| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/06/2012 03:18:11 PM · #26 |
That would depend on the image being viewed, and how it is viewed....
If we are talking 4X6 print, or on a computer monitor, 16-24mp is overkill. If we are talking about a 20X30 poster, then more detail might be noticeable.
If you are talking about doing commercial work, more is better. Just because the customer thinks bigger is better. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 03:22:08 PM · #27 |
| I have 16x24s on the wall printed from my first 300D (6.3mp) and they look just fine. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 04:23:23 PM · #28 |
Mega-megapixel numbers are used mostly to drive consumer demand. What about the early days when there were a measly 1-2mp in a professional, commercial-use camera? Did anybody have any issues with those? Take in consideration how close you will stand to a 20x30 poster. Likely too far away to notice pixelation at ANY mp resolution. Don't forget either that sensor size is a major issue, if you increase the number of pixels without increasing the area you run into hot pixel problems, among other things, and I don't know about you but pictures taken by my old 6mp (or is it 8? doesn't matter :-P ) APS-C compared to those on a 14mp point and shoot micro-4/3 are a LOT finer, or at least SEEM so, and isn't perception the final decision maker in real life anyway?
More pixels only gives greater opportunity to crop, or to minimize pixelation on humongous blow-ups for people who like to stand inches from the poster.
Hey, DrAchoo, how do people look at your poster? Do they stand waaayy back and admire the image in its entirety, or do they scrutinize it as if it were a spy plane photograph?
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 16:26:22. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 05:03:34 PM · #29 |
| Well, it was hanging in my house, but I'd say it looked pretty good from even 2-3 feet away. The noise was much more of an issue than the actual resolution. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 05:20:05 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, it was hanging in my house, but I'd say it looked pretty good from even 2-3 feet away. The noise was much more of an issue than the actual resolution. |
A long time ago I made a 20" x 30" print of this, which originated with a 1.92MP (1600 x 1200) image from my Olympus.
Jaggies, awful noise, a bit of blur ... all present, and almost irrelevant when looking at it from a normal viewing distance of 3-5 feet. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 06:02:49 PM · #31 |
Good discussion.
As some have rightly pointed out, increasing the megapixel count can impact other parameters too. This new generation of CMOS chips have many attributes being improved simultaneously, for example reduction in thermal noise levels, reduced power consumption resulting in longer battery life, better error correction, new enhancement features for image manipulation, multiple colour depth choices, more accurate processing algorithms, etc.
So, with the greater resolution comes an array of benefits to the photographer not seen before in past generations of CCD or CMOS sensors.
There was a wonderful point made about the sensors exceeding the quality of the optics. Now more than ever it seems that owning quality glass is vitally important. All of those low cost plastic lens will not likely stand up to the demands of these new sensors.
Progress is never-ending, we must continually pursue the best innovations - the art of the possible.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 06:21:38 PM · #32 |
I agree that an excellent large image can be produced from a camera with relatively few megapixels. The question was whether anyone could see a difference in resolution. I believe the answer to that is yes.
"Less is more." Edmund (Jerry) Brown Jr.
"More is better." John Holmes. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 07:20:19 PM · #33 |
Sometimes, less is more...
Originally posted by ambaker:
I agree that an excellent large image can be produced from a camera with relatively few megapixels. The question was whether anyone could see a difference in resolution. I believe the answer to that is yes.
"Less is more." Edmund (Jerry) Brown Jr.
"More is better." John Holmes. |
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 07:28:16 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Sometimes, less is more...
Originally posted by ambaker:
I agree that an excellent large image can be produced from a camera with relatively few megapixels. The question was whether anyone could see a difference in resolution. I believe the answer to that is yes.
"Less is more." Edmund (Jerry) Brown Jr.
"More is better." John Holmes. |
|
And sometimes more is better.
There will always be situations where more pixels will be beneficial, just like there will always be situations where less pixels will be beneficial. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 07:46:41 PM · #35 |
Ambaker, in regard to GeneralE and DrAchoo's testimonials, imho I'm inclined to politely disagree with your view that the average person could discern an appreciative increase in quality when observing at an appropriate distance and as further evidence I suggest taking into consideration the average billboard which, at sizes that can exceed 20x30 FEET and likely taken with a medium mp range camera (say 25mp), look perfectly fine.
Further evidence of my suggestion that huge mp counts are, for at least the majority of sub-pro camera owners, a consumer driving mechanism above much else is the high probability that if you ask most people with a camera to tell you about it that the first thing they brag about is the resolution.
Only a person who REALLY knows what's important about a camera will not, they will probably mumble something about it being "just a little old thing, no big deal." That's because NOTHING matters about the camera except for what's behind it (and y'all know who I paraphrased THAT from!). |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 07:58:49 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Most of you will have noticed the dramatic increase in megapixel counts for the amazing new cameras hitting the market already this year - Nikon D800, Canon 5D MK III, Sony A&& and NEX7 for example. It seems not so long ago that we crossed the 10 Mp resolution standard; now we begin a new era with more than 20 Mp as the typical new minimum. Even last week, we saw the new Nokia cellular telephone introduced with a 41 Mp count. Where does it end? What do we really need? Do we sacrifice anything to gain these enormous pixel counts? Are all chips the same? Are all CMOS photosites the same? What differences are there due to FX versus APS versus 4:3, etc.? Is it just a ploy to get us all to buy new equipment or are we actually gaining benefits from these innovations?
When is enough megapixels enough? |
"640K of memory really ought to be enough." - Bill Gates
Seriously - too much is never enough in today's world. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 08:03:44 PM · #37 |
A 6MP camera can reach a 16x20 print at (what's considered an "acceptable") 150 DPI without resampling; not that many people are going to print many images larger than that. What's far more important is the quality of each pixel -- fewer, larger sensing cells will yield far superior performance in low-light situations, where the additional sharpness provided by faster shutter speeds will probably outweigh any increase in details made possible by dividing the image into more pixels.
My 6MP sensor is enough pixels for me to get by with size-wise, but the small sensor makes it almost unusable above ISO 200, where larger dSLR sensors are now yielding "good" results at ISO 3200 and above -- several stops of flexibility I don't have.
Probably something around 6-12MP should be plenty for the casual snapshooter, and maybe 24 for the serious (but not "pro") photographer. Really, the main advantage of mucho more pixels is the ability to crop significantly while still having a decent-sized image. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 08:07:11 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Seriously - too much is never enough in today's world. |
Just remember you'll have to keep backing up that data over and over and over again as technology/storage media evolve; worse, you may have to convert the format of all the data at some point. I don't like to throw out any pictures, so I don't really want files that are much larger than they have to be for any anticipated needs. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 08:28:11 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Probably something around 6-12MP should be plenty for the casual snapshooter, and maybe 24 for the serious (but not "pro") photographer. Really, the main advantage of mucho more pixels is the ability to crop significantly while still having a decent-sized image. |
I agree for the most part, but I don't agree that the only reason to be beyond 24Mpx is cropping. For landscape work, if I could have 40+ I'd take it, even if it meant being a little oversampled. Somehow we've gotten ourselves convinced that if a photo is oversampled, it's "soft" and that this is a defect. It is not, unless it lacks the desired level of detail. Good digital files should not be "crunchy" and have hard pixel-to-pixel transitions. That's a sign of under-sampling, which is a bad thing, but we've lived with it for so long that we consider it good, being a sign that we are getting all we can out of the system.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 11:14:40 PM · #40 |
Often, when viewing new technology, I ask myself, does this make me say, "WOW". In most cases no, it does not. However, the new Nikon D800 does, and for that matter, so does the new Sony NEX7. I have not seen the new Canon 5dIII yet, but I suspect that it is equally impressive.
Hard drive storage space is one of the lowest cost commodities in computing today, so I have no real concerns regarding the larger file sizes. Besides, I have been scan Hasselblad 6x6 images at 4k x 4x for years resulting in 64 MB images and have had no problems so far. So, this is not a concern for me.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 11:49:49 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
The new Nikon d800 has 76mb raw files |
I'd be surprised if they were anywhere near that big. The RAW data is pretty compressible, and normally RAW files are perhaps 1.2 to 1.3 bytes per pixel in size. So I'd expect a RAW file for a 36Mpx image would be in the range of 45MB. Still a big-arse file. |
I agree: my d7000 is 16.2Mpix, and RAW file sizes tend to be around 18-22 MB.
But, yep, 45MB is still big, and the associated PSD/TIFFs when working with the images are gonna be monsters. |
|
|
|
03/07/2012 12:44:12 AM · #42 |
|
|
|
03/07/2012 01:36:32 AM · #43 |
i would love to see one of these printed wall height.....
gigapixel |
|
|
|
03/07/2012 09:56:59 AM · #44 |
It's a combination of things for me.
I'd have to say that my 12.2MP D2x takes the best looking shots under ideal conditions, followed by my 16.2MP D7000, 10.2MP D200, and lastly, my old 6.1MP D70s.
Yet the bridge image to the left in this display is three by five and a half feet....taken with the 6.1MP D70s.
The three by four foot steam locomotive was taken with my 10.2MP D200.
It seems that any decent DSLR under the right conditions takes exceptional images that will work well blown up. I haven't figured out exactly what those conditions are such that I can do it every time, but I'm workin' on it! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
03/07/2012 09:56:59 AM · #45 |
It's a combination of things for me.
I'd have to say that my 12.2MP D2x takes the best looking shots under ideal conditions, followed by my 16.2MP D7000, 10.2MP D200, and lastly, my old 6.1MP D70s.
Yet the bridge image to the left in this display is three by five and a half feet....taken with the 6.1MP D70s.
The three by four foot steam locomotive was taken with my 10.2MP D200.
It seems that any decent DSLR under the right conditions takes exceptional images that will work well blown up. I haven't figured out exactly what those conditions are such that I can do it every time, but I'm workin' on it! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
03/07/2012 10:19:27 AM · #46 |
Jeb,
I have owned D1, D1x, D2x, and D3. Normally, I run these cameras in pairs so I have the ability to assess them against each other. I have owned D100 and still own a D300 too. Recently, I have decided to take a pass on the D4 in favour of the D800.
In each case I found justifiable image improvements generation by generation. The D3 was without a doubt the best yet, mostly due to its outstanding low light / high ISO performance. After a while, the resolution variances between generations became meaningless. But, the overall enhancements delivered greater results with each generation.
Now with the D800 coming in three weeks, I hope to see a return to improvements in resolution. With that said, I am unwilling to lose any of the other performance characteristics earned over the years, especially low image noise. So, we will need to wait and see if Nikon can deliver the greater resolution without sacrificing the colourimetry, noise, colour depth, and general cleanliness of the image.
Michael
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's a combination of things for me.
I'd have to say that my 12.2MP D2x takes the best looking shots under ideal conditions, followed by my 16.2MP D7000, 10.2MP D200, and lastly, my old 6.1MP D70s.
Yet the bridge image to the left in this display is three by five and a half feet....taken with the 6.1MP D70s.
The three by four foot steam locomotive was taken with my 10.2MP D200.
It seems that any decent DSLR under the right conditions takes exceptional images that will work well blown up. I haven't figured out exactly what those conditions are such that I can do it every time, but I'm workin' on it! LOL!!! |
|
|
|
|
03/07/2012 11:33:53 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
I have owned D1, D1x, D2x, and D3. Normally, I run these cameras in pairs so I have the ability to assess them against each other. I have owned D100 and still own a D300 too. Recently, I have decided to take a pass on the D4 in favour of the D800.
In each case I found justifiable image improvements generation by generation. The D3 was without a doubt the best yet, mostly due to its outstanding low light / high ISO performance. After a while, the resolution variances between generations became meaningless. But, the overall enhancements delivered greater results with each generation.
Now with the D800 coming in three weeks, I hope to see a return to improvements in resolution. With that said, I am unwilling to lose any of the other performance characteristics earned over the years, especially low image noise. So, we will need to wait and see if Nikon can deliver the greater resolution without sacrificing the colourimetry, noise, colour depth, and general cleanliness of the image.
Michael |
I recall your insight on Nikon gear from a decade ago. At that time I think you were shooting Towers. Good to read your latest thread, thoughts and direction. Well timed as I have been considering an upgrade. |
|
|
|
03/07/2012 08:53:09 PM · #48 |
Yes, still shooting communication towers all over the world. Worked in nine countries in 2011. Good memory.
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Morgan:
I have owned D1, D1x, D2x, and D3. Normally, I run these cameras in pairs so I have the ability to assess them against each other. I have owned D100 and still own a D300 too. Recently, I have decided to take a pass on the D4 in favour of the D800.
In each case I found justifiable image improvements generation by generation. The D3 was without a doubt the best yet, mostly due to its outstanding low light / high ISO performance. After a while, the resolution variances between generations became meaningless. But, the overall enhancements delivered greater results with each generation.
Now with the D800 coming in three weeks, I hope to see a return to improvements in resolution. With that said, I am unwilling to lose any of the other performance characteristics earned over the years, especially low image noise. So, we will need to wait and see if Nikon can deliver the greater resolution without sacrificing the colourimetry, noise, colour depth, and general cleanliness of the image.
Michael |
I recall your insight on Nikon gear from a decade ago. At that time I think you were shooting Towers. Good to read your latest thread, thoughts and direction. Well timed as I have been considering an upgrade. |
|
|
|
|
06/27/2012 09:31:33 AM · #49 |
Morgan -
As posted previously, I've read your insight for many years and have valued your opinions. I decided to go with a D700 (for many reasons but primarily current prices + Fx = value). The megapixel count (12) was originally a concern in light of this thread and the anticipated leap of digital captures in the very near future. My reasoning was fairly simple. 1) the D700 was pretty nice leap from my D70 and 2) my glass would be optimized on the Fx format. My research (linked below) confirmed for me my decision was right for my needs. However - each Fotog has their own requirements.
Ken Rockwell
"For most people and family pictures, 12MP is too much. 6MP is enough even for great 12 x 18" prints, so I usually shoot at M image size (3,182 x 2,120 pixels). To change the pixel dimensions (image size), hold the QUAL button and move the front dial one click to the right. You'll see the L change to an M on the top LCD"
Link 2
"As judged against an average 35mm photo taken on good quality, typical ISO-range film printed at a standard size, most manufacturers seem to suggest that a 6 to 9 megapixel digital camera will give you comparable image quality"
Audorama
"Pixel Theory Revisited
Why are more pixels worse? Every time a camera maker puts more megapixels on the same size sensor, each pixel must be shrunk, which means less light will be allowed in at each pixel. (Remember how smaller apertures let less light in? It applies the same way with pixel size!) In addition, larger sensors or sensors with fewer pixels have a septum separating each pixel that block stray light from entering neighboring pixels. With each micron of space at a premium on the sensor, these septums are removed, and the result is light spilling from one pixel into another. This is what gives images shot by high megapixel sensor cameras a foggy, low contrast look in certain situations." |
|
|
|
06/27/2012 11:29:39 AM · #50 |
by george
stupid question
like asking is 150 iq alright for your children
or mmaybe 200 is to much?
in a few years the thing will be outdated anyway
grow up
even cameras will be in the history books only
and museums of course |
|
