One
of the most misused features of cameras to date is the spec
called ‘Resolution’. To many, resolution is the
feature that gets priority, and “more resolution means
a better camera”. In many ways, though, the highest
resolution cameras may not be the best answer for your application.
The issue of resolution must be addressed in relation to
the purpose for the images. Given that most images used for
documentation are for oral presentations, written reports,
or shared via email, using a super high resolution camera
may be overkill for your application.
Considering the following:
• Most digital projectors do not go
above 1280 x 1024 display resolution.
• Most people receiving email do not want huge images sent
as attachments.
• Most network administrators do not want large image files
taking up precious server space
The balance between resolution and functionality must be
critically examined. The PAXcam offers solutions at different
resolutions, including the standard 2megapixel (1600x1200)
which is sufficient for most Pathology documentation needs.
Are there instances where high resolution is needed in
a camera? Absolutely, and they typically involve either a
need to print very large prints, the need to make very accurate
measurements of small objects, or the documentation of large
fields of view (low magnification photography). For routine
documentation, measurement, and communication with microscopy
images however, the highest resolution picture is not always
better for the application. The highest resolution cameras
will end up costing more money, taking up more resources
for storage and manipulation of images, and being less flexible
when sharing or communicating with others.
For labs where routine documentation and high resolution
work are both being done, the
PAXcam ARC (adjustable resolution camera) is the answer.
With resolution adjustable from 1.3megapixel to 20megapixel,
the flexibility is there to cover the spectrum of needs that
can present themselves.
|
