«

Well, there are many different types of camera, from cellphones with
picture taking built in to point and shoot units and full on Cameras
with interchangeable attachments and lenses.

My experience had been based on the old silver nitrate days and the
type of film in the retail market; 110 was pretty crappy and couldn't
be blown up (enlarged) too well, 35mm was a certain plateau of
acceptable quality then there was that plate stuff 'real
photographers' hauled around.

(I know, I know- those 'real photographers' didn't really use actual
'plates' much any more but they use[d] big, square, single shot pieces
of negative, right?)

Nowadays the picture you can take and print or view onscreen can be
ridiculously dense for the dollar spent, if we are talking Digital
that is. What I'm wondering is there an agreed upon range or bracket
of what the old films would equate to vs the new way of advertising
megapixels.


berk

In message <d3efb672-77a4-4815-86e2-
..com>, berk <> writes
>
>Well, there are many different types of camera, from cellphones with
>picture taking built in to point and shoot units and full on Cameras
>with interchangeable attachments and lenses.
>
>My experience had been based on the old silver nitrate days and the
>type of film in the retail market; 110 was pretty crappy and couldn't
>be blown up (enlarged) too well, 35mm was a certain plateau of
>acceptable quality then there was that plate stuff 'real
>photographers' hauled around.
>
>(I know, I know- those 'real photographers' didn't really use actual
>'plates' much any more but they use[d] big, square, single shot pieces
>of negative, right?)
>
>Nowadays the picture you can take and print or view onscreen can be
>ridiculously dense for the dollar spent, if we are talking Digital
>that is. What I'm wondering is there an agreed upon range or bracket
>of what the old films would equate to vs the new way of advertising
>megapixels.

For most purposes 6-12MP on a DX DSLR is equivalent of film. There are a
VERY FEW highly specialised situations where film, under perfect
conditions will performs as well or better than a DSLR

However with the new high end Nikons and Canons in 2009 (especially the
FX ones) digital DSLR's now surpass film.

There is more to it than MP. Camera-phones have 5-8MP but their sensors
are not as good and the electronics not as good ad a DSLR. There of
course you have the Lenses... for Nikon using the F mount the lenses
are/can be the same. For other DSLRs the quality is/should be the same

However the comparison is academic. Just as it is for the new fangeled
"miniature" 25mm compared to proper size cameras and for film compared
to glass plates and so on......

35mm wet film is just one phase of photography that has now had it's
time. Just as glass plates have.



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

berk wrote:
> Well, there are many different types of camera, from cellphones with
> picture taking built in to point and shoot units and full on Cameras
> with interchangeable attachments and lenses.
>
> My experience had been based on the old silver nitrate days and the
> type of film in the retail market; 110 was pretty crappy and couldn't
> be blown up (enlarged) too well, 35mm was a certain plateau of
> acceptable quality then there was that plate stuff 'real
> photographers' hauled around.
>
> (I know, I know- those 'real photographers' didn't really use actual
> 'plates' much any more but they use[d] big, square, single shot pieces
> of negative, right?)
>
> Nowadays the picture you can take and print or view onscreen can be
> ridiculously dense for the dollar spent, if we are talking Digital
> that is. What I'm wondering is there an agreed upon range or bracket
> of what the old films would equate to vs the new way of advertising
> megapixels.
>
>
> berk
>

It depends on what you want to do with the image.
If you are just going to send e-mails or post images on the internet.
1-2 MP is usually satisfactory. The catch here is that any camera that
has a 2 MP sensor, most likely has a crappy lens and sensor as well.
If you want to PRINT top quality images, the camera should have a sensor
that can provide abut 300 pixels/inch at whatever size you want to print.
For Ex. If you want to print excellent 8 x 10s, the camera should have
at least (8x300)x (10x 300) or 7.2 MP.
Most likely you will end up cropping your original image so to insure
that your final image has 300 pixels/inch you would probably want 8-10 MP
As your Prints increase in size, you can get by with 200-250
pixels/inch, because you don't view the image from as close as you do a
smaller print
Lets say you wanted to print 16x 20s.
Perhaps 200 ppi would be satisfactory so the camera would need to
capture (16 x 200) x (20 x 200) pixels ....That would be 12.8 MP.
Keep in mind, however, that the number of pixels is a highly overrated
criterion for getting excellent prints from a camera.
LENS QUALITY is a much more useful criterion.
But there is no simple way to judge lens quality without extensive
testing. Whereas citing a high MP count is extremely easy and is what
the great unwashed masses look for when buying a camera.......Sigh
Bob Williams

berk wrote:
> Well, there are many different types of camera, from cellphones with
> picture taking built in to point and shoot units and full on Cameras
> with interchangeable attachments and lenses.
>
> My experience had been based on the old silver nitrate days and the
> type of film in the retail market; 110 was pretty crappy and couldn't
> be blown up (enlarged) too well, 35mm was a certain plateau of
> acceptable quality then there was that plate stuff 'real
> photographers' hauled around.
>
> (I know, I know- those 'real photographers' didn't really use actual
> 'plates' much any more but they use[d] big, square, single shot pieces
> of negative, right?)
>
> Nowadays the picture you can take and print or view onscreen can be
> ridiculously dense for the dollar spent, if we are talking Digital
> that is. What I'm wondering is there an agreed upon range or bracket
> of what the old films would equate to vs the new way of advertising
> megapixels.
>
>
> berk

8 megapixels was probably the ideal density for the APS sensor, anyway.

berk <> wrote:
>Nowadays the picture you can take and print or view onscreen can be
>ridiculously dense for the dollar spent, if we are talking Digital
>that is. What I'm wondering is there an agreed upon range or bracket
>of what the old films would equate to vs the new way of advertising
>megapixels.

Any camera you buy will have enough. What separates cameras is the
quality of the image, the added features, the performance.

--
Ray Fischer

On 16/12/2009 12:06, Bob Williams wrote:
> As your Prints increase in size, you can get by with 200-250
> pixels/inch, because you don't view the image from as close as you do a
> smaller print

Given the resolution of the human eye, if you hold the picture far
enough to see it as a whole without moving neither your head nor your
eyes, you wont be able to see details smaller than 1/1800 of the picture
diagonal(*). If you double that to obtain enough pixels to avoid
aliasing (ie. 3600 pixels on the diagonal), you still need only about
6MPix, whether the picture will be on a 4"x6" paper or on a billboard.

(*) this happens to be the basis for the calculation of DOF (size of the
circle of confusion), for the same reasons.

--
Bertrand

How many watts are too few? Shades of yesteryears when the audio amplifier
industry went goofy and invited legislation regarding misleading
advertising. Maybe a current legislator might seize this opportunity to
protect consumers from their ignorance? And advance their career?

Too bad that the audio sellers of yesteryear could not hawk megawatts! Has
such a nice sound!

Megapixel numbers have reached the goofy status of some marketing hypes of
the past. Goofy sells and education lags far behind.

Ofnuts <> wrote:
> On 16/12/2009 12:06, Bob Williams wrote:
>> As your Prints increase in size, you can get by with 200-250
>> pixels/inch, because you don't view the image from as close as you do a
>> smaller print

> Given the resolution of the human eye, if you hold the picture far
> enough to see it as a whole without moving neither your head nor your
> eyes, you wont be able to see details smaller than 1/1800 of the picture
> diagonal(*). If you double that to obtain enough pixels to avoid
> aliasing (ie. 3600 pixels on the diagonal), you still need only about
> 6MPix, whether the picture will be on a 4"x6" paper or on a billboard.

> (*) this happens to be the basis for the calculation of DOF (size of the
> circle of confusion), for the same reasons.

Ah! So they invented that standard before it was understood how the
brain builds up a visual image from saccades. No wonder it never made
much sense!

--
Chris Malcolm

On Dec 16, 12:40*pm, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote:
> On 16/12/2009 12:06, Bob Williams wrote:
>
> > As your Prints increase in size, you can get by with 200-250
> > pixels/inch, because you don't view the image from as close as you do a
> > smaller print
>
> Given the resolution of the human eye, if you hold the picture far
> enough to see it as a whole without moving neither your head nor your
> eyes, you wont be able to see details smaller than 1/1800 of the picture
> diagonal(*). If you double that to obtain enough pixels to avoid
> aliasing (ie. 3600 pixels on the diagonal), you still need only about
> 6MPix, whether the picture will be on a 4"x6" paper or on a billboard.
>
> (*) this happens to be the basis for the calculation of DOF (size of the
> circle of confusion), for the same reasons.
>

I must be a bit odd, I have been known to move my eyes when viewing a
photo.

Scott

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:06:27 -0800, Bob Williams <>
wrote:

>berk wrote:
>> Well, there are many different types of camera, from cellphones with
>> picture taking built in to point and shoot units and full on Cameras
>> with interchangeable attachments and lenses.
>>
>> My experience had been based on the old silver nitrate days and the
>> type of film in the retail market; 110 was pretty crappy and couldn't
>> be blown up (enlarged) too well, 35mm was a certain plateau of
>> acceptable quality then there was that plate stuff 'real
>> photographers' hauled around.
>>
>> (I know, I know- those 'real photographers' didn't really use actual
>> 'plates' much any more but they use[d] big, square, single shot pieces
>> of negative, right?)
>>
>> Nowadays the picture you can take and print or view onscreen can be
>> ridiculously dense for the dollar spent, if we are talking Digital
>> that is. What I'm wondering is there an agreed upon range or bracket
>> of what the old films would equate to vs the new way of advertising
>> megapixels.
>>
>>
>> berk
>>
>
>It depends on what you want to do with the image.
>If you are just going to send e-mails or post images on the internet.
>1-2 MP is usually satisfactory. The catch here is that any camera that
>has a 2 MP sensor, most likely has a crappy lens and sensor as well.

More talking out of your ass. I bought a Fuji Finepix long ago that only
has a 2.1 mpx sensor. It's matched perfectly to the lens so that 8x10"
prints are exceptional and even 11x14" prints of some subjects are doable.
When every photosite on that sensor is recording a discreet bit of
information, as opposed to an 8mpx sensor where 4-6 photosites are
resolving a discreet bit of information due to poor glass or sensor design
(too strong of an AA filter, etc.), then the 2.1 mpx camera will win.

If only you fools would give advice about things you actually knew. But
then ... you'd have nothing to type about .... ever.