# The minimum number of mega pixles for webpage (digital camera) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 10, 2004, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811 "2004-01-10T09:17:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/1 "2004-01-10T09:17:55Z")
I was doing some consulting work for a hotel. And the GM approched me with an idea. He wanted me to make him an intranet site with all the hotels MANAGERS pictures on it. Now this is easy enough. HOWEVER this is the cheapest hotel I’ve dealt with. The site is free as we can piggyback off the corporate. So I say fine, get me a digital camera and we’ll take the photos. I don’t have one. I have no use for one really. Turns out no one in the hotel has one I can borrow. So what is the MINIMAL number of MP I can get and still have the photos show up decently. I have seen .35 MP for $30.00. I have done searches and they basically say for uploading photos the MP don’t matter. What is the recommendation. This guy doesn’t want to spend money. (If he has to spend more than 100.00 bucks forget it.) ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/2 "2004-01-10T09:26:50Z")
If you’re not using the photos for anything else, then a cheap camera will be fine. Pictures on web sites must by necessity be very small and low-resolution. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/3 "2004-01-10T09:28:17Z")
For website use only 2 MP is decent. It is a matter of opinion of course. A 3 megapixel camera will produce a sharp image that is wider and taller than your monitor at 1024x768 and most websites are designed to be viewed at less than that. If the pictures are intended for download - 3MP. If they are intended to serve as part of the website design and nothing else, then 2MP. ---
**Author:** ![Nanoda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Nanoda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanoda)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/4 "2004-01-10T10:38:06Z")
Figure you’re right that MP doesn’t _really_ matter. If the lens sucks or the colour balance is way off, it’s a bad camera anyhow. (If it takes pics at 1.3MP and expands them to 5MP and says it’s 5MP, it’s a _terrible_ camera!) [Imaging-resource.com](http://Imaging-resource.com) is a nice site (must remember to donate when I get Paypal). Their list of cameras by resolution has [these](http://www.imaging-resource.com/DIGCAM02.HTM) as the lowest. Some of the pictures are quite nice IMHO. OTOH, since these are older cameras, the MP might be low, but the rest of the camera was probably made with some care. The latest cheapo cameras could have been mass-produced in a sweatshop. Anyways, as you can see from the PDR-5 in that link, even a .35MP _can_ give good results, but depending on the rest of the camera, won’t necessarily. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/5 "2004-01-10T11:26:41Z")
Are you kidding? An ID-type photo for a web page need not be more than 150 x 200 pixels which is 30,000 pixels or 0,03 megapixels. _Any_ camera will give you way more resolution than you need. The cheapest webcam will give you more than ten times that. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/6 "2004-01-10T14:35:30Z")
Lobsang, 2MP is _massive_ overkill for website use. ---
**Author:** ![trabi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecae2f/32.png) [@trabi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabi)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/7 "2004-01-10T16:43:01Z")
You could also just take pictures using a regular camera and have the negs scanned to disk… ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/8 "2004-01-10T18:50:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trabi \* > \*\*You could also just take pictures using a regular camera and have the negs scanned to disk… \*\* Ugh. That seems like that should work well, but it often times seems to take a special flair for tweaking colour and resolution, as well as a decent scanner, to do it. Plus, the scanner might cost more than the camera. There are several 1.3MP cameras that can take very nice photos, very suitable for web pages. One can look just at the pixels and say that a much lower resolution camera would work, but in practice there seems to be a huge difference in the quality of image produced. Pictures taken with my sister’s camera (which was about 0.25MP) did not look nearly as good as pictures taken with fierra’s 1.3MP camera and shrunk down to the same end pixel size. Plus the slightly more expensive cameras, even on the low end, often have the advantage of better colour reproduction, better contrast, better focus, and better overall quality of image. Plus, there are still a lot of cheap cameras out there that won’t do faster than ISO200, meaning you have to use the flash for everything except sunlight. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/9 "2004-01-10T19:00:43Z")
I think perhaps **trabi** is suggesting getting a PhotoCD of film pictures made by a local lab. Ritz Camera and most one-hour processing places should offer that service. Cheaper than getting a digital camera, better quality than what you’ll find at the price range your looking at. ---
**Author:** ![Patr100](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@Patr100](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patr100)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/10 "2004-01-10T19:08:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*Are you kidding? An ID-type photo for a web page need not be more than 150 x 200 pixels which is 30,000 pixels or 0,03 megapixels. _Any_ camera will give you way more resolution than you need. The cheapest webcam will give you more than ten times that. \*\* Yep. Any webcam or most basic digi still cam will be adequate for web use. If you want be be able to make a reasonable print at say 6 by 4 ins then at least a megapixel 1.3 is recommended but just for screen viewing you need much much less. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/11 "2004-01-10T19:31:02Z")
Reverse the logic. > [@](#): > > Image resolution is a term used to describe raster graphics. It measures the number of dots or pixels in one linear inch of the image. Image resolution is measured in dots per inch or dpi. The higher the dpi, the crisper and finer the image. When an image has low dpi, it can have jagged edges and the dots will appear large and clunky. **Web graphics are saved at 72 dpi because that is the best resolution that monitors can display.** Professional print graphics are usually at least 300 dpi, and sometimes higher. (Emphasis mine.) Source: [http://www.design-works.com/resources/web\_graphics\_v\_print\_graphics.htm](http://www.design-works.com/resources/web_graphics_v_print_graphics.htm) Obtain a camera that will produce a minimum of 300 dpi so you can use the same image from print as well as the web. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/12 "2004-01-11T00:27:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by r\_k \* > \*\*Lobsang, 2MP is _massive_ overkill for website use. \*\* I know. But since even the cheapest cameras are at _least_ 2MP I figured I’d say 2MP. using higher MP is good anyway because you’ve got more room to modify and shrink, and a 2MP picture shrunk to 1MP looks better than a picture taken at 1MP. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/13 "2004-01-11T01:28:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duckster \* > Obtain a camera that will produce a minimum of 300 dpi so you can use the same image from print as well as the web. That’s meaningless. A camera does not produce any DPI. It has a number of pixels and you can print them at ant DPI you want. ---
**Author:** ![Patr100](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@Patr100](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patr100)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/14 "2004-01-11T01:42:09Z")
Where I come from, The cheapest decent webcam or stills cam would be 640 by 480 pixel resolution. The next up 1.3 megapixels not 2MP. remember Markxxx’s client doesn’t want to spend more than they have to. ---
**Author:** ![trabi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecae2f/32.png) [@trabi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabi)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2004, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-minimum-number-of-mega-pixles-for-webpage-digital-camera/223811/15 "2004-01-11T11:46:18Z")
> [@](#): > > I think perhaps **trabi** is suggesting getting a PhotoCD of film pictures made by a local lab. Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. 🙂