Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > New Site: SEE Megapixels vs. Print Size

Reply
Thread Tools

New Site: SEE Megapixels vs. Print Size

 
 
CSM1
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
"John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> Chris Down wrote:
>> "bmoag" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:8sq4g.63401$(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>> No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are
>>> going to get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras
>>> will be in for serious disappointment.
>>> Megapixels are not an absolute measure of image quality and are almost
>>> irrelevant when evaluating this class of camera once you get past 5mps.
>>>

>> Agreed
>>
>>
>> I had a terrible struggle recently with the husband of a friend who
>> insisted that because it was 8MP his P&S compact was "better" than my
>> Canon DSLR at 6.3MP. When he started on about his "digital zoom"
>> being "better" than my Canon L 70-200mm IS zoom lens because mine was
>> less than 3x zoom factor and his was 10x I remembered an urgent
>> appointment somewhere far away.

>
> Suggest a little wager of, say $100, and get him and his camera together
> with you and yours, pick a sign in the distance, and shoot simultaneously.
>
> --
> John McWilliams


Put both cameras on tripods to eliminate any chance of camera shake. Turn
off IS on the Canon for a fair comparison.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael Weinstein
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
On 2006-04-28 12:14:15 -0400, "CSM1" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

> "bmoag" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:8sq4g.63401$(E-Mail Removed) om...
>> No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are
>> going to get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras
>> will be in for serious disappointment.
>> Megapixels are not an absolute measure of image quality and are almost
>> irrelevant when evaluating this class of camera once you get past 5mps.
>>

> You sir, are correct, Megapixels is not the only measure of quality.
>
> There are many other factors that affect the quality of a image.
> The quality of the lens is a major factor.
> Little things such as how steady you hold the camera can have a huge
> effect. (Use a tripod).
> Sharp focus will make a difference.
> How you frame the subject can make the difference between a so-so
> picture and a very pleasing, picture.
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com


Very true. After all, a Leica M3, a Nikon FTN, and a throwaway store
brand camera all have the same Megapixels (35mm film) but there's a
world of difference due to mechanics, optics etc. Megapixels are only
the beginning of the argument.
--
Michael | "You're going to need a bigger boat."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Impmon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2006
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:23:48 GMT, "bmoag" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are going to
>get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras will be in for
>serious disappointment.


And some may claim to offer high mpix but the true resolution is that
of a $30 web cam. I've seen one claiming 10Mpix but the fine line was
the image were interplorated and the actual image resolution is 3mpix.
Toss in compression as some cheap cam tended to have fixed setting
which resulted in blah "my 5 year old can draw better with crayons"
quality.

There are many variables, the quality of imaging array, the true
resolution, image compression, size of apreture (larger = more light =
brighter picture), quality of lens, etc.
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
Spam block in place, no emil reply is expected at all.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Ion
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
> camera
> - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
> but
> I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
> of
> various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
> http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
>


Good idea, but a few things:

1. It's REALLY small on my 21" monitor running 2048x1536.

2. Your different crops don't provide a frame of reference to each
other, so the ACTUAL differences in quality are not obvious. You need
to show the same crop from different resolutions to properly display the
differences; ie. use the same crop you have in the 8MP example, on the
2MP original, and show how a smaller crop gets chunky.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0617-3, 04/28/2006
Tested on: 4/29/2006 2:49:53 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com



 
Reply With Quote
 
Sfj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-30-2006
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
> camera
> - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
> but
> I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
> of
> various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
> http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
>


Hmmm. I found this chart in some of my old notes. Sorry can't give
references, I don't know how valid they are but if true, kind of
interesting.

Consumer Digital Camera 0.365 megapixels
Amateur 1kX1k " " 1.05 megapixels
Pro 4kX4x " " 16.77 megapixels
35mm fast film 22.11 megapixel equiv.
35mm medium speed film 54 megapixel equiv.
35mm slow speed film 124.76 megapixel equiv.

http://photographybyshermanjacobsen.com?ID=20060430



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chuck
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
The comparison of film speeds looks sort of valid. The film grain size is
much smaller as the speed decreases.
Film processing used to have a siginificant effect on grain size as well.


"Sfj" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsh05g.11668$(E-Mail Removed) link.net...
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> >A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
> > camera
> > - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
> > but
> > I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
> > of
> > various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
> > http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
> >

>
> Hmmm. I found this chart in some of my old notes. Sorry can't give
> references, I don't know how valid they are but if true, kind of
> interesting.
>
> Consumer Digital Camera 0.365 megapixels
> Amateur 1kX1k " " 1.05 megapixels
> Pro 4kX4x " " 16.77 megapixels
> 35mm fast film 22.11 megapixel equiv.
> 35mm medium speed film 54 megapixel equiv.
> 35mm slow speed film 124.76 megapixel equiv.
>
> http://photographybyshermanjacobsen.com?ID=20060430
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
Sfj wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> >A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
> > camera
> > - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
> > but
> > I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
> > of
> > various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
> > http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
> >

>
> Hmmm. I found this chart in some of my old notes. Sorry can't give
> references, I don't know how valid they are but if true, kind of
> interesting.
>
> Consumer Digital Camera 0.365 megapixels
> Amateur 1kX1k " " 1.05 megapixels
> Pro 4kX4x " " 16.77 megapixels
> 35mm fast film 22.11 megapixel equiv.
> 35mm medium speed film 54 megapixel equiv.
> 35mm slow speed film 124.76 megapixel equiv.


This is way off the mark. That would be scanning the film at close to
10K ppi.
I have never seen any 35mm film even come close to 20 MP.
35mm scanned at 4000 ppi
Gives a scan just of a bit over 20MP, and these scans are always soft.

Here are what sharp 20 MP images look like
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/car_20MP.jpg
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/4000ppi.jpg
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/beach.jpg

What people find is that even when 35mm film out resolved a digital
camera the digital image often looks sharper due to the noise in the
film scan.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
pixturesk@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2006
The most important component of any camera either film or digital is
the LENS!!. With a poor quality lens + equally as important a poor
quality LENS FILTER, no amount of megapixels is going to result in a
technically excellent picture.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2006

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> The most important component of any camera either film or digital is
> the LENS!!. With a poor quality lens + equally as important a poor
> quality LENS FILTER, no amount of megapixels is going to result in a
> technically excellent picture.


Well this sounds good but I am not sure it is totally true. If you put
the same lens on a Canon 300D and a Canon 1Ds Mark II you are going to
get a far better image from the 1Ds Mark II.

So no matter how good your lens it the sensor size and resolution are
going to limit the quality of the image.

This is not to say a good lens in not important, but the sensor is the
ultimate limit on the image.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Down
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2006

"Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> The most important component of any camera either film or digital is
>> the LENS!!. With a poor quality lens + equally as important a poor
>> quality LENS FILTER, no amount of megapixels is going to result in a
>> technically excellent picture.

>
> Well this sounds good but I am not sure it is totally true. If you put
> the same lens on a Canon 300D and a Canon 1Ds Mark II you are going to
> get a far better image from the 1Ds Mark II.
>
> So no matter how good your lens it the sensor size and resolution are
> going to limit the quality of the image.
>
> This is not to say a good lens in not important, but the sensor is the
> ultimate limit on the image.
>
> Scott
>



Scott think you would be spending your money in the wrong place,
certainly the 1Ds Mk II will be better, but only if you crop or enlarge to a
high level.
I use a 300D but with Canon L series glass and the quality of shots is
comparable to the top line pro cameras if I am printing up to 10x8.
There is little difference the basic technology used in the two cameras, but
the 1Ds Mk II is more robust, has better water and dust resistance, has more
exposure options, has a larger buffer, faster burst shooting and many other
features... These are what differentiate between the two models far
more than mere pixel count.

Of course this is all slightly away from the intial posting which aimed to
help newcomers understand a little about pixel counts and print sizes.

It did strike me that comparing cameras by pixel count alone is like
comparing lenses by focal length..The numbers tell you there is a difference
between the two, but don't really convey any useful information.






 
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
mega pixels, file size, image size, and print size - Adobe Evangelists Frank ess Digital Photography 0 11-14-2006 05:08 PM
DPI,Megapixels and print size OL'Hippie Digital Photography 9 02-22-2006 03:29 PM
39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ... Bill Hilton Digital Photography 7 07-18-2005 08:37 PM



Advertisments