Mega pixel and print size and digital camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jamie, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. Jamie

    Jamie Guest

    Hi There

    Was wondering if anyone can give me any information regarding
    Mega Pixels and print size.

    what would be a good MP for 5 x 7 prints or something abit larger.
    also optical zoom in the camera is important. 4 x and upwards
    the more manual features the better.
    DSLR is not an option.

    Does anyone have any Digital camera recommendations.


    Thanks in advance..

    Jamie
     
    Jamie, Oct 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Any number of pixels over 2 will do that. I like my Oly E-10...its not a new
    camera any more and one like it might be had for a good price.


    "Jamie" <> wrote in message
    news:cks4um$don$...
    > Hi There
    >
    > Was wondering if anyone can give me any information regarding
    > Mega Pixels and print size.
    >
    > what would be a good MP for 5 x 7 prints or something abit larger.
    > also optical zoom in the camera is important. 4 x and upwards
    > the more manual features the better.
    > DSLR is not an option.
    >
    > Does anyone have any Digital camera recommendations.
    >
    >
    > Thanks in advance..
    >
    > Jamie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Gene Palmiter, Oct 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jamie

    GT40 Guest

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:48:12 +0200, "Jamie" <> wrote:

    >Hi There
    >
    >Was wondering if anyone can give me any information regarding
    > Mega Pixels and print size.
    >
    >what would be a good MP for 5 x 7 prints or something abit larger.
    >also optical zoom in the camera is important. 4 x and upwards
    >the more manual features the better.
    >DSLR is not an option.


    Anything above 2MP for a 5x7
     
    GT40, Oct 16, 2004
    #3
  4. Jamie

    Anna Guest

    Re: Mega pixel and print size and digital camera recommendations

    Jamie,

    You can good pix at 5x7 with 2 MP and above, though I would recommend
    a 3 mp camera to give you room to grow. Depending on your budget,
    check out these models for recommended digital cameras:

    Canon PowerShot A70 -- an excellent 3.2 mp camera, runs on readily
    available AA batteries, takes great pix. More info here:
    http://digital-camera.review-center.com/catalog/product.php?ASIN=B00008OE5G

    The PowerShot A60 is the 2 MP version, but it's only a bit less
    expensive:
    http://digital-camera.review-center.com/catalog/product.php?ASIN=B00008OE46


    I think the A70 is a great value. Anyway, check out the digital camera
    recommendations here, based on what specific features you're looking
    for:
    http://www.Review-Center.com

    -Anna




    "Jamie" <> wrote in message news:<cks4um$don$>...
    > Hi There
    >
    > Was wondering if anyone can give me any information regarding
    > Mega Pixels and print size.
    >
    > what would be a good MP for 5 x 7 prints or something abit larger.
    > also optical zoom in the camera is important. 4 x and upwards
    > the more manual features the better.
    > DSLR is not an option.
    >
    > Does anyone have any Digital camera recommendations.
    >
    >
    > Thanks in advance..
    >
    > Jamie
     
    Anna, Oct 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Here's a rule of thumb that is useful.

    1 megapixel gives you 10 square inches of critically sharp print (at 316
    dots per inch, which is sharper than almost all continuous-tone prints).

    So a 10x10-inch print, critically sharp, would require 10 megapixels.

    But you can generally get pictures that look sharp with half this
    resolution, which is 1/4 the megapixels.

    So a 10x10-inch print, sharp enough to look good, would require 2.5
    megapixels.

    In short -- Current cameras in the 4- to 6-megapixel range are sufficient.


    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael A. Covington
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 17, 2004
    #5
  6. You are getting some nonsense answers. just divide the pixel width
    and lenght by 300 and you get the size print in inches that will yield
    a print without loss of detail. Some say you can divide by 250 or
    even 200, but many people will note quality changes using that
    standard.

    My Nikon 4300 manual gives the following recommendations for picture
    sizes based on setting the camera for different pixel sizes. 2272
    (4meg) is 7.5 x 5.5 in, 1600 (about 3 meg) is 5.5 x 4 in, and 1280
    (about 2.1 meg) is 4.5 x 3 in. In actual practice a 4 meg will yield
    a fairly good 8 x10 if well focused and exposed. a 3 meg camera will
    give about a 5 x7 and a 2.1 meg will give a 3 x 5).

    Check the nikons, my 4300 is 4 meg with lots of manual features. the
    4100 and 4200 I belive have fewer manual features, but do not believe
    what clerks tell you are what reviews select to report on. You really
    need to look at the manual to see what the features the camera has.
    You might also want to check the Kodaks which have a much larger LCD
    screen.

    Jamie wrote:
    >
    > Hi There
    >
    > Was wondering if anyone can give me any information regarding
    > Mega Pixels and print size.
    >
    > what would be a good MP for 5 x 7 prints or something abit larger.
    > also optical zoom in the camera is important. 4 x and upwards
    > the more manual features the better.
    > DSLR is not an option.
    >
    > Does anyone have any Digital camera recommendations.
    >
    > Thanks in advance..
    >
    > Jamie
     
    George E. Cawthon, Oct 18, 2004
    #6
  7. "George E. Cawthon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You are getting some nonsense answers. just divide the pixel width
    > and lenght by 300 and you get the size print in inches that will yield
    > a print without loss of detail. Some say you can divide by 250 or
    > even 200, but many people will note quality changes using that
    > standard.


    I like 316 (the square root of 100,000) because it works out to exactly 1
    megapixel per 10 square inches of print surface. That is for a very sharp
    print. Many people will be satisfied with half that resolution, which is a
    quarter as many pixels.

    > My Nikon 4300 manual gives the following recommendations for picture
    > sizes based on setting the camera for different pixel sizes. 2272
    > (4meg) is 7.5 x 5.5 in, 1600 (about 3 meg) is 5.5 x 4 in, and 1280
    > (about 2.1 meg) is 4.5 x 3 in. In actual practice a 4 meg will yield
    > a fairly good 8 x10 if well focused and exposed. a 3 meg camera will
    > give about a 5 x7 and a 2.1 meg will give a 3 x 5).


    They are on very solid ground. Nikon always is :)
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 18, 2004
    #7
  8. "Jamie" <> wrote in message news:<cks4um$don$>...
    > Hi There
    >
    > Was wondering if anyone can give me any information regarding
    > Mega Pixels and print size.
    >
    > what would be a good MP for 5 x 7 prints or something abit larger.
    > also optical zoom in the camera is important. 4 x and upwards
    > the more manual features the better.
    > DSLR is not an option.


    The MP output from DSLRs and P&S's are totally different. What
    matters, all else equal, is two optically controlled things: sensor
    size, and sensor count.

    Pixel count can be inflated to any number using digital interpolation
    after the shutter closes.

    P&S cameras have very small sensors, which are therefore very noisy.
    They also interpolate using only one sensor per pixel. A good DSLR
    will incorporate 3 montrous sensors per output pixel, requiring more
    than 10MP to output 3.5M non-interpolated pixels. You really should
    consider a DSLR like an SD9, it is are cheaper and easier to use than
    a high end P&S, and with 10.3MP non-interpolated enormous pixels, you
    can easily go to 20x30" and larger with no degradation.

    The SD9 (about $500) is rated better than medium format film when
    enlarged to 40 inches, because it has 10.3M of the largest sensors of
    any DSLR, and concentrates 3 on every ouptut pixel...

    http://foveon.com/faq_technology.html#FAQ_tech_13
     
    Georgette Preddy, Oct 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Jamie

    David Azose Guest

    Here's another way to look at it:
    A general rule of thumb is that the largest file size you can get from a
    point and shoot digital camera is approximately 3 times the number of
    megapixels. So a 3 megapixel camera should yield about a 9MB file and a
    4 megapixel camera a 12MB file. This assumes the hightest resolution and
    least amount of compression for your camera.

    Then open PhotoShop, go to FILE>NEW. You are presented with a dialogue
    box where you can enter the WIDTH (in inches), the HEIGHT (in inches)
    and the resolution (in pixels per inches). Once you fill in this
    information, you are presented with the file size required near the top
    of the dialogue box. This procedure works to tell you what file size is
    requires for any print size at any resolution. For example, if one fills
    in 8 inches for the WIDTH and 10 inches for the HEIGHT and 300 ppi for
    the resolution, you can see that 20MB is required. This file size may be
    necessary if outputting to a photographic device that prints on real
    photographic paper (not an inkjet printer). You could probably get away
    with a 10mb file and still get an acceptable 8x10 print from a good
    photo quality inkjet printer.

    David A.

    Michael A. Covington wrote:

    >Here's a rule of thumb that is useful.
    >
    >1 megapixel gives you 10 square inches of critically sharp print (at 316
    >dots per inch, which is sharper than almost all continuous-tone prints).
    >
    >So a 10x10-inch print, critically sharp, would require 10 megapixels.
    >
    >But you can generally get pictures that look sharp with half this
    >resolution, which is 1/4 the megapixels.
    >
    >So a 10x10-inch print, sharp enough to look good, would require 2.5
    >megapixels.
    >
    >In short -- Current cameras in the 4- to 6-megapixel range are sufficient.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    David Azose, Oct 18, 2004
    #9
  10. Jamie

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> writes
    >Pixel count can be inflated to any number using digital interpolation
    >after the shutter closes.


    Rather like the smeg SD9/10 which detects light at 3.2 million loci and
    the makes up another 9.8million with its companion software.

    --
    Ian G8ILZ
     
    Prometheus, Oct 18, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> wrote:

    > The SD9 (about $500) is rated better than medium format film when
    > enlarged to 40 inches, because it has 10.3M of the largest sensors of
    > any DSLR, and concentrates 3 on every ouptut pixel...


    There's no way your piece-of-crap 3.42MP Sigma will enlarge to that
    degree without something like SmartScale.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 18, 2004
    #11
  12. Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<181020040632525437%>...
    > In article <>, Georgette
    > Preddy <> wrote:
    >
    > > The SD9 (about $500) is rated better than medium format film when
    > > enlarged to 40 inches, because it has 10.3M of the largest sensors of
    > > any DSLR, and concentrates 3 on every ouptut pixel...

    >
    > There's no way your piece-of-crap 3.42MP Sigma will enlarge to that
    > degree without something like SmartScale.


    You mean like all Bayers have already used at their default recorded
    resolutions? A0 is cake for the Sigma's squeaky clean 10.3MPs.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Oct 19, 2004
    #12
  13. Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:<>...
    > In article <>, Georgette
    > Preddy <> writes
    > >Pixel count can be inflated to any number using digital interpolation
    > >after the shutter closes.

    >
    > Rather like the smeg SD9/10 which detects light at 3.2 million loci and
    > the makes up another 9.8million with its companion software.


    Fine, if you count each color channel in isolation, the 1D Mk II only
    has 2M measured locations.

    The SD9 (3.5M) has more than the 10D (1.5M) and 1D Mk II (2M),
    combined.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Oct 19, 2004
    #13
  14. Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<181020040632525437%>...
    > In article <>, Georgette
    > Preddy <> wrote:
    >
    > > The SD9 (about $500) is rated better than medium format film when
    > > enlarged to 40 inches, because it has 10.3M of the largest sensors of
    > > any DSLR, and concentrates 3 on every ouptut pixel...

    >
    > There's no way your piece-of-crap 3.42MP Sigma will enlarge to that
    > degree without something like SmartScale.


    Viewing this tiny crop from an SD9 image on a computer monitor, is the
    same as viewing it enlarged to 8 by 12 feet...

    http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/image/32173345/original
     
    Georgette Preddy, Oct 19, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> wrote:

    > You mean like all Bayers have already used at their default recorded
    > resolutions? A0 is cake for the Sigma's squeaky clean 10.3MPs.


    10.3MP? Did Sigma bring out a new kiddie toy?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 19, 2004
    #15
  16. Jamie

    Crownfield Guest

    Georgette Preddy wrote:
    >
    > Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<181020040632525437%>...
    > > In article <>, Georgette
    > > Preddy <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > The SD9 (about $500) is rated better than medium format film when
    > > > enlarged to 40 inches, because it has 10.3M of the largest sensors of
    > > > any DSLR, and concentrates 3 on every ouptut pixel...

    > >
    > > There's no way your piece-of-crap 3.42MP Sigma will enlarge to that
    > > degree without something like SmartScale.

    >
    > Viewing this tiny crop from an SD9 image on a computer monitor, is the
    > same as viewing it enlarged to 8 by 12 feet...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/image/32173345/original


    shows how upsizing without real pixels is empty.
    at 25 ppi !!

    I do photo wraps from digital images at 72 ppi,
    and would never go that low.

    but then I never had to do it from a 3mp sigma.
     
    Crownfield, Oct 19, 2004
    #16
  17. Jamie

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> writes
    >Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    >news:<>...
    >> In article <>, Georgette
    >> Preddy <> writes
    >> >Pixel count can be inflated to any number using digital interpolation
    >> >after the shutter closes.

    >>
    >> Rather like the smeg SD9/10 which detects light at 3.2 million loci and
    >> the makes up another 9.8million with its companion software.

    >
    >Fine, if you count each color channel in isolation, the 1D Mk II only
    >has 2M measured locations.
    >
    >The SD9 (3.5M) has more than the 10D (1.5M) and 1D Mk II (2M),
    >combined.


    The sensor in the SD10 has 2268 columns x 1512 rows (as stated at
    http://www.sigma-photo.com/Html/news/news_sd9_fs.htm), or from
    http://www.foveon.com/prod_f7.html it has a pixel pitch of 9.12æm
    centre-to-centre spacing of pixel locations with an effective area of
    20.7 mm x 13.8 mm; both of which give a total of 3.43 million pixels in
    the image plain. The sensor only detects light normal to its surface at
    the intersections of the rows and columns, it has no information about
    the light falling on the interstice. The SD10 gets 3.43 million pixels
    from 10.3 million sensor elements in 3.43 million locations on its
    sensor. The 10D gets 6.3 million pixels from 6.3 million (3072 columns x
    2048 rows) distinct locations in the image plain. Neither interpolates
    pixels, by default. They both interpolate colour, although the Foveon
    attempts to measure full colour at each pixel. See
    http://www.siliconimaging.com/RGB Bayer.htm for an explanation of the
    Bayer process and there is a Bayer algorithm
    http://www.tortuga.comau/products/info/cfa2bmp.html from these you will
    see that the luminosity at each detector is used and guessed, unlike the
    SD10 which has to guess.

    A Bayer sensor outputs the exact (as least as any measurement can)
    luminance for green on a green sensor, the same goes for blue and red.
    The other two luminances are computed from the 8 surrounding pixels.
    This computation assumes that the chrominance varies slowly. This
    assumption can be made because our own seeing mechanism is not all that
    good at detecting chrominance changes, i.e. if there is a "mistake" in
    the actual luminance then we will not see it.

    The Foveon sensor also measures an approximation to reality, since its
    colour response is so far from matching the human perception of colour.
    The colour you see in any Foveon image is at least as much a
    "computer-generated artefact" as a Bayer image. In addition, the low
    spatial resolution of the Foveon sensor irreparably loses spatial
    information that would have been captured by a Bayer sensor, aliasing it
    to false detail because there's no anti-aliasing filter.

    SPP allows you to manipulate the data whilst it was still in the camera
    but as such they are not straight from the sensor, in fact since you
    stated that they are straight out of SPP we must conclude that you used
    SPP to multiply the number of columns and rows thereby inventing values
    where there are no detectors. The result of this manipulation tells us
    nothing about the number of pixels the SD9 has. Sigma do tell us it has
    2268 columns x 1512 rows (as stated at
    http://www.sigma-photo.com/Html/news/news_sd9_fs.htm), any image having
    more has been manipulated by external software.

    Let me try to simplify it; SPP might "optionally output 14MP images" but
    the sensor only resolves 3421656 unique points in the image plain,
    anything more than this is a software cheat by the user! Or even
    simpler: more than 3421656 is dishonest, less other than a crop is a
    disservice. Simpler still - you dissemble.

    Your 14MP SD9 uses luminance and chroma extrapolation to provide 10
    million pseudo pixels where it can not detect light, the 10D uses chroma
    interpolation to provide colour at the 6.3 million where it does detect
    the luminance; not even remotely the same thing.

    --
    Ian G8ILZ
     
    Prometheus, Oct 19, 2004
    #17
  18. Jamie

    Big Bill Guest

    On 18 Oct 2004 20:50:43 -0700, (Georgette
    Preddy) wrote:

    >Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<181020040632525437%>...
    >> In article <>, Georgette
    >> Preddy <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > The SD9 (about $500) is rated better than medium format film when
    >> > enlarged to 40 inches, because it has 10.3M of the largest sensors of
    >> > any DSLR, and concentrates 3 on every ouptut pixel...

    >>
    >> There's no way your piece-of-crap 3.42MP Sigma will enlarge to that
    >> degree without something like SmartScale.

    >
    >You mean like all Bayers have already used at their default recorded
    >resolutions? A0 is cake for the Sigma's squeaky clean 10.3MPs.


    It might be if they had 10.3 MPs.
    In reality, they have a native output of 3.4 MPs; the higher MP images
    are INTERPOLATED.
    I thought you didn't do interpolation?

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Oct 19, 2004
    #18
  19. Jamie

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <>, Big Bill
    <> writes
    >On 18 Oct 2004 20:50:43 -0700, (Georgette
    >Preddy) wrote:
    >
    >>Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message
    >>news:<181020040632525437%>...
    >>> In article <>, Georgette
    >>> Preddy <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > The SD9 (about $500) is rated better than medium format film when
    >>> > enlarged to 40 inches, because it has 10.3M of the largest sensors of
    >>> > any DSLR, and concentrates 3 on every ouptut pixel...
    >>>
    >>> There's no way your piece-of-crap 3.42MP Sigma will enlarge to that
    >>> degree without something like SmartScale.

    >>
    >>You mean like all Bayers have already used at their default recorded
    >>resolutions? A0 is cake for the Sigma's squeaky clean 10.3MPs.

    >
    >It might be if they had 10.3 MPs.
    >In reality, they have a native output of 3.4 MPs; the higher MP images
    >are INTERPOLATED.


    Since there are more guessed than real shouldn't that be extrapolated.

    --
    Ian G8ILZ
     
    Prometheus, Oct 19, 2004
    #19
  20. Jamie

    Summitar Guest

    Um, guys? Preddy (Steve Giovanella) *knows all this.* He thinks
    about as highly of the Sigma as you do. It´s his modus as a troll --
    he deliberately picked the worst camera on the market. If he thought
    it would make him more irritating, he would have chosen Kodak or Fuji,
    but he knows that Sigma is the very bottom of the heap, so he praises
    that one. *Don´t argue with him.* You´re wasting time. *Insult
    him.* It´s much more fun.

    (Oh, Giovanella? You´re a dick.)
     
    Summitar, Oct 20, 2004
    #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. Tom Thackrey

    Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel

    Tom Thackrey, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    821
  2. Pierre Dragh

    Good camera 3 mega pixel

    Pierre Dragh, Nov 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    354
    Andy Hewitt
    Nov 14, 2003
  3. Leo Reyes

    Sony 8 Mega Pixel camera

    Leo Reyes, Jul 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,483
    Mike Hide
    Jul 15, 2004
  4. WannabeSomeone

    Fuji FinePix S9000 9 Mega Pixel Camera Came Out 17 Mega Pixel?

    WannabeSomeone, Nov 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,121
    WannabeSomeone
    Nov 14, 2005
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    302
Loading...

Share This Page