12mp vs 24mp - so what?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by missfocus, Sep 11, 2008.

  1. missfocus

    missfocus Guest

    missfocus, Sep 11, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. missfocus

    missfocus Guest

    missfocus, Sep 11, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. missfocus

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Ray Fischer, Sep 11, 2008
    #3
  4. missfocus

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, Sep 11, 2008
    #4
  5. missfocus

    Cynicor Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > missfocus <> wrote:
    >> Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100% pixel
    >> view.
    >> More pixels is a big deal huh?

    >
    > Tell us why those aren't, in fact, the same photo? After all, the
    > possibility of taking two photos of a living person where literally
    > NOTHING has changed position is slim to impossible.
    >
    >> http://03jisq.bay.livefilestore.com...lA6YL4FSolccV2GwP2AzXreYMT9I/A900vsD300_1.jpg
    >> http://tinyurl.com/6r2weg


    Ray, I'm kinda thinking that these are photos of a mannequin.
     
    Cynicor, Sep 11, 2008
    #5
  6. Eric Stevens <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:47:12 +1200, missfocus <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100% pixel
    >>view.
    >>More pixels is a big deal huh?
    >>zzzzzzz.
    >>http://03jisq.bay.livefilestore.com...lA6YL4FSolccV2GwP2AzXreYMT9I/A900vsD300_1.jpg
    >>http://tinyurl.com/6r2weg

    >
    >They both show the texture of the plaster very nicely. :-(
    >
    >
    >
    >Eric Stevens


    I'm not even going to bother looking at the images, whether they were faked or
    not, because this post is all about the misperceived conception that most people
    have about megapixel numbers. In their minds they think it's a linear
    progression in resolution, the belief that all marketing departments depend on.
    Two times the megapixels must be two times the available resolution, right?

    The following is a list of common megapixel resolutions and twice their
    resolution:

    (1x > 2x)

    2MP > 8MP
    4MP > 16MP
    5MP > 20MP
    6MP > 24MP
    8MP > 32MP
    10MP > 40MP
    12MP > 48MP

    Resolution in an image is a function of AREA, not a linear measure.

    Hoping to get 3x's the resolution of your old camera is even more of a gigantic
    leap. Multiply your old megapixel number by 9.


    Going from 12MP to 24MP is only a 1.4x increase in resolution.
    Whoopee-freakin'-fuckin'-do. That MIGHT get you SOME partial resolution increase
    in a lock of hair, seeing 14 hairs where before you resolved 10 hairs, but
    that's about it. You'd be far better-off putting a better lens on your old
    d/SLR, or using a 1.7x converter lens on your P&S camera for tighter framing and
    higher resolution of your main subject. There's really not any resolution-reason
    to abandon your 6MP camera until you can get a 24MP one. The meager partial
    resolution increase just isn't worth it until then, no matter the cost. People
    that stupidly yearn for a 12MP camera over their 10MP camera (a 1.09x increase),
    or a 16MP one over their 12MP one (a 1.15x increase) are just showing their
    ignorance and advertising-manipulated blindness. They are also revealing that
    they are piss-poor photographers. They NEED that ultra-meager amount of extra
    cropping room any chance they can get. They are so poor at photography that they
    don't know how to frame an image correctly in the first place. Just like those
    that yearn for faster burst rates--talentless-hack machine-gun shooters who hope
    that 1 out of 1000 photos MIGHT contain something useful by chance alone

    Get over your megapixel-number-worshipping, you're only making royal fools of
    yourselves.
     
    Wallace_D_Harworth, Sep 11, 2008
    #6
  7. missfocus

    tomm42 Guest

    On Sep 11, 7:53 am, Cynicor <> wrote:
    > Ray Fischer wrote:
    > > missfocus  <> wrote:
    > >> Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100% pixel
    > >> view.
    > >> More pixels is a big deal huh?

    >
    > > Tell us why those aren't, in fact, the same photo?  After all, the
    > > possibility of taking two photos of a living person where literally
    > > NOTHING has changed position is slim to impossible.

    >
    > >>http://03jisq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p-0tJtV-f6R4_N5bKfgdz2RcJZMJylL....
    > >>http://tinyurl.com/6r2weg

    >
    > Ray, I'm kinda thinking that these are photos of a mannequin.


    Naw, the eye is to real awful makeup though. Could have easily been
    shot at the same time. I'm kind of liking the Nikon pic better, no
    blown highlights, better shadow detail. More detail but that could be
    because of the increased DOF with APS frame. But this is an APS shot
    not a D700 or a D3 full frame that users claim even more dynamic range
    than the D300. I think Sony does it again, good idea, poor execution,
    maybe this is why the Nikon 24mp FX camera is delayed.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Sep 11, 2008
    #7
  8. missfocus

    ASAAR Guest

    On 11 Sep 2008 08:02:26 GMT, Ray Fischer wrote:

    > Tell us why those aren't, in fact, the same photo? After all, the
    > possibility of taking two photos of a living person where literally
    > NOTHING has changed position is slim to impossible.


    It's not even the same photo of a mannequin. Cross your eyes a
    bit while looking at it and there is a noticeable stereo effect
    showing that the pictures were not taken with the two cameras in the
    same relative position. Also, the shadows beneath the nose differ,
    so even if it was done through editing, you can't say that "NOTHING
    has changed".
     
    ASAAR, Sep 11, 2008
    #8
  9. missfocus

    No Spam Guest

    "Wallace_D_Harworth" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Eric Stevens

    >
    > I'm not even going to bother looking at the images, whether they were
    > faked or
    > not, because this post is all about the misperceived conception that most
    > people
    > have about megapixel numbers. In their minds they think it's a linear
    > progression in resolution, the belief that all marketing departments
    > depend on.
    > Two times the megapixels must be two times the available resolution,
    > right?
    >
    > The following is a list of common megapixel resolutions and twice their
    > resolution:
    >
    > (1x > 2x)
    >
    > 2MP > 8MP
    > 4MP > 16MP
    > 5MP > 20MP
    > 6MP > 24MP
    > 8MP > 32MP
    > 10MP > 40MP
    > 12MP > 48MP
    >
    > Resolution in an image is a function of AREA, not a linear measure.
    >
    > Hoping to get 3x's the resolution of your old camera is even more of a
    > gigantic
    > leap. Multiply your old megapixel number by 9.
    >
    >
    > Going from 12MP to 24MP is only a 1.4x increase in resolution.
    > Whoopee-freakin'-fuckin'-do. That MIGHT get you SOME partial resolution
    > increase
    > in a lock of hair, seeing 14 hairs where before you resolved 10 hairs, but
    > that's about it. You'd be far better-off putting a better lens on your old
    > d/SLR, or using a 1.7x converter lens on your P&S camera for tighter
    > framing and
    > higher resolution of your main subject. There's really not any
    > resolution-reason
    > to abandon your 6MP camera until you can get a 24MP one. The meager
    > partial
    > resolution increase just isn't worth it until then, no matter the cost.
    > People
    > that stupidly yearn for a 12MP camera over their 10MP camera (a 1.09x
    > increase),
    > or a 16MP one over their 12MP one (a 1.15x increase) are just showing
    > their
    > ignorance and advertising-manipulated blindness. They are also revealing
    > that
    > they are piss-poor photographers. They NEED that ultra-meager amount of
    > extra
    > cropping room any chance they can get. They are so poor at photography
    > that they
    > don't know how to frame an image correctly in the first place. Just like
    > those
    > that yearn for faster burst rates--talentless-hack machine-gun shooters
    > who hope
    > that 1 out of 1000 photos MIGHT contain something useful by chance alone
    >
    > Get over your megapixel-number-worshipping, you're only making royal fools
    > of
    > yourselves.
    >


    .... But the marketing weasels need the measurbators!
     
    No Spam, Sep 11, 2008
    #9
  10. missfocus

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Don Stauffer, Sep 11, 2008
    #10
  11. missfocus

    Pat Guest

    On Sep 11, 2:47 am, missfocus <> wrote:
    > Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100% pixel
    > view.
    > More pixels is a big deal huh?
    > zzzzzzz.http://03jisq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p-0tJtV-f6R4_N5bKfgdz2RcJZMJylL...http://tinyurl.com/6r2weg


    More pixels may or may not be a big deal, depending on what you're
    doing.

    If you're snapping pics of your 6-year-old's birthday party, it's
    probably not necessary to go over 6 or 8 mpx.

    If you're shooting standard portraits, probably 8 or 10 will serve you
    well.

    If you're making a living with your camera and selling images to
    people who are making their living doing advertising for people who
    are making their living selling soap, then you want EVERY possible
    benefit you can get. If you don't produce what the buyers wants/needs/
    likes; then the next guy will.
     
    Pat, Sep 11, 2008
    #11
  12. missfocus

    Ray Fischer Guest

    ASAAR <> wrote:
    >On 11 Sep 2008 08:02:26 GMT, Ray Fischer wrote:
    >
    >> Tell us why those aren't, in fact, the same photo? After all, the
    >> possibility of taking two photos of a living person where literally
    >> NOTHING has changed position is slim to impossible.

    >
    > It's not even the same photo of a mannequin. Cross your eyes a
    >bit while looking at it and there is a noticeable stereo effect
    >showing that the pictures were not taken with the two cameras in the
    >same relative position. Also, the shadows beneath the nose differ,
    >so even if it was done through editing, you can't say that "NOTHING
    >has changed".


    If you're going to attempt to attribute words to me then try at least
    to quote words that I actually wrote and not an out-context version
    that clearly changed the meaning.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 12, 2008
    #12
  13. missfocus

    ASAAR Guest

    On 12 Sep 2008 04:50:43 GMT, Ray Fischer wrote:

    >>> Tell us why those aren't, in fact, the same photo? After all, the
    >>> possibility of taking two photos of a living person where literally
    >>> NOTHING has changed position is slim to impossible.

    >>
    >> It's not even the same photo of a mannequin. Cross your eyes a
    >> bit while looking at it and there is a noticeable stereo effect
    >> showing that the pictures were not taken with the two cameras in the
    >> same relative position. Also, the shadows beneath the nose differ,
    >> so even if it was done through editing, you can't say that "NOTHING
    >> has changed".

    >
    > If you're going to attempt to attribute words to me then try at least
    > to quote words that I actually wrote and not an out-context version
    > that clearly changed the meaning.


    Uh, Ray, that's not an out-of-context clip of what you said. My
    reply quoted everything you typed, minus your sig. and what you
    quoted from missfocus's post. Would you care to point out anything
    that you think was changed, added or omitted?

    It's funny that on the one hand you didn't see fairly obvious
    changes, and on the other hand imagined that you saw changes that
    didn't exist, and as you may have noted by now, the photos that you
    commented on were of a mannequin, not a "living person".
     
    ASAAR, Sep 12, 2008
    #13
  14. missfocus

    Steve Guest

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:32:14 -0500, Wallace_D_Harworth
    <> wrote:

    >Going from 12MP to 24MP is only a 1.4x increase in resolution.
    >Whoopee-freakin'-fuckin'-do. That MIGHT get you SOME partial resolution increase
    >in a lock of hair, seeing 14 hairs where before you resolved 10 hairs, but
    >that's about it. You'd be far better-off putting a better lens on your old
    >d/SLR, or using a 1.7x converter lens on your P&S camera for tighter framing and
    >higher resolution of your main subject. There's really not any resolution-reason
    >to abandon your 6MP camera until you can get a 24MP one. The meager partial
    >resolution increase just isn't worth it until then, no matter the cost. People
    >that stupidly yearn for a 12MP camera over their 10MP camera (a 1.09x increase),
    >or a 16MP one over their 12MP one (a 1.15x increase) are just showing their
    >ignorance and advertising-manipulated blindness. They are also revealing that
    >they are piss-poor photographers. They NEED that ultra-meager amount of extra
    >cropping room any chance they can get. They are so poor at photography that they
    >don't know how to frame an image correctly in the first place. Just like those
    >that yearn for faster burst rates--talentless-hack machine-gun shooters who hope
    >that 1 out of 1000 photos MIGHT contain something useful by chance alone
    >
    >Get over your megapixel-number-worshipping, you're only making royal fools of
    >yourselves.


    I have to disagree. Ok, maybe not a 1.09x increase from 10 to 12, but
    from 12 to 24, or 6 to 10, or other resolution increases less than 2x
    can be very useful if you want to do things to your images such as
    perspective correction in software, or software conversion of fisheye
    to rectilinear, etc. It doesn't have to be just about cropping room.

    And if you shoot sports, faster burst rates are just what's needed to
    get just the right shot, not out of 1000 photos, but out of say 10
    instead of 5 for a golf swing, a soccer kick or goalie reaction,
    football pass or catch, etc. etc. It doesn't have to be just about
    machine gunning a wedding.

    I'm sensing a theme here. lol

    Steve
     
    Steve, Sep 12, 2008
    #14
  15. missfocus

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:47:12 +1200, missfocus wrote:

    > Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100% pixel
    > view.
    > More pixels is a big deal huh?
    > zzzzzzz.
    > http://03jisq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p-0tJtV-

    f6R4_N5bKfgdz2RcJZMJylLEi5_Xs-JTSXSZYE-tlA6YL4FSolccV2GwP2AzXreYMT9I/
    A900vsD300_1.jpg
    > http://tinyurl.com/6r2weg


    Doubling the pixel count increases the resolution by a factor of about 1.4
    - what would you expect?
     
    ray, Sep 13, 2008
    #15
  16. missfocus

    Ray Fischer Guest

    ASAAR <> wrote:
    > Ray Fischer wrote:
    >
    >>>> Tell us why those aren't, in fact, the same photo? After all, the
    >>>> possibility of taking two photos of a living person where literally
    >>>> NOTHING has changed position is slim to impossible.
    >>>
    >>> It's not even the same photo of a mannequin. Cross your eyes a
    >>> bit while looking at it and there is a noticeable stereo effect
    >>> showing that the pictures were not taken with the two cameras in the
    >>> same relative position. Also, the shadows beneath the nose differ,
    >>> so even if it was done through editing, you can't say that "NOTHING
    >>> has changed".

    >>
    >> If you're going to attempt to attribute words to me then try at least
    >> to quote words that I actually wrote and not an out-context version
    >> that clearly changed the meaning.

    >
    > Uh, Ray, that's not an out-of-context clip of what you said. My
    >reply quoted everything you typed, minus your sig.


    In fact I did not say that nothing had changed.

    > It's funny that on the one hand you didn't see fairly obvious
    >changes,


    What makes you think that I didn't notice those changes? Oh, right,
    you took my words out of context and are now using your version to
    criticize what I didn't actually say.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 13, 2008
    #16
  17. missfocus

    dj_nme Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > ASAAR <> wrote:
    >> Ray Fischer wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> Tell us why those aren't, in fact, the same photo? After all, the
    >>>>> possibility of taking two photos of a living person where literally
    >>>>> NOTHING has changed position is slim to impossible.
    >>>> It's not even the same photo of a mannequin. Cross your eyes a
    >>>> bit while looking at it and there is a noticeable stereo effect
    >>>> showing that the pictures were not taken with the two cameras in the
    >>>> same relative position. Also, the shadows beneath the nose differ,
    >>>> so even if it was done through editing, you can't say that "NOTHING
    >>>> has changed".
    >>> If you're going to attempt to attribute words to me then try at least
    >>> to quote words that I actually wrote and not an out-context version
    >>> that clearly changed the meaning.

    >> Uh, Ray, that's not an out-of-context clip of what you said. My
    >> reply quoted everything you typed, minus your sig.

    >
    > In fact I did not say that nothing had changed.


    You asked (as quoted verbatim by "ASAAR", above) for missfocus to tell
    you why they aren't the same photo.
    Implying, if not actually stating, that you didn't see any difference
    between the two pictures.

    >> It's funny that on the one hand you didn't see fairly obvious
    >> changes,

    >
    > What makes you think that I didn't notice those changes? Oh, right,
    > you took my words out of context and are now using your version to
    > criticize what I didn't actually say.


    The question you asked in your reply to "missfocus" would be the
    evidence in this case.
    Now you seem to be arguing that you either didn't write what you did, or
    that it has some hidden meaning which can't be gleaned by merely reading
    your reply to "missfocus".
    Please make up your mind and write out your explanation in a reply,
    because without clarification you really aren't making any sense at all.
     
    dj_nme, Sep 13, 2008
    #17
  18. missfocus

    ASAAR Guest

    On 13 Sep 2008 05:42:20 GMT, Gamma Ray Fischer wrote:

    > ASAAR <> wrote:
    > > Ray Fischer wrote:
    > >
    > >>>> Tell us why those aren't, in fact, the same photo? After all, the
    > >>>> possibility of taking two photos of a living person where literally
    > >>>> NOTHING has changed position is slim to impossible.
    > >>>
    > >>> It's not even the same photo of a mannequin. Cross your eyes a
    > >>> bit while looking at it and there is a noticeable stereo effect
    > >>> showing that the pictures were not taken with the two cameras in the
    > >>> same relative position. Also, the shadows beneath the nose differ,
    > >>> so even if it was done through editing, you can't say that "NOTHING
    > >>> has changed".
    > >>
    > >> If you're going to attempt to attribute words to me then try at least
    > >> to quote words that I actually wrote and not an out-context version
    > >> that clearly changed the meaning.

    > >
    > > Uh, Ray, that's not an out-of-context clip of what you said. My
    > >reply quoted everything you typed, minus your sig.

    >
    > In fact I did not say that nothing had changed.
    >
    > > It's funny that on the one hand you didn't see fairly obvious
    > >changes,

    >
    > What makes you think that I didn't notice those changes? Oh, right,
    > you took my words out of context and are now using your version to
    > criticize what I didn't actually say.


    Ray, do you see the irony here? You've become what you so easily
    imagine that you see in others. An idiot.

    Correction. Not "become". Demonstrated beyond a shadow of a
    doubt.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 13, 2008
    #18
  19. missfocus

    Ray Fischer Guest

    ASAAR <> wrote:
    >On 13 Sep 2008 05:42:20 GMT, Gamma Ray Fischer wrote:
    >
    >> ASAAR <> wrote:
    >> > Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>>> Tell us why those aren't, in fact, the same photo? After all, the
    >> >>>> possibility of taking two photos of a living person where literally
    >> >>>> NOTHING has changed position is slim to impossible.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> It's not even the same photo of a mannequin. Cross your eyes a
    >> >>> bit while looking at it and there is a noticeable stereo effect
    >> >>> showing that the pictures were not taken with the two cameras in the
    >> >>> same relative position. Also, the shadows beneath the nose differ,
    >> >>> so even if it was done through editing, you can't say that "NOTHING
    >> >>> has changed".
    >> >>
    >> >> If you're going to attempt to attribute words to me then try at least
    >> >> to quote words that I actually wrote and not an out-context version
    >> >> that clearly changed the meaning.
    >> >
    >> > Uh, Ray, that's not an out-of-context clip of what you said. My
    >> >reply quoted everything you typed, minus your sig.

    >>
    >> In fact I did not say that nothing had changed.
    >>
    >> > It's funny that on the one hand you didn't see fairly obvious
    >> >changes,

    >>
    >> What makes you think that I didn't notice those changes? Oh, right,
    >> you took my words out of context and are now using your version to
    >> criticize what I didn't actually say.

    >
    > Ray, do you see the irony here? You've become what you so easily
    >imagine that you see in others. An idiot.


    Better an idiot than a dishonest asshole.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 13, 2008
    #19
  20. missfocus

    ASAAR Guest

    On 13 Sep 2008 17:12:56 GMT, Ray Fischer wrote:

    >> Ray, do you see the irony here? You've become what you so easily
    >>imagine that you see in others. An idiot.

    >
    > Better an idiot than a dishonest asshole.


    Quite right. Congrats on your two-fer!

    It would be edifying if you could point out how my quote shows
    anything that was out of context. Since you never tried, dishonesty
    on your part seems to be a reasonable assumption, especially since I
    quoted *everything* that you typed, other than (as previously
    pointed out) your sig. and the other poster's quote. There doesn't
    seem to be any reason why including that quote would be necessary to
    make sense of your reply, but you're welcome to try to explain if
    indeed that's what has you barking.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 13, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. dave

    1.3 crop 12MP canon this fall

    dave, May 3, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    654
    Skip M
    May 4, 2005
  2. Me

    Re: Told you Sony's 24mp sensor was noisy

    Me, Oct 26, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    406
    Robert Coe
    Oct 26, 2011
  3. Bruce

    Re: Told you Sony's 24mp sensor was noisy

    Bruce, Oct 26, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,000
    PeterN
    Oct 29, 2011
  4. RichA

    Re: Told you Sony's 24mp sensor was noisy

    RichA, Oct 27, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    498
    Bruce
    Oct 30, 2011
  5. Polly the Parrott
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    393
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Dec 6, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page