Megapixels mania?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Richard, Aug 19, 2003.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Hi,

    I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if somebody
    want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the photo
    to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the computer,
    make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
    size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels and
    a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The Canon Powershot A70 has every
    spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to pay
    more in order to have more megapixels.

    Thanks,

    Richard
     
    Richard, Aug 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard

    James Guest

    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:xdg0b.652$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if

    somebody
    > want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the

    photo
    > to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the

    computer,
    > make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
    > size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels

    and
    > a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The Canon Powershot A70 has every
    > spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to

    pay
    > more in order to have more megapixels.


    IMHO the main factor in digicam image quality at this point in time is not
    the pixel count but the sensor size. That is, a 3 megapixel DSLR will give
    you a better picture than a 5 megapixel point-and-shoot.

    Other factors are noise, moire, and chromatic aberration (purple fringing),
    all of which will affect your image more than pixel count.

    James
     
    James, Aug 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    Ian S Guest

    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:xdg0b.652$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if

    somebody
    > want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the

    photo
    > to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the

    computer,
    > make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
    > size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels

    and
    > a 5 megapixels camera for those needs?


    File size perhaps?

    The Canon Powershot A70 has every
    > spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to

    pay
    > more in order to have more megapixels.


    I think the megapixels mania is analogous to the processor speed mania we've
    always seen in personal computers. For the average photographer, who snaps
    pics for sharing on the net, prints out 4"X6" copies for friends and family
    and maybe does the occasional print up to 8"X10" in size, 3 MP is fine IMHO.
     
    Ian S, Aug 19, 2003
    #3
  4. There goes a bit of urban legend that 300 dpi is the average
    obtainable resolution for chemically developed prints.

    So, given that, you want to have at least 300 dpi of detail in
    your image when you print it out.

    5"x7" prints need 1500x2100 at least in order to achieve that.

    I have a camera, 5 megapixel, that does 2560x1920. That gives me
    about 365 dpi for 7"x5" prints, 426 dpi for 6"x4" prints and only
    240 dpi for 10"x8" prints.

    Now, because there seems to be less noise with most digital
    cameras of some quality than standard 35mm film (no grain noise,
    etc.) a 240 dpi 10"x8" print can look surprisingly good by
    comparison, when seen side by side with a chemical print.

    That said, 300 dpi is preferable, according to the old rule of
    thumb.

    So, there is a new camera coming out from Sony called the
    DSC-F828, which is 8 megapixel and provides enough resolution to
    print 10"x8" prints at a full 300 dpi. 3264 x 2448 is the actual
    resolution. You divide 3264 by 10 and you get 326.4 dpi. You
    divide 2448 by 8 and you get 306 dpi. So, taking the lowest
    number as the limiting factor, you have enough data in that image
    to provide up to 306 dpi on that 10"x8" print.

    So, theoretically, 8megpixels is great for 8x10's... :)

    > Hi,
    >
    > I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know
    > that if somebody want to print large size photos, he needs a
    > lot of megapixels for the photo to look good. However, I
    > just want to have digital photos on the computer, make digital
    > changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
    > size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4
    > megapixels and a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The
    > Canon Powershot A70 has every spec I am looking for and I
    > wonder if it is would be really useful to pay more in order
    > to have more megapixels.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Richard
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003
    #4
  5. Richard

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if somebody
    > want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the photo
    > to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the computer,
    > make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
    > size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels and
    > a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The Canon Powershot A70 has every
    > spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to pay
    > more in order to have more megapixels.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Richard
    >
    >

    For 4x6 snapshots, with no 'preprocesing', 2 MP.
    For 8x10 photos with minimal processing 3 MP.
    for larger prints, or digital zooming during processing (large
    'blowups'), as many pixels as you can afford.
     
    Ron Hunter, Aug 19, 2003
    #5
  6. Richard

    Mike Graham Guest

    In article <xdg0b.652$>, Richard wrote:

    > size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels and
    > a 5 megapixels camera for those needs?


    No. Not in my opinion. I've got one particular shot that I like, which I
    printed in 5x7 and put up on the wall in a frame. Looks great. The shot
    was taken at 800x600 resolution. Really. That's, what, half a megapixel?
    Something like that. Nowadays I have a much much bigger smartmedia card, so
    I can shoot at 2048x1536 and still take a lot of shots, so I take the bigger
    shots, and I can crop out a small section of one (say, 1/3 of the shot),
    print it out at 8x10", and it looks great to me. This is a 3.2 megapixel
    camera. Back in the earlier days of digital photography I remember reading
    in some photo magazine or another that 2.4 megapixels was the holy grail -
    anything up to and including magazine covers could be shot with 2.4. Not
    sure if that's true, but I'm dead pleased with the results I get from my
    3.2. If I was printing shots at 16x20" then I might not be as pleased, but
    since I can only print up to 8x10 at this point... no problem.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
     
    Mike Graham, Aug 19, 2003
    #6
  7. Richard

    Phil Guest

    On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:24:05 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
    <> wrote:

    >There goes a bit of urban legend that 300 dpi is the average
    >obtainable resolution for chemically developed prints.

    [clip]
    >That said, 300 dpi is preferable, according to the old rule of
    >thumb.


    [clip]

    >So, theoretically, 8megpixels is great for 8x10's... :)

    Thanks for a useful (and sensible) appraisal.

    Phil
     
    Phil, Aug 19, 2003
    #7
  8. You are welcome.

    I hope it helped.

    Enjoy!


    > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:24:05 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> There goes a bit of urban legend that 300 dpi is the average
    >> obtainable resolution for chemically developed prints.

    > [clip]
    >> That said, 300 dpi is preferable, according to the old rule of
    >> thumb.

    >
    > [clip]
    >
    >> So, theoretically, 8megpixels is great for 8x10's... :)

    > Thanks for a useful (and sensible) appraisal.
    >
    > Phil
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003
    #8
  9. Richard

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Don't forget cropping. Having more pixels gives you more freedom in
    cropping.

    Richard wrote:
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if somebody
    > want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the photo
    > to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the computer,
    > make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
    > size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels and
    > a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The Canon Powershot A70 has every
    > spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to pay
    > more in order to have more megapixels.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Richard


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Aug 19, 2003
    #9
  10. Richard

    Miss Jaime Guest

    On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:15:34 -0400, Mike Graham
    <> wrote:


    > No. Not in my opinion. I've got one particular shot that I like, which I
    >printed in 5x7 and put up on the wall in a frame. Looks great.


    Was that one of the blow job pics we took?





    Miss Jaime

    374/326/300(first goal)
     
    Miss Jaime, Aug 19, 2003
    #10
  11. The standard resolution for magazines is 150dpi, due to the printing
    technology that they use. Add to that the fact that nearly all
    magazines are 8x11 or smaller, and you'll see that the maximum
    resolution they need is 1200 x 1650 = 2MP. A little higher 2.4 MP buys
    some cropping flexibility.

    On regular paper, 150-300 dpi looks fine. On photo paper, you'll notice
    a difference in quality on the 600 and 1200 dpi prints, but only upon
    close inspection. For wall hangings, one can get by with very low dpi,
    to which the pointilist Georges Seurat can attest. Go to Best Buy and
    look at the print-out samples from the printers, paying attention to the
    dpi.

    I bought the A60 with 2MP a month ago and have been very, very happy
    with it, and it was only $225 for the camera. The A70 has the same
    feature set, but 3MP resolution. You can read my review here:

    http://www.somacon.com/docs/canon_a60/

    Shailesh

    Mike Graham wrote:
    > In article <xdg0b.652$>, Richard wrote:
    >
    >
    >>size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels and
    >>a 5 megapixels camera for those needs?

    >
    >
    > No. Not in my opinion. I've got one particular shot that I like, which I
    > printed in 5x7 and put up on the wall in a frame. Looks great. The shot
    > was taken at 800x600 resolution. Really. That's, what, half a megapixel?
    > Something like that. Nowadays I have a much much bigger smartmedia card, so
    > I can shoot at 2048x1536 and still take a lot of shots, so I take the bigger
    > shots, and I can crop out a small section of one (say, 1/3 of the shot),
    > print it out at 8x10", and it looks great to me. This is a 3.2 megapixel
    > camera. Back in the earlier days of digital photography I remember reading
    > in some photo magazine or another that 2.4 megapixels was the holy grail -
    > anything up to and including magazine covers could be shot with 2.4. Not
    > sure if that's true, but I'm dead pleased with the results I get from my
    > 3.2. If I was printing shots at 16x20" then I might not be as pleased, but
    > since I can only print up to 8x10 at this point... no problem.
    >
     
    Shailesh Humbad, Aug 19, 2003
    #11
  12. Richard

    CR Optiker Guest

    On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 08:59:31 -0500, Don Stauffer wrote:

    > Don't forget cropping. Having more pixels gives you more freedom in
    > cropping.
    >


    I'm amazed there were so many posts before somebody mentioned cropping. How
    often do you compose perfectly and fill the frame? Maybe pros do, but the
    rest of us find occasions when we might even want to print a fraction of
    the full frame - then where are you if you don't start with lots of pixels.
    Crop to half of the 2560 maximum width with a Nikon CP5700 and you have
    1280 pixels - in a normal 4x3 format, 1280 x 960, or about 1.2 MP.
     
    CR Optiker, Aug 19, 2003
    #12
  13. Don Stauffer <> writes:

    > Don't forget cropping. Having more pixels gives you more freedom in
    > cropping.


    I tend to believe it is better to crop when taking the picture, rather than
    hoping I can resurrect something later with post processing, but to each their
    own.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Aug 19, 2003
    #13
  14. Richard

    Shepherd Guest

    "Michael Meissner" <> wrote in message
    news:-meissners.org...
    > Don Stauffer <> writes:
    >
    > > Don't forget cropping. Having more pixels gives you more freedom in
    > > cropping.

    >
    > I tend to believe it is better to crop when taking the picture, rather

    than
    > hoping I can resurrect something later with post processing, but to each

    their
    > own.
    >
    > --
    > Michael Meissner
    > email:
    > http://www.the-meissners.org


    Cropping in the camera would be ideal, but most, if not all pictures, can be
    improved, even saved, by cropping later on the computer.

    The more pixels, the better.

    Shepherd
     
    Shepherd, Aug 19, 2003
    #14
  15. Richard

    Richard Guest

    "Richard" <> a écrit dans le message
    de news:xdg0b.652$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am wondering about this megapixels thing. I know that if

    somebody
    > want to print large size photos, he needs a lot of megapixels for the

    photo
    > to look good. However, I just want to have digital photos on the

    computer,
    > make digital changes with Paint Shop Pro 8 and print some at an average
    > size. Would I see a difference between a 3 megapixles, a 4 megapixels

    and
    > a 5 megapixels camera for those needs? The Canon Powershot A70 has every
    > spec I am looking for and I wonder if it is would be really useful to

    pay
    > more in order to have more megapixels.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Richard
    >

    Thank you all for your good information.

    Richard
     
    Richard, Aug 19, 2003
    #15
  16. Richard

    Phil Guest

    On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:20:59 GMT, "John" <> wrote:

    > IMHO, I think the Canon A70
    >would be the best bang for your buck

    What about the newish Samsung Digimax models. Their specs look good
    and I do like the fcility of using just about any battery type you
    choose!

    Phil
     
    Phil, Aug 20, 2003
    #16
  17. Richard

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Right, but when there is a barbed wire fence there, or an electric
    fence, or some other barrier you just do not want to cross, sometimes
    you are FORCED to shoot a little further than you would like. Most of
    us do not have unlimited focal length lenses to work with. Having some
    extra pixels in such a case is nice.

    Michael Meissner wrote:
    >
    > Don Stauffer <> writes:
    >
    > > Don't forget cropping. Having more pixels gives you more freedom in
    > > cropping.

    >
    > I tend to believe it is better to crop when taking the picture, rather than
    > hoping I can resurrect something later with post processing, but to each their
    > own.
    >
    > --
    > Michael Meissner
    > email:
    > http://www.the-meissners.org


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Aug 20, 2003
    #17
    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. Frisbee®

    OT: Monday Mania

    Frisbee®, Jul 18, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    468
    Bob Christian
    Jul 19, 2005
  2. Frisbee®

    OT: Monday MCNGP Mania

    Frisbee®, Mar 20, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    78
    Views:
    2,000
    Gorm Braarvig
    Mar 23, 2006
  3. Bill Hilton

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

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    367
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  4. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    283
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
Loading...

Share This Page