| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/27/2012 11:39:04 AM · #51 |
|
|
|
06/27/2012 09:15:35 PM · #52 |
| Obama thinks four is plenty and anyone with more should give the others to him so he can re-distribute. |
|
|
|
06/27/2012 09:22:44 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Obama thinks four is plenty and anyone with more should give the others to him so he can re-distribute. |
hahaha great! |
|
|
|
06/27/2012 09:39:25 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Obama thinks four is plenty and anyone with more should give the others to him so he can re-distribute. |
Apparently Romney thinks a few billion isn't enough, and wants people who earn their income to give him some more ... |
|
|
|
06/27/2012 09:59:10 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Obama thinks four is plenty and anyone with more should give the others to him so he can re-distribute. |
Apparently Romney thinks a few billion isn't enough, and wants people who earn their income to give him some more ... |
Touché... +1 |
|
|
|
06/27/2012 10:05:28 PM · #56 |
Oh yeah!! Well my mega-capitalist, free trading, rich guy can beat your commie-socialist, free trading, rich guy!!
Let's see who can sell off America quicker while convincing the electorate their vision for the peasant class is best.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2012 10:19:38 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by dali_lama_2k:
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? |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
 I have this (and a few others) printed on aluminum @ 20" x 30"..
This was shot on my 50D @ 15MP, and I've got to say, people do look at this as though it is a spy plane photograph, and they are rewarded with rich details. Everyone really loves this print - but me? I really do wish I'd had about 36MP to work with - the quality would be admittedly better - I can absolutely see lack of resolution playing in. So need is totally subjective, depending on audience. My problem is that I'm trying to please myself.
Message edited by author 2012-06-27 22:26:07. |
|
|
|
06/27/2012 11:40:48 PM · #58 |
| When I was in Bryce Canyon a month back one of my pals there had a D800. I can tell you the noise levels were nothing to worry about while shooting the milky way (ie. dark photography). He had pretty impressive stuff although I didn't get to the level of pixel peeping. |
|
|
|
06/29/2012 02:59:55 PM · #59 |
4-6Mp is plenty for any pic I am able to compose well.
Message edited by author 2012-06-30 17:32:52. |
|
|
|
06/29/2012 03:26:43 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The numbers sound outrageous, for sure. Heck, my first DSLR was 6.3Mpx, and it held its own against popular 35mm color slide films in the resolution department... not so much in other areas. My second DSLR has 12.7Mpx, exactly double my first, and the difference is big, but as techies we know that to double the resolution (in line pairs per picture height) we need to have 4 times as many pixels. So I'd need 24Mpx to double the resolution of my trusty ol' Canon 10D.
As storage becomes ever cheaper and computers capable of processing the gigantic files (or so they seem today) without breaking a sweat, the answer to "how many do we need?" is inevitably "however many we can pack in." Of course, we give up in noise, but we can always downsample and get it right back. Oversampling and binning has other advantages as well, such as sampling all colors for each (binned) pixel. To me, the only real disadvantage of the high pixel density is lower full-well capacity, which limits dynamic range. As long as they pay attention to moving forward with areas of image quality *other* than resolution, I'm fine with the higher pixel counts. They just give me more flexibility in processing. |
Pretty well sums up my thoughts on it. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 06:05:43 PM EDT.
