Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Megapixel limit

Reply
Thread Tools

Megapixel limit

 
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2004
In message <40ac54c6$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"gsum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Sharp lens and Sigma camera?


I haven't the foggiest clue what you're saying here.

><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .


>> Sigma/Foveon chokes on sharp lenses, because they allow aliasing to
>> occur. Sigma/Foveon is best used for B&W images with vaseline smeared
>> on a filter.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
chibitul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (George Preddy) wrote:

> (E-Mail Removed) (m Ransley) wrote in message
> news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > What is the limit of megapixels lenses can use, there has to be a point
> > where the highest quality lens cannot use more. Is this perhaps 25 or
> > 100. The race cant go on forever.
> > What Dslr can now equal Kodachrome 64, or can one .

>
> Bayers are nowhere even close, Sigma/Foveon have past lens limits but not by
> much.


george, have you seen a doctor lately?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
chibitul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
wrote:

> [snip] Sigma/Foveon is best used for B&W images with vaseline smeared
> on a filter.


Now that is a great one! LOL!!!
 
Reply With Quote
 
George Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2004
Woodchuck Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<Xns94EEE1BAE3043bswr607h4@130.133.1.4>...
> Bay Area Dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:JiUqc.69653$(E-Mail Removed). com:
>
> > sure thing, Georgie...now when are you gonna sell me the
> > Brooklyn Bridge??
> >

>
> The Golden Gate is closer to you, Homer. You should ask him for a price
> quote on that.


You bought the Bayer scam (listing monochrome MPs) hook line and
sinker, so maybe it's not such a bad idea?
 
Reply With Quote
 
carl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2004
The basic problem with this comparison is that most people who want large
prints already know that 8x10 is the max print size for 35mm negatives. Some
people say it's 5x7 but it depends on how good your eyes are. Show me a
print from 35mm at 16x20 that looks as sharp as 8x10 from the same negative.
The same applies to digital cameras. Show me the digital print that looks as
sharp at 16x20 as it does at 8x10 or 4x6. Until it does that digital cannot
be used to produce fine art. You still need a hassy and a drum scanner...

"Steven M. Scharf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%Knrc.3595$(E-Mail Removed) nk.net...
> > "m Ransley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
> > What is the limit of megapixels lenses can use, there has to be a point
> > where the highest quality lens cannot use more. Is this perhaps 25
> >100. The race cant go on forever.

>
> For 35mm film, the equivalent megapixels, of ISO 50, is about 16. Medium
> format is around 50. Large format could be 1000. So we're a ways off from
> this being a problem. The problem is more how to fabricate sensors with

more
> megapixels, while dealing with noise, aliasing issues, etc. It's a lot

more
> difficult to make medium format sensors than to cut film into bigger

sheets.
>
> Here's where we are now in terms of megapixels for D-SLRs:
>
> Sigma SD-10 3.4
> Nikon D2H 4
> Olympus E1 5
> Canon EOS-300D 6
> Canon EOS-10D 6
> Nikon D70 6
> Nikon D100 6
> Fuji S3 Pro 6
> Pentax *ist D 6
> Canon EOS-1D Mark II 8.2
> Canon EOS-1Ds 11
> Kodak DCS SLR/n 13.5
> Kodak DCS SLR/c 13.5
>
> And as we have seen, it's not just megapixels. Right now, all the experts
> agree that the best sensor is the one used in the Canon EOS-1Ds, even

though
> it's less Mp then the Kodak sensor.
>
> There are diminishing returns in terms of the commercial viability of very
> high megapixel sensors. With the EOS-1Ds you can come close enough in
> quality to ISO 100 35mm film. The camera makers may experience what CPU
> makers have experienced in trying to convince people that they need more

and
> more Mhz; there is a point of diminishing returns.
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
nixjunk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2004
>The basic problem with this comparison is that most people who want large
>prints already know that 8x10 is the max print size for 35mm negatives. Some
>people say it's 5x7 but it depends on how good your eyes are. Show me a
>print from 35mm at 16x20 that looks as sharp as 8x10 from the same negative.
>The same applies to digital cameras. Show me the digital print that looks as
>sharp at 16x20 as it does at 8x10 or 4x6.



Alot of it depends on what you consider acceptable quality, the film used,
technique, subject matter, viewing distance. I recently made a 12x18 print from
a 4000dpi scan of a frame of Kodaks T400CN film onto Fuji crystal Archive paper
and the results were incredible. Far better than I ever expected. Amazing,
really, and I consider myself very picky on quality.


Until it does that digital cannot
>be used to produce fine art. You still need a hassy and a drum scanner...



Only if you consider "fine art" resolving the most detail possible.






 
Reply With Quote
 
Bay Area Dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2004
what about the scam you've been running here that states you
are a pro that has sold pictures taken with your Sigma? We
are still waiting to see one.

dave

George Preddy wrote:

> Woodchuck Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<Xns94EEE1BAE3043bswr607h4@130.133.1.4>...
>
>>Bay Area Dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:JiUqc.69653$(E-Mail Removed) y.com:
>>
>>
>>>sure thing, Georgie...now when are you gonna sell me the
>>>Brooklyn Bridge??
>>>

>>
>>The Golden Gate is closer to you, Homer. You should ask him for a price
>>quote on that.

>
>
> You bought the Bayer scam (listing monochrome MPs) hook line and
> sinker, so maybe it's not such a bad idea?


 
Reply With Quote
 
carl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-03-2004

"nixjunk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >The basic problem with this comparison is that most people who want large
> >prints already know that 8x10 is the max print size for 35mm negatives.

Some
> >people say it's 5x7 but it depends on how good your eyes are. Show me a
> >print from 35mm at 16x20 that looks as sharp as 8x10 from the same

negative.
> >The same applies to digital cameras. Show me the digital print that looks

as
> >sharp at 16x20 as it does at 8x10 or 4x6.

>
>
> Alot of it depends on what you consider acceptable quality, the film used,
> technique, subject matter, viewing distance. I recently made a 12x18 print

from
> a 4000dpi scan of a frame of Kodaks T400CN film onto Fuji crystal Archive

paper
> and the results were incredible. Far better than I ever expected. Amazing,
> really, and I consider myself very picky on quality.
>
>
> Until it does that digital cannot
> >be used to produce fine art. You still need a hassy and a drum scanner...

>
>
> Only if you consider "fine art" resolving the most detail possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


yes
when the viewer walks up close to the print, the quality of the image must
remain the same. In other words, the viewer is not allowed to see the limits
of the capability of the system. Thats why eyesight is the limiting factor,
and print size must maintain sharpness down to the limit of eyesight. That
is WHY medium format looks better than 35mm printing on the wall....
Carl


 
Reply With Quote
 
jrhilton jrhilton is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1
 
      07-10-2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Meehan
m Ransley wrote:
> What is the limit of megapixels lenses can use, there has to be a
> point where the highest quality lens cannot use more. Is this
> perhaps 25 or 100. The race cant go on forever.
> What Dslr can now equal Kodachrome 64, or can one .


It is generally considered that a 35 mm negative or slide is about
equivalent to a 35 megapixel image. It's apples and oranges so an exact
number is not possible and there is a great deal of differences between
films just are there are differences between sensors and lenses.

...

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Generally excepted by who exactly, none of the manufactures themselves of films are claiming anything like 35MP, and no manufactures of 35mm film cameras say it is this either.

Anyone who has done any extensive testing using resolution targets knows that film (be it color, reversal or b&w) has a USABLE resolution of about 70 l/mm (with a fairly high contrast subject), which equates to 16.9MP for 35mm. There is absolutely no point in talking about 35MP images if there is only 16MP of usable information on there, simply because with photoshop and superimposing film grain over a digital image at the right number of l/mm you get an identical look to film.

If you don't believe me do this, take a pic with an old 1dmk2, at 16mp, and take the same image with a film canon EOS what ever, using the same lens. Scan it in at say 4800dpi, giving you 30.8MP. Remember, because of gain, the usable resolution is still only about 70 l/mm, so you have about 3360 usable lines vertically and 5040 horizontally.

Now take your digital 16MP image upsize to 30.8MP. Looks bad doesn't it, well now overlay some scanned film grain, at 70 l/mm so 3360pixls high by 5040pixls wide and streatch it so it fills the image.

Now compare the two images, the result, simple, looking at the film image breaks your heart, as you suddenly realise you are not actually getting any more usable information in your film image. Pitty really.

With affordable film scanners for computers easy to come by now, I now only use my medium format gear, where as previously I kept it for special assignments or fashion shoots. As its easy to show up 35mm film if you have an intentions of making large prints.

So yes feel free to scan at 9000dpi, but it still doesn't change the fact (and published information in fact sheets produced by the likes of kodak and fuji for their films) that you still are only getting about 70l/mm of actual usable information.
 

Last edited by jrhilton; 07-10-2008 at 10:22 PM..
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
URL for 4 megapixel vs. 7 megapixel Comparison Shots? Vik Rubenfeld Digital Photography 2 09-26-2005 08:51 AM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 6 04-01-2005 05:26 PM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 5 04-01-2005 02:08 PM
5 Megapixel VS. 4 Megapixel camera Mark Digital Photography 13 03-09-2005 04:06 PM
The Human Eye: 120 Megapixel Monochrome, 6 Megapixel Color Brian C. Baird Digital Photography 44 06-17-2004 06:12 PM



Advertisments