Need help in calculating digital camera's MP

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca@gmail.com, Jan 2, 2009.

  1. Guest

    For a 46 in high definition TV (1920x1080 Panel resolution) - 1080p
    Full HD definition, the screen size of the TV is 40 in. x 23 in. ( 102
    cm x 58 cm). How many MP digital camera that I need to have JPG
    photos, so that I can watch clear, sharp, crisp JPG photos on the TV?
    I must admit that I don't have much knowledge about the pixels in
    digital cameras,etc. and how that translates into the high definition
    TV. Therefore, I do need practical, layman terms answers for info or
    links to specific discussion to any websites.
    What about for the 52 in. TV, 56 in. TV, etc?. Is there a chart
    available somewhere?. I recall a table showing how MP is connected to
    photo print sizes (at the photo printing stores). But this screen size
    is much larger than those listed - perhaps more for poster sizes.
    Someone may ask on how close you are watching the TV screen... and I
    am thinking about relatively close range, say 5 ft distance.
    Thanks for the info!
    , Jan 2, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don Stauffer Guest

    wrote:
    > For a 46 in high definition TV (1920x1080 Panel resolution) - 1080p
    > Full HD definition, the screen size of the TV is 40 in. x 23 in. ( 102
    > cm x 58 cm). How many MP digital camera that I need to have JPG
    > photos, so that I can watch clear, sharp, crisp JPG photos on the TV?
    > I must admit that I don't have much knowledge about the pixels in
    > digital cameras,etc. and how that translates into the high definition
    > TV. Therefore, I do need practical, layman terms answers for info or
    > links to specific discussion to any websites.
    > What about for the 52 in. TV, 56 in. TV, etc?. Is there a chart
    > available somewhere?. I recall a table showing how MP is connected to
    > photo print sizes (at the photo printing stores). But this screen size
    > is much larger than those listed - perhaps more for poster sizes.
    > Someone may ask on how close you are watching the TV screen... and I
    > am thinking about relatively close range, say 5 ft distance.
    > Thanks for the info!



    Roughly two megapixels. There may be an aspect ratio problem, but
    resolution is not a precise number anyway. Multiply the screen panel
    resolution to get the appropriate resolution of the screen. Your image
    should equal or exceed that value for good results. It doesn't really
    depend on screen size, merely the number of pixels, which is determined
    by whether the set is HD or SD, and if HD is it 720 or 1080. Interlaced
    vs progressive is immaterial to showing stills.

    Sure, if you view it from a large distance away, you COULD get by with
    less resolution, but the requirement for viewing on a TV is not
    strenuous, so why not shoot with enough resolution so that the image is
    not the limiting factor?
    Don Stauffer, Jan 2, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. HarveyW wrote:
    []
    > **You should also take into account the lens quality on a camera.
    > There is some very poorly designed DSLR glass in most kit-lenses
    > being sold today.


    I thought that Canon had replaced their 18-55mm non-IS lens? That's the
    only one which had a bad reputation. The others are excellent value for
    money, and capable of excellent results. In any case, with a DSLR /you/
    can choose what lens you buy, rather than being stuck with what comes with
    a fixed-lens camera.

    To the OP:
    A DSLR or better-quality P&S of 5-6MP or better will be fine to equal
    your HD TV resolution. Choose carefully, for the best image quality from
    the camera. How are you going to display the images? With a computer
    connection? Via the memory slot?

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 2, 2009
    #3
  4. ray Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:13:01 -0800, aniramca wrote:

    > For a 46 in high definition TV (1920x1080 Panel resolution) - 1080p Full
    > HD definition, the screen size of the TV is 40 in. x 23 in. ( 102 cm x
    > 58 cm). How many MP digital camera that I need to have JPG photos, so
    > that I can watch clear, sharp, crisp JPG photos on the TV? I must admit
    > that I don't have much knowledge about the pixels in digital
    > cameras,etc. and how that translates into the high definition TV.
    > Therefore, I do need practical, layman terms answers for info or links
    > to specific discussion to any websites. What about for the 52 in. TV, 56
    > in. TV, etc?. Is there a chart available somewhere?. I recall a table
    > showing how MP is connected to photo print sizes (at the photo printing
    > stores). But this screen size is much larger than those listed - perhaps
    > more for poster sizes. Someone may ask on how close you are watching the
    > TV screen... and I am thinking about relatively close range, say 5 ft
    > distance. Thanks for the info!


    Basically, 1920x1080 is about 2mp - anything beyond that is overkill -
    you can't display more than the resolution of the output device.
    ray, Jan 2, 2009
    #4
  5. ray wrote:
    []
    > Basically, 1920x1080 is about 2mp - anything beyond that is overkill -
    > you can't display more than the resolution of the output device.


    ... although a "normal" 4:3 aspect ratio camera needs to be 1920 x 1440
    pixels to at least match the display resolution horizontally (i.e. 2.76
    Mpix), and it would be helpful to have some crop margin for those times
    when your framing isn't perfect , so say 5-6Mpix.

    Leaving the question, are any current cameras less than 5-6Mpix?

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 2, 2009
    #5
  6. On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:25:28 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:

    > added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
    >
    >> For a 46 in high definition TV (1920x1080 Panel resolution) -
    >> 1080p Full HD definition, the screen size of the TV is 40 in. x
    >> 23 in. ( 102 cm x 58 cm). How many MP digital camera that I need
    >> to have JPG photos, so that I can watch clear, sharp, crisp JPG
    >> photos on the TV? I must admit that I don't have much knowledge
    >> about the pixels in digital cameras,etc. and how that translates
    >> into the high definition TV. Therefore, I do need practical,
    >> layman terms answers for info or links to specific discussion to
    >> any websites. What about for the 52 in. TV, 56 in. TV, etc?. Is
    >> there a chart available somewhere?. I recall a table showing how
    >> MP is connected to photo print sizes (at the photo printing
    >> stores). But this screen size is much larger than those listed -
    >> perhaps more for poster sizes. Someone may ask on how close you
    >> are watching the TV screen... and I am thinking about relatively
    >> close range, say 5 ft distance. Thanks for the info!

    >
    > Do you have acalulia or something?


    It's acalculia.

    And I think the proper word would be dyscalculia, anyway.


    G

    > "mega pixels" means "millions of
    > pixels" which are in turn the area of a given imgage of W x H
    > pixels. So, if your TV can resolve 1920 x 1080, it must follow that
    > 1920 x 1080 = 2,073600 total pixels, or about 2 MP. BTW, you CAN
    > display either larger or smaller on your TV and get a good picture
    > IF the system doing the display can do the reduction or enlargement
    > using interpolation rather than simple pixel resize. And, of
    > course, it sorta matters how good the digital images are in the
    > first place and what quality the TV really is.


    --
    Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
    Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
    Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot
    of talking... don't they?
    Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

    -- Wizard Of Oz
    Gaston Ryan Coake, Jan 2, 2009
    #6
  7. Rob Morley Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:54:53 -0800
    Gaston Ryan Coake <> wrote:

    > And I think the proper word would be dyscalculia, anyway.
    >

    It is indeed, like the related conditions of dyslexia and dyspraxia.
    Rob Morley, Jan 2, 2009
    #7
  8. ray Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:41:10 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    > []
    >> Basically, 1920x1080 is about 2mp - anything beyond that is overkill -
    >> you can't display more than the resolution of the output device.

    >
    > .. although a "normal" 4:3 aspect ratio camera needs to be 1920 x 1440
    > pixels to at least match the display resolution horizontally (i.e. 2.76
    > Mpix), and it would be helpful to have some crop margin for those times
    > when your framing isn't perfect , so say 5-6Mpix.
    >
    > Leaving the question, are any current cameras less than 5-6Mpix?
    >
    > David


    According to my calculations, at 4:3, the image would only need to be
    1440x1080 - any larger and you'd drop of the top and bottom. So I guess
    he only needs about 1.5mp.
    ray, Jan 2, 2009
    #8
  9. ray <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:41:10 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> ray wrote:
    >> []
    >>> Basically, 1920x1080 is about 2mp - anything beyond that is overkill -
    >>> you can't display more than the resolution of the output device.

    >>
    >> .. although a "normal" 4:3 aspect ratio camera needs to be 1920 x 1440
    >> pixels to at least match the display resolution horizontally (i.e. 2.76
    >> Mpix), and it would be helpful to have some crop margin for those times
    >> when your framing isn't perfect , so say 5-6Mpix.
    >>
    >> Leaving the question, are any current cameras less than 5-6Mpix?
    >>
    >> David

    >
    >According to my calculations, at 4:3, the image would only need to be
    >1440x1080 - any larger and you'd drop of the top and bottom. So I guess
    >he only needs about 1.5mp.


    I make family DVDs for 16:9 widescreen TV. One major source of content
    is JPEG output from my Canon Ixus 60. I use its full (modest!)
    resolution of 2816 x 2112 (AR=4.3), which allows me adequate scope for
    pans/zooms. If I move up to HD DVDs (the TV is HD-ready) then I'll
    probably upgrade my camera.

    Anyway, in general I'd choose the highest possible resolution every
    time, as I like to edit my hasty compositions on the PC. And that's
    where sometimes I can create heavily-zoomed crops that I'd either
    missed or had no time to capture in the field. Of course, I'm coming
    at this just as a point-and-shoot guy, not a pro or serious amateur.

    --
    Terry, East Grinstead, UK
    Terry Pinnell, Jan 2, 2009
    #9
  10. ray wrote:
    > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:41:10 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> ray wrote:
    >> []
    >>> Basically, 1920x1080 is about 2mp - anything beyond that is
    >>> overkill - you can't display more than the resolution of the output
    >>> device.

    >>
    >> .. although a "normal" 4:3 aspect ratio camera needs to be 1920 x
    >> 1440 pixels to at least match the display resolution horizontally
    >> (i.e. 2.76 Mpix), and it would be helpful to have some crop margin
    >> for those times when your framing isn't perfect , so say 5-6Mpix.
    >>
    >> Leaving the question, are any current cameras less than 5-6Mpix?
    >>
    >> David

    >
    > According to my calculations, at 4:3, the image would only need to be
    > 1440x1080 - any larger and you'd drop of the top and bottom. So I
    > guess he only needs about 1.5mp.


    You want the full resolution in each dimension, which, for a 4:3 sensor,
    means a 1920 x 1440 pixel image, cropped vertically to 1920 x 1080. As
    Terry say, though, in general a little more resolution is handy.

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 2, 2009
    #10
  11. Terry Pinnell wrote:
    []
    > Anyway, in general I'd choose the highest possible resolution every
    > time, as I like to edit my hasty compositions on the PC. And that's
    > where sometimes I can create heavily-zoomed crops that I'd either
    > missed or had no time to capture in the field. Of course, I'm coming
    > at this just as a point-and-shoot guy, not a pro or serious amateur.


    There's another reason for using more pixels. In the display, each of the
    pixels is an RGB triple, i.e. a full colour pixel, whereas in the camera
    each pixel is either red, green or blue. So to match the display
    resolution, you may need more pixels in the (Bayer) camera than are on the
    display. I don't know if any tests have been done to check what the
    actual ratio is, but I recall that the Foveon sensor is reckoned by some
    to be equivalent to something like twice the number of pixels.

    I therefore revise my estimate to, for a 4:3 aspect ratio camera 2 * 1920
    * 1440, i.e. about 5-6Mpix, resampled and cropped to a 16:9 1920 x 1080
    ready-to-display image.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 2, 2009
    #11
  12. John Navas wrote:
    []
    > Most current TV electronics aren't capable of that kind of pixel level
    > resolution -- put the HD input on pause and look closely -- and your
    > eyes couldn't see it in a moving image even if.
    >
    >> I don't know if any tests have been done to check what the
    >> actual ratio is, but I recall that the Foveon sensor is reckoned by
    >> some to be equivalent to something like twice the number of pixels.

    >
    > That's not directly comparable.
    >
    >> I therefore revise my estimate to, for a 4:3 aspect ratio camera 2 *
    >> 1920 * 1440, i.e. about 5-6Mpix, resampled and cropped to a 16:9
    >> 1920 x 1080 ready-to-display image.

    >
    > Cropping a movie is usually impractical.
    > 2-3 MP is really enough.


    The LCD TVs I've seen are quite capable of pixel-level resolution, John.
    Recall that the OP wants stills, not movies.

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 2, 2009
    #12
  13. Guest

    On Jan 2, 2:04 pm, "David J Taylor" <-
    this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > John Navas wrote:
    >
    > []
    >
    >
    >
    > > Most current TV electronics aren't capable of that kind of pixel level
    > > resolution -- put the HD input on pause and look closely -- and your
    > > eyes couldn't see it in a moving image even if.

    >
    > >> I don't know if any tests have been done to check what the
    > >> actual ratio is, but I recall that the Foveon sensor is reckoned by
    > >> some to be equivalent to something like twice the number of pixels.

    >
    > > That's not directly comparable.

    >
    > >> I therefore revise my estimate to, for a 4:3 aspect ratio camera 2 *
    > >> 1920 * 1440, i.e. about 5-6Mpix, resampled and cropped to a 16:9
    > >> 1920 x 1080 ready-to-display image.

    >
    > > Cropping a movie is usually impractical.
    > > 2-3 MP is really enough.

    >
    > The LCD TVs I've seen are quite capable of pixel-level resolution, John.
    > Recall that the OP wants stills, not movies.
    >
    > David


    Thanks for all of the info and discussions. However, I just simply
    could not get sharp, crisp photos from my cameras.
    I tried some photos using a 3MP Lumix digital camera and they show
    excellent colour and sharpness under my 21 in. LCD computer screen.
    They are close-ups of a red flower, and showing its extremely focused
    and sharp filaments. I used the flower (no flash and under bright
    light) as it usually gives the best resolution and colour. I also shot
    a couple of photos using a Canon G7 (10 MP). The results have also
    been disappointing in my TV. These JPG files are all over 2MP that all
    of you indicated. So, what's wrong? I just copied the JPG files into
    a CD and use a DVD player attached to the TV. They just do not show
    sharp photos that I always see at the TV stores when they display the
    TVs. Are they using high MP photos?

    Thanks any way for the information. It appears that every one agrees
    that you only need a 2MP JPG file to produce excellent photos in a 46
    in. TV screen. I am just not happy for what I got so far and perhaps I
    will keep trying. Perhaps I should try to download one of the best and
    sharp , over 2MB photos from the internet and try that on my TV. Does
    the process to download to the TV matter? or it does not matter as
    long as they are a JPG files?
    , Jan 2, 2009
    #13
  14. nospam Guest

    In article <Nmt7l.14177$>, David J
    Taylor <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    wrote:

    > There's another reason for using more pixels. In the display, each of the
    > pixels is an RGB triple, i.e. a full colour pixel, whereas in the camera
    > each pixel is either red, green or blue. So to match the display
    > resolution, you may need more pixels in the (Bayer) camera than are on the
    > display. I don't know if any tests have been done to check what the
    > actual ratio is, but I recall that the Foveon sensor is reckoned by some
    > to be equivalent to something like twice the number of pixels.


    the foveon fans come up with their own math to justify the sensor's
    existence. it's often hilarious. i've seen everything from 1.4x to
    over 3x, with some even claiming infinite resolution, depending on how
    creative the (misinformed) zealot is. the main difference is not the
    co-located layers, but rather the false detail from the lack of an
    anti-alias filter and heavy sharpening in the raw processing.
    nospam, Jan 2, 2009
    #14
  15. Paul Furman Guest

    Re: |GG| Need help in calculating digital camera's MP

    wrote:
    > For a 46 in high definition TV (1920x1080 Panel resolution) - 1080p
    > Full HD definition, the screen size of the TV is 40 in. x 23 in. ( 102
    > cm x 58 cm). How many MP digital camera that I need to have JPG
    > photos, so that I can watch clear, sharp, crisp JPG photos on the TV?


    Common aspect ratios:
    16:9 = 1.77 HD video
    8:6 = 1.6 Widescreen LCD
    3:2 = 1.5 DSLR
    4:3 = 1.33 Compact digital
    10:8 = 1.25 8x10" print

    Computer wide screen monitors are taller than they need to be:
    1200x1920 1:1.6
    1080x1920 1:1.7
    Compact digitals are a 1:1.3 aspect ratio (4:3)
    If you aren't going to crop to fit the screen and it's only 1080 high,
    there will be considerable wasted space on the sides:
    1080x1404 = 1.5MP
    If you do crop and the screen is 1200 pixels high:
    1476x1920 = 2.8MP

    Digital cameras have an anti-aliasing filter which blurs the image some
    to avoid moire patterns on striped detail so you can get a considerably
    sharper image by reducing to around 50% so:
    2952x3840 = 11.3MP

    Maybe that's overkill but not far off. If you are just turning down the
    capture size for your camera, you will get this advantage. Full size
    pixels are definitely less sharp than if you reduce some. A 3MP native
    image will be noticeably softer than a 10MP image reduced to fit.


    > I must admit that I don't have much knowledge about the pixels in
    > digital cameras,etc. and how that translates into the high definition
    > TV. Therefore, I do need practical, layman terms answers for info or
    > links to specific discussion to any websites.
    > What about for the 52 in. TV, 56 in. TV, etc?. Is there a chart
    > available somewhere?. I recall a table showing how MP is connected to
    > photo print sizes (at the photo printing stores). But this screen size
    > is much larger than those listed - perhaps more for poster sizes.
    > Someone may ask on how close you are watching the TV screen... and I
    > am thinking about relatively close range, say 5 ft distance.
    > Thanks for the info!


    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jan 2, 2009
    #15
  16. ray Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:45:07 -0800, aniramca wrote:

    > On Jan 2, 2:04 pm, "David J Taylor" <-
    > this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >> John Navas wrote:
    >>
    >> []
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > Most current TV electronics aren't capable of that kind of pixel
    >> > level resolution -- put the HD input on pause and look closely -- and
    >> > your eyes couldn't see it in a moving image even if.

    >>
    >> >> I don't know if any tests have been done to check what the actual
    >> >> ratio is, but I recall that the Foveon sensor is reckoned by some to
    >> >> be equivalent to something like twice the number of pixels.

    >>
    >> > That's not directly comparable.

    >>
    >> >> I therefore revise my estimate to, for a 4:3 aspect ratio camera 2 *
    >> >> 1920 * 1440, i.e. about 5-6Mpix, resampled and cropped to a 16:9
    >> >> 1920 x 1080 ready-to-display image.

    >>
    >> > Cropping a movie is usually impractical. 2-3 MP is really enough.

    >>
    >> The LCD TVs I've seen are quite capable of pixel-level resolution,
    >> John. Recall that the OP wants stills, not movies.
    >>
    >> David

    >
    > Thanks for all of the info and discussions. However, I just simply could
    > not get sharp, crisp photos from my cameras. I tried some photos using a
    > 3MP Lumix digital camera and they show excellent colour and sharpness
    > under my 21 in. LCD computer screen. They are close-ups of a red flower,
    > and showing its extremely focused and sharp filaments. I used the flower
    > (no flash and under bright light) as it usually gives the best
    > resolution and colour. I also shot a couple of photos using a Canon G7
    > (10 MP). The results have also been disappointing in my TV. These JPG
    > files are all over 2MP that all of you indicated. So, what's wrong? I
    > just copied the JPG files into a CD and use a DVD player attached to the
    > TV. They just do not show sharp photos that I always see at the TV
    > stores when they display the TVs. Are they using high MP photos?
    >
    > Thanks any way for the information. It appears that every one agrees
    > that you only need a 2MP JPG file to produce excellent photos in a 46
    > in. TV screen. I am just not happy for what I got so far and perhaps I
    > will keep trying. Perhaps I should try to download one of the best and
    > sharp , over 2MB photos from the internet and try that on my TV. Does
    > the process to download to the TV matter? or it does not matter as long
    > as they are a JPG files?


    It sounds to me like you are basically displaying in TV mode - probably
    analog TV mode - which is simply not high resolution. Suggest you use a
    high def or computer monitor interface. You may not be able to do any
    better.
    ray, Jan 2, 2009
    #16
  17. J. Clarke Guest

    ray wrote:
    > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:45:07 -0800, aniramca wrote:
    >
    >> On Jan 2, 2:04 pm, "David J Taylor"
    >> <-
    >> this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >>> John Navas wrote:
    >>>
    >>> []
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Most current TV electronics aren't capable of that kind of pixel
    >>>> level resolution -- put the HD input on pause and look closely --
    >>>> and your eyes couldn't see it in a moving image even if.
    >>>
    >>>>> I don't know if any tests have been done to check what the
    >>>>> actual
    >>>>> ratio is, but I recall that the Foveon sensor is reckoned by
    >>>>> some
    >>>>> to be equivalent to something like twice the number of pixels.
    >>>
    >>>> That's not directly comparable.
    >>>
    >>>>> I therefore revise my estimate to, for a 4:3 aspect ratio camera
    >>>>> 2 * 1920 * 1440, i.e. about 5-6Mpix, resampled and cropped to a
    >>>>> 16:9 1920 x 1080 ready-to-display image.
    >>>
    >>>> Cropping a movie is usually impractical. 2-3 MP is really enough.
    >>>
    >>> The LCD TVs I've seen are quite capable of pixel-level resolution,
    >>> John. Recall that the OP wants stills, not movies.
    >>>
    >>> David

    >>
    >> Thanks for all of the info and discussions. However, I just simply
    >> could not get sharp, crisp photos from my cameras. I tried some
    >> photos using a 3MP Lumix digital camera and they show excellent
    >> colour and sharpness under my 21 in. LCD computer screen. They are
    >> close-ups of a red flower, and showing its extremely focused and
    >> sharp filaments. I used the flower (no flash and under bright
    >> light)
    >> as it usually gives the best resolution and colour. I also shot a
    >> couple of photos using a Canon G7 (10 MP). The results have also
    >> been disappointing in my TV. These JPG files are all over 2MP that
    >> all of you indicated. So, what's wrong? I just copied the JPG
    >> files
    >> into a CD and use a DVD player attached to the TV. They just do not
    >> show sharp photos that I always see at the TV stores when they
    >> display the TVs. Are they using high MP photos?
    >>
    >> Thanks any way for the information. It appears that every one
    >> agrees
    >> that you only need a 2MP JPG file to produce excellent photos in a
    >> 46
    >> in. TV screen. I am just not happy for what I got so far and
    >> perhaps
    >> I will keep trying. Perhaps I should try to download one of the
    >> best
    >> and sharp , over 2MB photos from the internet and try that on my
    >> TV.
    >> Does the process to download to the TV matter? or it does not
    >> matter
    >> as long as they are a JPG files?

    >
    > It sounds to me like you are basically displaying in TV mode -
    > probably analog TV mode - which is simply not high resolution.
    > Suggest you use a high def or computer monitor interface. You may
    > not
    > be able to do any better.


    The key here is "I just copied the JPG files into a CD and use a DVD
    player attached to the TV."

    If that is not a Blu-Ray DVD player attached via HDCP then it is
    likely not capable of sending more than standard analog broadcast
    resolution to the TV.

    With regard to "They just do not show sharp photos that I always see
    at the TV stores when they display the TVs. Are they using high MP
    photos? ", they'll either be using a DVI/HDMI input from a PC or an
    HDCP input from a blu-ray player or HDTivo or the like.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Jan 2, 2009
    #17
  18. Guest

    On Jan 2, 3:41 pm, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > ray wrote:
    > > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:45:07 -0800, aniramca wrote:

    >
    > >> On Jan 2, 2:04 pm, "David J Taylor"
    > >> <-
    > >> this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > >>> John Navas wrote:

    >
    > >>> []

    >
    > >>>> Most current TV electronics aren't capable of that kind of pixel
    > >>>> level resolution -- put the HD input on pause and look closely --
    > >>>> and your eyes couldn't see it in a moving image even if.

    >
    > >>>>> I don't know if any tests have been done to check what the
    > >>>>> actual
    > >>>>> ratio is, but I recall that the Foveon sensor is reckoned by
    > >>>>> some
    > >>>>> to be equivalent to something like twice the number of pixels.

    >
    > >>>> That's not directly comparable.

    >
    > >>>>> I therefore revise my estimate to, for a 4:3 aspect ratio camera
    > >>>>> 2 * 1920 * 1440, i.e. about 5-6Mpix, resampled and cropped to a
    > >>>>> 16:9 1920 x 1080 ready-to-display image.

    >
    > >>>> Cropping a movie is usually impractical. 2-3 MP is really enough.

    >
    > >>> The LCD TVs I've seen are quite capable of pixel-level resolution,
    > >>> John. Recall that the OP wants stills, not movies.

    >
    > >>> David

    >
    > >> Thanks for all of the info and discussions. However, I just simply
    > >> could not get sharp, crisp photos from my cameras. I tried some
    > >> photos using a 3MP Lumix digital camera and they show excellent
    > >> colour and sharpness under my 21 in. LCD computer screen. They are
    > >> close-ups of a red flower, and showing its extremely focused and
    > >> sharp filaments. I used the flower (no flash and under bright
    > >> light)
    > >> as it usually gives the best resolution and colour. I also shot a
    > >> couple of photos using a Canon G7 (10 MP). The results have also
    > >> been disappointing in my TV. These JPG files are all over 2MP that
    > >> all of you indicated. So, what's wrong?  I just copied the JPG
    > >> files
    > >> into a CD and use a DVD player attached to the TV. They just do not
    > >> show sharp photos that I always see at the TV stores when they
    > >> display the TVs. Are they using high MP photos?

    >
    > >> Thanks any way for the information. It appears that every one
    > >> agrees
    > >> that you only need a 2MP JPG file to produce excellent photos in a
    > >> 46
    > >> in. TV screen. I am just not happy for what I got so far and
    > >> perhaps
    > >> I will keep trying. Perhaps I should try to download one of the
    > >> best
    > >> and sharp , over 2MB photos from the internet and try that on my
    > >> TV.
    > >> Does the process to download to the TV matter? or it does not
    > >> matter
    > >> as long as they are a JPG files?

    >
    > > It sounds to me like you are basically displaying in TV mode -
    > > probably analog TV mode - which is simply not high resolution.
    > > Suggest you use a high def or computer monitor interface. You may
    > > not
    > > be able to do any better.

    >
    > The key here is "I just copied the JPG files into a CD and use a DVD
    > player attached to the TV."
    >
    > If that is not a Blu-Ray DVD player attached via HDCP then it is
    > likely not capable of sending more than standard analog broadcast
    > resolution to the TV.
    >
    > With regard to "They just do not show sharp photos that I always see
    > at the TV stores when they display the TVs. Are they using high MP
    > photos? ", they'll either be using a DVI/HDMI input from a PC or an
    > HDCP input from a blu-ray player or HDTivo or the like.
    >
    > --
    > --
    > --John
    > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


    John:
    Thanks for the info. Now I see that a JPG with enough MP does not
    necessarily guarantee to produce a good picture in a TV. How does this
    different from viewing in a computer using, say 24 in. LCD monitor?
    Does a software in the computer make the extra processing here?
    I wonder if one of those TV from Sony or Panasonic, which you can plug
    in the memory card directly into the TV can produce the high quality
    pictures directly. So, I just cannot simply dump the JPG files in a CD
    and play it. I knew that there seems always be a catch somewhere.
    , Jan 2, 2009
    #18
  19. John Navas wrote:
    > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:04:19 GMT, "David J Taylor"

    []
    >> The LCD TVs I've seen are quite capable of pixel-level resolution,
    >> John.

    >
    > Brand and model please.


    All I have tested, when fed from the computer input.

    Examples:
    Logik L19LID648
    Samsung LE26R74BD

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 3, 2009
    #19
  20. wrote:
    []
    > Thanks for all of the info and discussions. However, I just simply
    > could not get sharp, crisp photos from my cameras.
    > I tried some photos using a 3MP Lumix digital camera and they show
    > excellent colour and sharpness under my 21 in. LCD computer screen.
    > They are close-ups of a red flower, and showing its extremely focused
    > and sharp filaments. I used the flower (no flash and under bright
    > light) as it usually gives the best resolution and colour. I also shot
    > a couple of photos using a Canon G7 (10 MP). The results have also
    > been disappointing in my TV. These JPG files are all over 2MP that all
    > of you indicated. So, what's wrong? I just copied the JPG files into
    > a CD and use a DVD player attached to the TV. They just do not show
    > sharp photos that I always see at the TV stores when they display the
    > TVs. Are they using high MP photos?
    >
    > Thanks any way for the information. It appears that every one agrees
    > that you only need a 2MP JPG file to produce excellent photos in a 46
    > in. TV screen. I am just not happy for what I got so far and perhaps I
    > will keep trying. Perhaps I should try to download one of the best and
    > sharp , over 2MB photos from the internet and try that on my TV. Does
    > the process to download to the TV matter? or it does not matter as
    > long as they are a JPG files?


    The process of getting the image onto the TV absolutely /does/ matter!
    For best results, I would currently recommend using the computer (VGA)
    input to the TV, and driving it at its native resolution (on two of my TVs
    this means driving at 1366 x 768 pixels, and 1440 x 900 pixels). Switch
    the TV on before connecting the computer, and then the display card in the
    computer will recognise the TV's resolution. You would need to check how
    the TV handles JPEGs on a DVD. If going through a DVD player, for
    example, it might just rescale the images to 640 x 480 pixels! See if the
    TV has a memory card slot. That /might/ be better.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 3, 2009
    #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. Jeffrey Kusters
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,029
    Andy Foster
    Oct 5, 2003
  2. BagelBoy

    Calculating subnet hosts

    BagelBoy, Nov 4, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    69,420
    BagelBoy
    Nov 4, 2005
  3. Jim Jones
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,386
    Juan Pérez
    Apr 14, 2004
  4. Brad
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    413
  5. Stone
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    15,617
    stephen
    Sep 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page