Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Megapixels mania?

Reply
Thread Tools

Megapixels mania?

 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
Hi,

I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if somebody
want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the photo
to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the computer,
make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels and
a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The Canon Powershot A70 has every
spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to pay
more in order to have more megapixels.

Thanks,

Richard


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
"Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsdg0b.652$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if

somebody
> want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the

photo
> to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the

computer,
> make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
> size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels

and
> a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The Canon Powershot A70 has every
> spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to

pay
> more in order to have more megapixels.


IMHO the main factor in digicam image quality at this point in time is not
the pixel count but the sensor size. That is, a 3 megapixel DSLR will give
you a better picture than a 5 megapixel point-and-shoot.

Other factors are noise, moire, and chromatic aberration (purple fringing),
all of which will affect your image more than pixel count.

James


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ian S
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
"Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsdg0b.652$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if

somebody
> want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the

photo
> to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the

computer,
> make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
> size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels

and
> a 5 megapixels camera for those needs?


File size perhaps?

The Canon Powershot A70 has every
> spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to

pay
> more in order to have more megapixels.


I think the megapixels mania is analogous to the processor speed mania we've
always seen in personal computers. For the average photographer, who snaps
pics for sharing on the net, prints out 4"X6" copies for friends and family
and maybe does the occasional print up to 8"X10" in size, 3 MP is fine IMHO.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul D. Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
There goes a bit of urban legend that 300 dpi is the average
obtainable resolution for chemically developed prints.

So, given that, you want to have at least 300 dpi of detail in
your image when you print it out.

5"x7" prints need 1500x2100 at least in order to achieve that.

I have a camera, 5 megapixel, that does 2560x1920. That gives me
about 365 dpi for 7"x5" prints, 426 dpi for 6"x4" prints and only
240 dpi for 10"x8" prints.

Now, because there seems to be less noise with most digital
cameras of some quality than standard 35mm film (no grain noise,
etc.) a 240 dpi 10"x8" print can look surprisingly good by
comparison, when seen side by side with a chemical print.

That said, 300 dpi is preferable, according to the old rule of
thumb.

So, there is a new camera coming out from Sony called the
DSC-F828, which is 8 megapixel and provides enough resolution to
print 10"x8" prints at a full 300 dpi. 3264 x 2448 is the actual
resolution. You divide 3264 by 10 and you get 326.4 dpi. You
divide 2448 by 8 and you get 306 dpi. So, taking the lowest
number as the limiting factor, you have enough data in that image
to provide up to 306 dpi on that 10"x8" print.

So, theoretically, 8megpixels is great for 8x10's...

> Hi,
>
> I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know
> that if somebody want to print large size photos, he needs a
> lot of megapixels for the photo to look good. However, I
> just want to have digital photos on the computer, make digital
> changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
> size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4
> megapixels and a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The
> Canon Powershot A70 has every spec I am looking for and I
> wonder if it is would be really useful to pay more in order
> to have more megapixels.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
Richard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if somebody
> want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the photo
> to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the computer,
> make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
> size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels and
> a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The Canon Powershot A70 has every
> spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to pay
> more in order to have more megapixels.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard
>
>

For 4x6 snapshots, with no 'preprocesing', 2 MP.
For 8x10 photos with minimal processing 3 MP.
for larger prints, or digital zooming during processing (large
'blowups'), as many pixels as you can afford.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
In article <xdg0b.652$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:

> size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels and
> a 5 megapixels camera for those needs?


No. Not in my opinion. I've got one particular shot that I like, which I
printed in 5x7 and put up on the wall in a frame. Looks great. The shot
was taken at 800x600 resolution. Really. That's, what, half a megapixel?
Something like that. Nowadays I have a much much bigger smartmedia card, so
I can shoot at 2048x1536 and still take a lot of shots, so I take the bigger
shots, and I can crop out a small section of one (say, 1/3 of the shot),
print it out at 8x10", and it looks great to me. This is a 3.2 megapixel
camera. Back in the earlier days of digital photography I remember reading
in some photo magazine or another that 2.4 megapixels was the holy grail -
anything up to and including magazine covers could be shot with 2.4. Not
sure if that's true, but I'm dead pleased with the results I get from my
3.2. If I was printing shots at 16x20" then I might not be as pleased, but
since I can only print up to 8x10 at this point... no problem.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) |
<http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:24:05 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>There goes a bit of urban legend that 300 dpi is the average
>obtainable resolution for chemically developed prints.

[clip]
>That said, 300 dpi is preferable, according to the old rule of
>thumb.


[clip]

>So, theoretically, 8megpixels is great for 8x10's...

Thanks for a useful (and sensible) appraisal.

Phil
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul D. Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
You are welcome.

I hope it helped.

Enjoy!


> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:24:05 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> There goes a bit of urban legend that 300 dpi is the average
>> obtainable resolution for chemically developed prints.

> [clip]
>> That said, 300 dpi is preferable, according to the old rule of
>> thumb.

>
> [clip]
>
>> So, theoretically, 8megpixels is great for 8x10's...

> Thanks for a useful (and sensible) appraisal.
>
> Phil



 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
Don't forget cropping. Having more pixels gives you more freedom in
cropping.

Richard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if somebody
> want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the photo
> to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the computer,
> make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
> size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels and
> a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The Canon Powershot A70 has every
> spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to pay
> more in order to have more megapixels.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard


--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
(E-Mail Removed)
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
 
Reply With Quote
 
Miss Jaime
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:15:34 -0400, Mike Graham
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> No. Not in my opinion. I've got one particular shot that I like, which I
>printed in 5x7 and put up on the wall in a frame. Looks great.


Was that one of the blow job pics we took?





Miss Jaime

374/326/300(first goal)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Megapixels - An Explanation of Megapixels and How They AffectPhotos Rob Digital Photography 0 10-17-2012 11:31 PM
Re: Megapixels - An Explanation of Megapixels and How They AffectPhotos jdanield Digital Photography 0 10-17-2012 06:56 PM
39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ... Bill Hilton Digital Photography 7 07-18-2005 08:37 PM
More megapixels=digital burnout? David Kassnoff Digital Photography 8 08-18-2003 02:45 PM
more megapixels: better resolution? DarkMan Digital Photography 11 08-01-2003 02:35 PM



Advertisments