscale it to a computer or phone display. A pro photographer working on magazine spreads should care about losing detail; someone posting to Facebook or Twitter shouldn't. And besides, high resolutions are virtually necessary in an era when optical zoom isn't really practical on most phones. It's the difference between getting a decent close-up of a concert stage and having to stay zoomed out to maintain a sharp picture.

If you're truly committed to this whole "downscaling is the devil incarnate" philosophy, please let us know when you're buying a 5K iMac. It's the only (realistic) way you're going to see modern phone camera images at full detail on a computer screen. The rest of us are going to relax and enjoy the benefits of higher-resolution photos regardless of where we're viewing them.

 

[shabby]

Here is a short article if you want to learn something about pictures and cameras:
http://gizmodo

Hehehehehe gizmodo hahahahHAHAHAHAHAHASHDUIHAISUDHHAHA

Which of those articles states that 1mp is enough? I don't think you even read those articles because they don't backup anything that you've said.

 

[sweenish]

So, according to you, if my sensor and lens rock I should be fine with VGA.

The very simple fact of the matter is that your argument is already lost because YOU HAVE A 22 MP sensor in your phone. You turning down the resolution means garbage, as the arguments you are incorrectly citing are talking about the camera module as it's built, not how you change the settings in the app.

Since the human ear generally can't distinguish a V0 lossy encoding from true source, I should be more than fine using something like 192 kbps mp3's for archival purposes. That's you.

And the major point you're choosing to ignore is that MEGAPIXELS AREN'T EVERYTHING. At NO point will you find any article saying that you can safely ignore the MP rating. If you do, they are a bogus source. The simple fact is that you need resolution to capture detail. It's simply not the end-all spec. But naturally, you take it too far all in the name of "good enough." Your user name should honestly be "bare minimum." I have yet to see anything you've chosen to do actually be "good enough." You don't find a solid middle ground, ever. You ignore use cases, common sense, and just about everything else just to meet one (one) misguided belief.

In this thread, it's the idea that snapping a picture at 1920x1080 natively is a good idea because TODAY you have a 1080p monitor and CURRENTLY don't print anything out.

I hope you really enjoy that moment when you snap a picture that would look great on a wall and realize you can't do better than a 3x5.

 

[GoodEnough]

In 20 years of digital photography, I have never printed one single photo.
I stated multiple times that I do not crop ANY photo, I do not ZOOM any photo, I do not PRINT any photo.
Nor will I ever in this lifetime. Yes, those are MY use case requirements. You do not dictate the user's reqs, the user does.

I hope people learned something from my posts, since they have exhibited zero understanding of photography beyond "bigger number is better"

I installed Camera ZOOM FX and was not able to find how to control the resolution size.
I will now move onto another app that allows control of file size.

 

[GoodEnough]

So, according to you, if my sensor and lens rock I should be fine with VGA.
.

No, I stated repeatedly that my monitor is 2 million pixels.
No more, no less. This is not rocket science, just basic math.

 

[GoodEnough]

Since the human ear generally can't distinguish a V0 lossy encoding from true source, I should be more than fine using something like 192 kbps mp3's for archival purposes.

Now you're starting to get it. Unless you plan on listening to your mp3 collection with bats and moths.

 

[GoodEnough]

And the major point you're choosing to ignore is that MEGAPIXELS AREN'T EVERYTHING. At NO point will you find any article saying that you can safely ignore the MP rating. If you do, they are a bogus source. The simple fact is that you need resolution to capture detail. It's simply not the end-all spec. But naturally, you take it too far all in the name of "good enough." Your user name should honestly be "bare minimum." I have yet to see anything you've chosen to do actually be "good enough." You don't find a solid middle ground, ever. You ignore use cases, common sense, and just about everything else just to meet one (one) misguided belief.

Everything you say is always wrong, it's uncanny.

Did I ever say "ignore megapixel"? No, I said I need a maximum of 2 million pixels in any device I own (or will ever own while viewing these photos). So, I need a camera with two megapixels. I want 2 megapixel photos. No more, no less. It's not rocket science.

 

[GoodEnough]

In this thread, it's the idea that snapping a picture at 1920x1080 natively is a good idea because TODAY you have a 1080p monitor and CURRENTLY don't print anything out.

Did it ever occur to you that the photos *I* take this year will NEVER be viewed again after 2016?
You're finally understanding what we call "use case". That is my use case.

 

[monkey333]

In 20 years of digital photography, I have never printed one single photo.
I stated multiple times that I do not crop ANY photo, I do not ZOOM any photo, I do not PRINT any photo.
Nor will I ever in this lifetime. Yes, those are MY use case requirements. You do not dictate the user's reqs, the user does.

I hope people learned something from my posts, since they have exhibited zero understanding of photography beyond "bigger number is better"

I installed Camera ZOOM FX and was not able to find how to control the resolution size.
I will now move onto another app that allows control of file size.

You admit defeat in finding the resolution settings in zoom FX (not hard btw) but claim to be some 20 year digital photog expert?
LOL..

 

[sweenish]

Did it ever occur to you that the photos *I* take this year will NEVER be viewed again after 2016?
You're finally understanding what we call "use case". That is my use case.

Then why the hell are you even taking pictures in the first place?

There is literally zero point in capturing a moment in time only to never go back to it.

 

[shabby]

Did it ever occur to you that the photos *I* take this year will NEVER be viewed again after 2016?
You're finally understanding what we call "use case". That is my use case.

I think you just stumbled onto a solution... delete the photos since you will never view them again, no need to worry about how much space they take or how many pixels they are.

 

[monkey333]

Then why the hell are you even taking pictures in the first place?

There is literally zero point in capturing a moment in time only to never go back to it.

Yeah i was thinking this too.

 

[Commodus]

The problem, GoodEnough, is that you aren't just saying "this is just for me, I'm fine with what you do." You've been trying to tell people here that their usage patterns are wrong. You've been making bad assumptions about what they value (no, we're not "megapixels are everything"). And frankly, you've been describing a very unusual, very niche approach to photography that doesn't gel with what most reasonable people consider when taking photos.

Most people have no reason to worry about downscaling or cropping. Most people have good reasons to take the highest-resolution photos they can, if just for the sake of futureproofing their collections. And of course, most people capture photos with the intent of keeping them for more than a year. If you can accept these truths, please reflect that in your posts -- otherwise, you deserve the criticism you're getting.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The problem, GoodEnough, is that you aren't just saying "this is just for me, I'm fine with what you do." You've been trying to tell people here that their usage patterns are wrong. You've been making bad assumptions about what they value (no, we're not "megapixels are everything"). And frankly, you've been describing a very unusual, very niche approach to photography that doesn't gel with what most reasonable people consider when taking photos.

Most people have no reason to worry about downscaling or cropping. Most people have good reasons to take the highest-resolution photos they can, if just for the sake of futureproofing their collections. And of course, most people capture photos with the intent of keeping them for more than a year. If you can accept these truths, please reflect that in your posts -- otherwise, you deserve the criticism you're getting.

Honestly this thread is full of garbage. I've been trying to read this objectively, but you guys just are so full of ego it's caused all the problems in this thread.

1. OP came in here asking for how to turn down the resolution.

2. No one cared for to help him out. No instead we had to nitpick on the use "Android" and pwning him with the post from cronos. No one cared to ask what model, what software, what camera app.

3. The few people that did suggest an app, that was cool.

4. The rest of you nitpicked on his methods, using Google Photo backup, just getting a bigger SD card, etc.

Look, if the OP has a reasonable question, why not answer it? You can perhaps add some critique of his workflow and suggest an improvement, but his original request wasn't something completely outrageous.

With that said, I shoot full resolution on my cameraphone. Why not, storage is cheap, and even if storage is a problem, that's why I invested in a 128gb phone. I can also see why Google Photos isn't a solution. If I use a 32gb phone with no SD Card (ahem Nexus 5X), and with limited data, I would not want to rely on Google Photos. Heck I'm not even overly satisfied with Google Photos myself. It's often slow and clunky compared to the old AOSP browser. It will pause for a solid 5 seconds or so just to load your local folders. I can understand if the Online part is slow, but it's just poorly designed. Compare to other gallery apps like Smugmug which is fully cloud based, and you can see how slow Photos is. I can see why someone doesn't want to rely on cloud photos.

Finally, while I don't think 1-2MP is enough, it certainly is enough for viewing on Instagram and Facebook, which is what 95% of iPhone users and in general mobile users are doing. If that's all the OP is concerned with, then let him be. Just answer his question about how to obtain 2MP photos. I can't believe how this board is so toxic with people so insistent on how their workflow is the best and no one else can deviate. The only reason the OP even got defensive was because you guys were so hostile to begin with.

 

[shabby]

Great, now dlerium is butt hurt too...

The op couldn't spend 5 minutes googling or trying different apps to avoid this mess?

 

[ChronoReverse]

That's BS DLerium.

The very first post at least asks if the OP had checked the settings and it was established in the first page that the user has an unusual phone that doesn't have settings for the resolution in the stock application.

This is despite abusive language from the OP when asked to try things like tapping the resolution text, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to try even if it didn't work.

Then it turns out the OP is too lazy to even adjust the settings in Camera Zoom FX and would rather insist anyone who takes high resolution pictures are idiots.


Of course everyone is going to be snarky with him, the OP has a history of contradictory and short-sighted comments that he claims anyone who disagrees is an idiot.