DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Photoshop - increasing size -width x Height pixels
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 8 of 8, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/06/2007 11:00:13 PM · #1
Hello,

I have a 6mp Nikon. I have been thinking about moving up to the d200 for the MP but for many other reasons...one being the time lapse feature. What should I expect to see in pic quality b/c of the 4mp difference?

I do a lot of cropping. Would I see a better/bigger difference when cropping in on my subject in photoshop.

Now for the question in my subject:

What is the difference in true megapixels and just increasing the size of my "document/picture" in photoshop from 3000 x 2000 (6mp) to 4400 x 2900 (10mp range) using bicubic smoothing?
 03/06/2007 11:04:31 PM · #2
Originally posted by kenskid:
What is the difference in true megapixels and just increasing the size of my "document/picture" in photoshop from 3000 x 2000 (6mp) to 4400 x 2900 (10mp range) using bicubic smoothing?

The difference is whether the extra pixels are captured from the scene in front of the lens or made up in Photoshop.
 03/06/2007 11:22:18 PM · #3
Yes but to my eye...is there much of a difference between the two?

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kenskid:
What is the difference in true megapixels and just increasing the size of my "document/picture" in photoshop from 3000 x 2000 (6mp) to 4400 x 2900 (10mp range) using bicubic smoothing?

The difference is whether the extra pixels are captured from the scene in front of the lens or made up in Photoshop.
03/07/2007 09:18:57 AM · #4
bump fo my pixels

Message edited by author 2007-03-07 09:19:09.
 03/07/2007 10:01:58 AM · #5
Well Kenny ... whether or not you are going to see a difference between the two at 640 X competition size will depend on how heavily you cropped it ... You will SURELY see a difference in high res prints when you start with almost double the pixels. When enlarging (resizing bigger) PhotoShop can only work with what it has.

I just tried an experiment ... I just grabbed the first snapshot from my desktop workshop folder that I saw then cropped a chunk out of it. Then I resized it down to half size then resized it back up again (twice to exaggerate the effect) I think you will see a HUGE difference here.


03/07/2007 11:03:20 AM · #6
Originally posted by kenskid:
Hello,

I have a 6mp Nikon. I have been thinking about moving up to the d200 for the MP but for many other reasons...one being the time lapse feature. What should I expect to see in pic quality b/c of the 4mp difference?

I do a lot of cropping. Would I see a better/bigger difference when cropping in on my subject in photoshop.

Now for the question in my subject:

What is the difference in true megapixels and just increasing the size of my "document/picture" in photoshop from 3000 x 2000 (6mp) to 4400 x 2900 (10mp range) using bicubic smoothing?


Maybe think of it this way: if you can up-sample a 6mp to say (hypothetically) to 12mp without terrible results, then couldn't the same be said about 10mp being up-scaleable to 20mp?

Either way, the pixel count is 40% larger.

ALso, you're talking the quality of the given pixels. The D80 and D200 have better sensors, lower noise across the ISO range, and finer contrast stability. Since the initial quality of the image is better, up-scaling will work even better than it did on the D70.
 03/07/2007 11:22:10 AM · #7
Originally posted by kenskid:
Hello,

I have a 6mp Nikon. I have been thinking about moving up to the d200 for the MP but for many other reasons...one being the time lapse feature. What should I expect to see in pic quality b/c of the 4mp difference?

I do a lot of cropping. Would I see a better/bigger difference when cropping in on my subject in photoshop.

Now for the question in my subject:

What is the difference in true megapixels and just increasing the size of my "document/picture" in photoshop from 3000 x 2000 (6mp) to 4400 x 2900 (10mp range) using bicubic smoothing?

Is this a trick question?

First off, 4400 X 2900 is 12 megapixels, not 10, and something you find in cameras like the Canon 5D which is a 'full frame' 35mm detector. The D200 is a 10 megapixel camera of 3872 X 2592 megapixels. Big difference. But lets limit the discussion to the 10 megapixel D200.

It is always better to collect more data up front.

Compared to the D70 the D200 collects 4 megapixels more data per image, that is about 2/3 thirds more data points than the D70. That is a lot. When upscaling an image using "bicubic smoother" it interpolates the D70 data to fill in those 'missing' data points that the D200 already collects. That can NEVER be as good. The D200 will always have the advantage in that department. Cropping images plays no roll whatsoever other than further reducing the amount of data points you start with.

You will not see a better/bigger difference betwen the D70 and D200 when you crop images. In the D70 you always start out with 2/3 thirds fewer data collection points than with the D200.

A non-trivial question is whether or not you take pictures in RAW as opposed to JPG. RAW images typically record 12 bits of data/pixel whereas JPG collects only 8. Another RAW advantage is that you usually can store image data in wider gamut color spaces (that means you can record more color tones in RAW than JPG) than you can with JPG.

Here is the kicker...
If you currently take most pictures in JPG rather than RAW with the D70 then you are already throwing away more data than you would collect taking JPG with a D200. Under these conditions you'd get more detail with the D200, but color tonality would be about the same as the D70 when all is said and done.

Always process RAW if you want to capture the most data/pixel up front.

But if your final goal is a 640 pixel wide web graphic then most of this discussion becomes moot because in that case you throw away the greater proportion of your collected data in the first place, even with the D70. When you throw in post processing manipulation then the difference between the two cameras is a wash.

Message edited by author 2007-03-07 11:26:37.
 03/07/2007 11:27:47 AM · #8
If upsampling was so good then we'd all still be using the original 1.4MP sensors from the earliest cameras and upsampling the images to whatever size we need.

However, adding more pixels without increasing the physical size of the sensor leads to a point of diminishing returns, where the additional noise negates any advantage conferred by having more pixels.

So, a 6MP camera may yield a better image than a 10MP sensor of the same physical size, but not as "good" as a 10MP sensor which is proportionally bigger than the 6MP.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/04/2025 08:14:46 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/04/2025 08:14:46 AM EDT.