Megapixels for Stop-Motion

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Searcher7@mail.con2.com, Sep 22, 2005.

  1. 2.com

    2.com Guest

    Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each frame)would
    suffice for use in stop-motion photography?

    (I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition" for
    display on the big screen).

    Thanks a lot.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
     
    2.com, Sep 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 2.com

    Skip M Guest

    <2.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each frame)would
    > suffice for use in stop-motion photography?
    >
    > (I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition" for
    > display on the big screen).
    >
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.
    >

    Well, the new movie "Corpse Bride" was done with Canon 1Ds mkIIs, 16mp.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Sep 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 2.com

    Mark² Guest

    Skip M wrote:
    > <2.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each
    >> frame)would suffice for use in stop-motion photography?
    >>
    >> (I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition"
    >> for display on the big screen).
    >>
    >> Thanks a lot.
    >>
    >> Darren Harris
    >> Staten Island, New York.
    >>

    > Well, the new movie "Corpse Bride" was done with Canon 1Ds mkIIs,
    > 16mp.


    I was under the impression that it was the 8+MP 1D Mark II...not the 1Ds
    Mark II.

    For stop motion, you do NOT need anything even CLOSE to that high a
    resolution.
    The only reason to use more would be if you plan to do extensive cropping.
    The problem with attempting this is that for stop motion, the shots must
    remain consistntly framed shot to shot--unless you've got some VERY fancy
    specialized software that can deal with this cropping, panning as you render
    the video frame by frame.

    HDTV is only around 1024pixels or so.
    Even a low res camera surpasses that.

    I've dabbled with stop-motion for about 5 years.
    -Nothing fancy...just pure fun.
    It's actually fairly easy to do.
    The key is manual mode, consistant lightning, and a sturdy tripod.

    When shooting with my 10D, I set it to its lowest resolution, and that's
    still more than most TVs can utilize. Even "HD" TVs aren't very high res
    compared with even low-end point-and shoot digitals.

    -Mark
     
    Mark², Sep 22, 2005
    #3
  4. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:

    >> Well, the new movie "Corpse Bride" was done with Canon 1Ds mkIIs,
    >> 16mp.


    >I was under the impression that it was the 8+MP 1D Mark II...not the 1Ds
    >Mark II.


    >For stop motion, you do NOT need anything even CLOSE to that high a
    >resolution.
    >The only reason to use more would be if you plan to do extensive cropping.


    It depends on your output format. HDTV is only 1920x10800 pixels, but
    if you're writing the images to 35 mm film for theatrical release,
    you'll get the best quality from images that are 4K (4096) pixels
    wide. Film recording equipment is commonly set up to handle either
    2048 or 4096 pixels across the width of the film.

    >HDTV is only around 1024pixels or so.


    No, it's 1920 pixels wide in 1080i mode. Even 720p is 1280 pixels wide.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Sep 22, 2005
    #4
  5. 2.com

    Bob Guest

    Bob, Sep 22, 2005
    #5
  6. 2.com

    2.com Guest

    Dave Martindale wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
    >
    > >> Well, the new movie "Corpse Bride" was done with Canon 1Ds mkIIs,
    > >> 16mp.

    >
    > >I was under the impression that it was the 8+MP 1D Mark II...not the 1Ds
    > >Mark II.

    >
    > >For stop motion, you do NOT need anything even CLOSE to that high a
    > >resolution.
    > >The only reason to use more would be if you plan to do extensive cropping.

    >
    > It depends on your output format. HDTV is only 1920x10800 pixels, but
    > if you're writing the images to 35 mm film for theatrical release,
    > you'll get the best quality from images that are 4K (4096) pixels
    > wide. Film recording equipment is commonly set up to handle either
    > 2048 or 4096 pixels across the width of the film.
    >
    > >HDTV is only around 1024pixels or so.

    >
    > No, it's 1920 pixels wide in 1080i mode. Even 720p is 1280 pixels wide.


    Thanks.

    Can you tell me what would be the corresponding camera resolutiuon for
    4096 pixels would be?

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
     
    2.com, Sep 22, 2005
    #6
  7. 2.com

    2.com Guest

    Bob wrote:
    > >
    > >>> Well, the new movie "Corpse Bride" was done with Canon 1Ds mkIIs,
    > >>> 16mp.

    > >
    > >>I was under the impression that it was the 8+MP 1D Mark II...not the 1Ds
    > >>Mark II.

    > >

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Info on the Corpse Bride movie & related cameras/lenses
    >
    > http://www.editorsguild.com/newsletter/JulAug05/julaug05_bride.html


    Thanks.

    Reading that has brought to light another possible problem.

    Since this project will involve high contrast shots(ie: Night time),
    can I assume that no digital camera(within a reasonable price) can
    accomplish this without the inherent random noise(pixilation in dark
    areas) when the shots are played back as a movie? (It is statd that
    this effect is only visible in stop-motion photography).

    Thanks again.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
     
    2.com, Sep 22, 2005
    #7
  8. 2.com

    Skip M Guest

    By george, you are right, discussion on the EOS mailing list indicated it
    was the 1Ds mkII, and I didn't re read the article linked below...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Sep 23, 2005
    #8
  9. 2.com

    ASAAR Guest

    On 22 Sep 2005 15:15:18 -0700, 2.com wrote:

    > Can you tell me what would be the corresponding camera
    > resolutiuon for 4096 pixels would be?


    If the sensor has the common 4:3 aspect ratio, that would be a
    resolution of 4k x 3k pixels, or a 12mp sensor.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 23, 2005
    #9
  10. 2.com

    2.com Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On 22 Sep 2005 15:15:18 -0700, 2.com wrote:
    >
    > > Can you tell me what would be the corresponding camera
    > > resolutiuon for 4096 pixels would be?

    >
    > If the sensor has the common 4:3 aspect ratio, that would be a
    > resolution of 4k x 3k pixels, or a 12mp sensor.


    Well, I guess that is out of the question.

    I'll have to stick with the 4mp camera and display the results on the
    TV or PC monitor.

    Thanks.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
     
    2.com, Sep 23, 2005
    #10
  11. 2.com

    Rich Guest

    On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:15:26 -0700, "Skip M" <>
    wrote:

    >By george, you are right, discussion on the EOS mailing list indicated it
    >was the 1Ds mkII, and I didn't re read the article linked below...


    And Nikon lenses because they apparently had a large stock of them.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Sep 23, 2005
    #11
  12. 2.com writes:

    > Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each frame)would
    > suffice for use in stop-motion photography?
    >
    > (I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition" for
    > display on the big screen).


    Well, a 2MP camera exceeds the HDTV standard resolution.

    For the "big screen" you need more than that, though.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 23, 2005
    #12
  13. 2.com

    Mark² Guest

    Skip M wrote:
    > By george, you are right, discussion on the EOS mailing list
    > indicated it was the 1Ds mkII, and I didn't re read the article
    > linked below...


    Hmmm... You said the 1Ds Mark II again.
    I was saying it was the 1D (non-s) Mark II.
    So whatchu tryin' ta say, Skip?
    :)
     
    Mark², Sep 23, 2005
    #13
  14. 2.com

    Mark² Guest

    Dave Martindale wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
    >
    >>> Well, the new movie "Corpse Bride" was done with Canon 1Ds mkIIs,
    >>> 16mp.

    >
    >> I was under the impression that it was the 8+MP 1D Mark II...not the
    >> 1Ds Mark II.

    >
    >> For stop motion, you do NOT need anything even CLOSE to that high a
    >> resolution.
    >> The only reason to use more would be if you plan to do extensive
    >> cropping.

    >
    > It depends on your output format. HDTV is only 1920x10800 pixels, but
    > if you're writing the images to 35 mm film for theatrical release,
    > you'll get the best quality from images that are 4K (4096) pixels
    > wide. Film recording equipment is commonly set up to handle either
    > 2048 or 4096 pixels across the width of the film.
    >
    >> HDTV is only around 1024pixels or so.

    >
    > No, it's 1920 pixels wide in 1080i mode. Even 720p is 1280 pixels
    > wide.
    >
    > Dave


    I didn't have the impression he was referring to a high quality film target,
    but a TV--or at best--an HDTV.
     
    Mark², Sep 23, 2005
    #14
  15. 2.com

    Skip M Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:iSLYe.24524$sx2.10856@fed1read02...
    > Skip M wrote:
    >> By george, you are right, discussion on the EOS mailing list
    >> indicated it was the 1Ds mkII, and I didn't re read the article
    >> linked below...

    >
    > Hmmm... You said the 1Ds Mark II again.
    > I was saying it was the 1D (non-s) Mark II.
    > So whatchu tryin' ta say, Skip?
    > :)
    >

    Nope, just trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to explain my incorrectness.
    The article indeed says 1D mkII, not the 1Ds mkII.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Sep 23, 2005
    #15
  16. 2.com

    Mark² Guest

    Skip M wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:iSLYe.24524$sx2.10856@fed1read02...
    >> Skip M wrote:
    >>> By george, you are right, discussion on the EOS mailing list
    >>> indicated it was the 1Ds mkII, and I didn't re read the article
    >>> linked below...

    >>
    >> Hmmm... You said the 1Ds Mark II again.
    >> I was saying it was the 1D (non-s) Mark II.
    >> So whatchu tryin' ta say, Skip?
    >> :)
    >>

    > Nope, just trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to explain my
    > incorrectness. The article indeed says 1D mkII, not the 1Ds mkII.


    Doh!
    I got it...
     
    Mark², Sep 23, 2005
    #16
  17. 2.com

    2.com Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > 2.com writes:
    >
    > > Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each frame)would
    > > suffice for use in stop-motion photography?
    > >
    > > (I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition" for
    > > display on the big screen).

    >
    > Well, a 2MP camera exceeds the HDTV standard resolution.
    >
    > For the "big screen" you need more than that, though.


    What would you consider way more than that?

    For "Corpse Bride" that site says that the camera would shoot 4k, but
    the images were manipulated at 2k "because that would be the final
    output of the Arri Laser".

    Thanks.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
     
    2.com, Sep 23, 2005
    #17
  18. 2.com writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > > 2.com writes:
    > >
    > > > Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each frame)would
    > > > suffice for use in stop-motion photography?
    > > >
    > > > (I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition" for
    > > > display on the big screen).

    > >
    > > Well, a 2MP camera exceeds the HDTV standard resolution.
    > >
    > > For the "big screen" you need more than that, though.

    >
    > What would you consider way more than that?


    Well, first, I didn't say "way more", just more.

    > For "Corpse Bride" that site says that the camera would shoot 4k, but
    > the images were manipulated at 2k "because that would be the final
    > output of the Arri Laser".


    I'm not sure I understand how the CGI people talk about resolution.
    4k by what, and 2x by what? Is that the vertical resolution in 16:9
    aspect ratio? So 4k means 4k x 7.1k, roughly? Or 28MP. And 2k means
    2k x 3.5k, or about 7MP? (And a 4x difference is as expected since
    the numbers are 2k and 4k numbers are linear resolution and the MP
    numbers are area resolution, which goes as the square of linear
    resolution.)

    So, it sounds like the consumer digicam range neatly covers the range
    of resolutions from HDTV to big-screen for stills.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 23, 2005
    #18
  19. 2.com

    2.com Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > 2.com writes:
    >
    > > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > > > 2.com writes:
    > > >
    > > > > Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each frame)would
    > > > > suffice for use in stop-motion photography?
    > > > >
    > > > > (I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition" for
    > > > > display on the big screen).
    > > >
    > > > Well, a 2MP camera exceeds the HDTV standard resolution.
    > > >
    > > > For the "big screen" you need more than that, though.

    > >
    > > What would you consider way more than that?

    >
    > Well, first, I didn't say "way more", just more.
    >
    > > For "Corpse Bride" that site says that the camera would shoot 4k, but
    > > the images were manipulated at 2k "because that would be the final
    > > output of the Arri Laser".

    >
    > I'm not sure I understand how the CGI people talk about resolution.
    > 4k by what, and 2x by what? Is that the vertical resolution in 16:9
    > aspect ratio? So 4k means 4k x 7.1k, roughly? Or 28MP. And 2k means
    > 2k x 3.5k, or about 7MP? (And a 4x difference is as expected since
    > the numbers are 2k and 4k numbers are linear resolution and the MP
    > numbers are area resolution, which goes as the square of linear
    > resolution.)
    >
    > So, it sounds like the consumer digicam range neatly covers the range
    > of resolutions from HDTV to big-screen for stills.
    > --
    > David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    > RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    > Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    > Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>


    It appears that a Canon camera with a CMOS sensor and DIGIC II
    processor chip was an important part of why the makers of "Corpse
    Bride" were able to get around a pixilation issue in dark areas when
    the shots were played back as a movie.

    But that may just be a factor with the high resolution they needed to
    make the movie, and therefore a "CMOS sensor and DIGIC II processor
    chip" might not be necessary in whatever camera I use because the
    output will only be to either a high definition TV or PC display.(I'm
    just trying to determine if I have to go with a Canon or if the range
    of camera options are larger for my uses).

    Any comments about this?

    Thanks a lot.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
     
    2.com, Sep 24, 2005
    #19
  20. David Dyer-Bennet <> writes:

    >I'm not sure I understand how the CGI people talk about resolution.
    >4k by what, and 2x by what? Is that the vertical resolution in 16:9
    >aspect ratio? So 4k means 4k x 7.1k, roughly? Or 28MP. And 2k means
    >2k x 3.5k, or about 7MP? (And a 4x difference is as expected since
    >the numbers are 2k and 4k numbers are linear resolution and the MP
    >numbers are area resolution, which goes as the square of linear
    >resolution.)


    2K and 4K are the long dimension of the image - the width in pixels.
    The vertical pixel count depends on the aspect ratio, which varies from
    film to film. But pixels are usually square, so you can calculate the
    vertical height in pixels by dividing the width by the aspect ratio.
    HDTV is 1.78 (16/9) while non-anamorphic film is probably 1.66 or 1.85,
    or maybe 1.33 to make later transfer to video easier.

    So at 1.33 aspect ratio (full frame, more or less), a 2K image is
    2048x1536, while a 4K image is 4096x3072 - 3 and 12 megapixels
    respectively.

    >So, it sounds like the consumer digicam range neatly covers the range
    >of resolutions from HDTV to big-screen for stills.


    Yup.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Sep 24, 2005
    #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. Russ Rothschild

    Recomendation 4/5 mp that can stop motion

    Russ Rothschild, Nov 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    490
    daniel
    Nov 11, 2003
  2. Bill Hilton

    39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ...

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    357
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,054
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    267
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    401
Loading...

Share This Page