Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Megapixels mania?

 
 
Shailesh Humbad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
The standard resolution for magazines is 150dpi, due to the printing
technology that they use. Add to that the fact that nearly all
magazines are 8x11 or smaller, and you'll see that the maximum
resolution they need is 1200 x 1650 = 2MP. A little higher 2.4 MP buys
some cropping flexibility.

On regular paper, 150-300 dpi looks fine. On photo paper, you'll notice
a difference in quality on the 600 and 1200 dpi prints, but only upon
close inspection. For wall hangings, one can get by with very low dpi,
to which the pointilist Georges Seurat can attest. Go to Best Buy and
look at the print-out samples from the printers, paying attention to the
dpi.

I bought the A60 with 2MP a month ago and have been very, very happy
with it, and it was only $225 for the camera. The A70 has the same
feature set, but 3MP resolution. You can read my review here:

http://www.somacon.com/docs/canon_a60/

Shailesh

Mike Graham wrote:
> 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.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
CR Optiker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 08:59:31 -0500, Don Stauffer wrote:

> Don't forget cropping. Having more pixels gives you more freedom in
> cropping.
>


I'm amazed there were so many posts before somebody mentioned cropping. How
often do you compose perfectly and fill the frame? Maybe pros do, but the
rest of us find occasions when we might even want to print a fraction of
the full frame - then where are you if you don't start with lots of pixels.
Crop to half of the 2560 maximum width with a Nikon CP5700 and you have
1280 pixels - in a normal 4x3 format, 1280 x 960, or about 1.2 MP.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael Meissner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
Don Stauffer <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Don't forget cropping. Having more pixels gives you more freedom in
> cropping.


I tend to believe it is better to crop when taking the picture, rather than
hoping I can resurrect something later with post processing, but to each their
own.

--
Michael Meissner
email: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.the-meissners.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
Shepherd
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003

"Michael Meissner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)-meissners.org...
> Don Stauffer <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > Don't forget cropping. Having more pixels gives you more freedom in
> > cropping.

>
> I tend to believe it is better to crop when taking the picture, rather

than
> hoping I can resurrect something later with post processing, but to each

their
> own.
>
> --
> Michael Meissner
> email: (E-Mail Removed)
> http://www.the-meissners.org


Cropping in the camera would be ideal, but most, if not all pictures, can be
improved, even saved, by cropping later on the computer.

The more pixels, the better.

Shepherd


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2003
"Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message
de 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard
>

Thank you all for your good information.

Richard


 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2003
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:20:59 GMT, "John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> IMHO, I think the Canon A70
>would be the best bang for your buck

What about the newish Samsung Digimax models. Their specs look good
and I do like the fcility of using just about any battery type you
choose!

Phil

 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2003
Right, but when there is a barbed wire fence there, or an electric
fence, or some other barrier you just do not want to cross, sometimes
you are FORCED to shoot a little further than you would like. Most of
us do not have unlimited focal length lenses to work with. Having some
extra pixels in such a case is nice.

Michael Meissner wrote:
>
> Don Stauffer <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > Don't forget cropping. Having more pixels gives you more freedom in
> > cropping.

>
> I tend to believe it is better to crop when taking the picture, rather than
> hoping I can resurrect something later with post processing, but to each their
> own.
>
> --
> Michael Meissner
> email: (E-Mail Removed)
> http://www.the-meissners.org


--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
(E-Mail Removed)
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
 
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