Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Need help in calculating digital camera's MP

Reply
Thread Tools

Need help in calculating digital camera's MP

 
 
aniramca@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
For a 46 in high definition TV (1920x1080 Panel resolution) - 1080p
Full HD definition, the screen size of the TV is 40 in. x 23 in. ( 102
cm x 58 cm). How many MP digital camera that I need to have JPG
photos, so that I can watch clear, sharp, crisp JPG photos on the TV?
I must admit that I don't have much knowledge about the pixels in
digital cameras,etc. and how that translates into the high definition
TV. Therefore, I do need practical, layman terms answers for info or
links to specific discussion to any websites.
What about for the 52 in. TV, 56 in. TV, etc?. Is there a chart
available somewhere?. I recall a table showing how MP is connected to
photo print sizes (at the photo printing stores). But this screen size
is much larger than those listed - perhaps more for poster sizes.
Someone may ask on how close you are watching the TV screen... and I
am thinking about relatively close range, say 5 ft distance.
Thanks for the info!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> For a 46 in high definition TV (1920x1080 Panel resolution) - 1080p
> Full HD definition, the screen size of the TV is 40 in. x 23 in. ( 102
> cm x 58 cm). How many MP digital camera that I need to have JPG
> photos, so that I can watch clear, sharp, crisp JPG photos on the TV?
> I must admit that I don't have much knowledge about the pixels in
> digital cameras,etc. and how that translates into the high definition
> TV. Therefore, I do need practical, layman terms answers for info or
> links to specific discussion to any websites.
> What about for the 52 in. TV, 56 in. TV, etc?. Is there a chart
> available somewhere?. I recall a table showing how MP is connected to
> photo print sizes (at the photo printing stores). But this screen size
> is much larger than those listed - perhaps more for poster sizes.
> Someone may ask on how close you are watching the TV screen... and I
> am thinking about relatively close range, say 5 ft distance.
> Thanks for the info!



Roughly two megapixels. There may be an aspect ratio problem, but
resolution is not a precise number anyway. Multiply the screen panel
resolution to get the appropriate resolution of the screen. Your image
should equal or exceed that value for good results. It doesn't really
depend on screen size, merely the number of pixels, which is determined
by whether the set is HD or SD, and if HD is it 720 or 1080. Interlaced
vs progressive is immaterial to showing stills.

Sure, if you view it from a large distance away, you COULD get by with
less resolution, but the requirement for viewing on a TV is not
strenuous, so why not shoot with enough resolution so that the image is
not the limiting factor?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
HarveyW wrote:
[]
> **You should also take into account the lens quality on a camera.
> There is some very poorly designed DSLR glass in most kit-lenses
> being sold today.


I thought that Canon had replaced their 18-55mm non-IS lens? That's the
only one which had a bad reputation. The others are excellent value for
money, and capable of excellent results. In any case, with a DSLR /you/
can choose what lens you buy, rather than being stuck with what comes with
a fixed-lens camera.

To the OP:
A DSLR or better-quality P&S of 5-6MP or better will be fine to equal
your HD TV resolution. Choose carefully, for the best image quality from
the camera. How are you going to display the images? With a computer
connection? Via the memory slot?

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:13:01 -0800, aniramca wrote:

> For a 46 in high definition TV (1920x1080 Panel resolution) - 1080p Full
> HD definition, the screen size of the TV is 40 in. x 23 in. ( 102 cm x
> 58 cm). How many MP digital camera that I need to have JPG photos, so
> that I can watch clear, sharp, crisp JPG photos on the TV? I must admit
> that I don't have much knowledge about the pixels in digital
> cameras,etc. and how that translates into the high definition TV.
> Therefore, I do need practical, layman terms answers for info or links
> to specific discussion to any websites. What about for the 52 in. TV, 56
> in. TV, etc?. Is there a chart available somewhere?. I recall a table
> showing how MP is connected to photo print sizes (at the photo printing
> stores). But this screen size is much larger than those listed - perhaps
> more for poster sizes. Someone may ask on how close you are watching the
> TV screen... and I am thinking about relatively close range, say 5 ft
> distance. Thanks for the info!


Basically, 1920x1080 is about 2mp - anything beyond that is overkill -
you can't display more than the resolution of the output device.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
ray wrote:
[]
> Basically, 1920x1080 is about 2mp - anything beyond that is overkill -
> you can't display more than the resolution of the output device.


... although a "normal" 4:3 aspect ratio camera needs to be 1920 x 1440
pixels to at least match the display resolution horizontally (i.e. 2.76
Mpix), and it would be helpful to have some crop margin for those times
when your framing isn't perfect , so say 5-6Mpix.

Leaving the question, are any current cameras less than 5-6Mpix?

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gaston Ryan Coake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:25:28 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:

> added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> For a 46 in high definition TV (1920x1080 Panel resolution) -
>> 1080p Full HD definition, the screen size of the TV is 40 in. x
>> 23 in. ( 102 cm x 58 cm). How many MP digital camera that I need
>> to have JPG photos, so that I can watch clear, sharp, crisp JPG
>> photos on the TV? I must admit that I don't have much knowledge
>> about the pixels in digital cameras,etc. and how that translates
>> into the high definition TV. Therefore, I do need practical,
>> layman terms answers for info or links to specific discussion to
>> any websites. What about for the 52 in. TV, 56 in. TV, etc?. Is
>> there a chart available somewhere?. I recall a table showing how
>> MP is connected to photo print sizes (at the photo printing
>> stores). But this screen size is much larger than those listed -
>> perhaps more for poster sizes. Someone may ask on how close you
>> are watching the TV screen... and I am thinking about relatively
>> close range, say 5 ft distance. Thanks for the info!

>
> Do you have acalulia or something?


It's acalculia.

And I think the proper word would be dyscalculia, anyway.


G

> "mega pixels" means "millions of
> pixels" which are in turn the area of a given imgage of W x H
> pixels. So, if your TV can resolve 1920 x 1080, it must follow that
> 1920 x 1080 = 2,073600 total pixels, or about 2 MP. BTW, you CAN
> display either larger or smaller on your TV and get a good picture
> IF the system doing the display can do the reduction or enlargement
> using interpolation rather than simple pixel resize. And, of
> course, it sorta matters how good the digital images are in the
> first place and what quality the TV really is.


--
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot
of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

-- Wizard Of Oz


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob Morley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:54:53 -0800
Gaston Ryan Coake <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> And I think the proper word would be dyscalculia, anyway.
>

It is indeed, like the related conditions of dyslexia and dyspraxia.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:41:10 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

> ray wrote:
> []
>> Basically, 1920x1080 is about 2mp - anything beyond that is overkill -
>> you can't display more than the resolution of the output device.

>
> .. although a "normal" 4:3 aspect ratio camera needs to be 1920 x 1440
> pixels to at least match the display resolution horizontally (i.e. 2.76
> Mpix), and it would be helpful to have some crop margin for those times
> when your framing isn't perfect , so say 5-6Mpix.
>
> Leaving the question, are any current cameras less than 5-6Mpix?
>
> David


According to my calculations, at 4:3, the image would only need to be
1440x1080 - any larger and you'd drop of the top and bottom. So I guess
he only needs about 1.5mp.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Terry Pinnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
ray <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:41:10 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>> []
>>> Basically, 1920x1080 is about 2mp - anything beyond that is overkill -
>>> you can't display more than the resolution of the output device.

>>
>> .. although a "normal" 4:3 aspect ratio camera needs to be 1920 x 1440
>> pixels to at least match the display resolution horizontally (i.e. 2.76
>> Mpix), and it would be helpful to have some crop margin for those times
>> when your framing isn't perfect , so say 5-6Mpix.
>>
>> Leaving the question, are any current cameras less than 5-6Mpix?
>>
>> David

>
>According to my calculations, at 4:3, the image would only need to be
>1440x1080 - any larger and you'd drop of the top and bottom. So I guess
>he only needs about 1.5mp.


I make family DVDs for 16:9 widescreen TV. One major source of content
is JPEG output from my Canon Ixus 60. I use its full (modest!)
resolution of 2816 x 2112 (AR=4.3), which allows me adequate scope for
pans/zooms. If I move up to HD DVDs (the TV is HD-ready) then I'll
probably upgrade my camera.

Anyway, in general I'd choose the highest possible resolution every
time, as I like to edit my hasty compositions on the PC. And that's
where sometimes I can create heavily-zoomed crops that I'd either
missed or had no time to capture in the field. Of course, I'm coming
at this just as a point-and-shoot guy, not a pro or serious amateur.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
ray wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:41:10 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>> []
>>> Basically, 1920x1080 is about 2mp - anything beyond that is
>>> overkill - you can't display more than the resolution of the output
>>> device.

>>
>> .. although a "normal" 4:3 aspect ratio camera needs to be 1920 x
>> 1440 pixels to at least match the display resolution horizontally
>> (i.e. 2.76 Mpix), and it would be helpful to have some crop margin
>> for those times when your framing isn't perfect , so say 5-6Mpix.
>>
>> Leaving the question, are any current cameras less than 5-6Mpix?
>>
>> David

>
> According to my calculations, at 4:3, the image would only need to be
> 1440x1080 - any larger and you'd drop of the top and bottom. So I
> guess he only needs about 1.5mp.


You want the full resolution in each dimension, which, for a 4:3 sensor,
means a 1920 x 1440 pixel image, cropped vertically to 1920 x 1080. As
Terry say, though, in general a little more resolution is handy.

David

 
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
need help calculating point between two coordinates. PeteDK Python 1 08-14-2009 10:58 AM
Help with PHP/Javascript calculating custom estimate angler30@gmail.com Javascript 0 06-27-2008 06:25 PM
I need help calculating the sum of the numbers of an integer un[real] C++ 6 11-03-2005 12:11 AM
Digital Photography RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr vs rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? Lionel Digital Photography 16 09-17-2004 12:48 PM
Help! I am having problems with calculating the total seconds from two date/times. Tim ASP General 3 08-05-2003 07:45 PM



Advertisments