New Site: SEE Megapixels vs. Print Size

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by dmoobcot@gmail.com, Apr 28, 2006.

  1. Guest

    A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
    camera
    - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
    but
    I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
    of
    various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
    http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
     
    , Apr 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris Down Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
    > camera
    > - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
    > but
    > I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
    > of
    > various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
    > http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
    >


    Quite a helpful site for the beginner, and I can't argue with your premise
    that 200 pixels per linear inch will be sufficient for determining print
    size. Of course this assumes that the pixels from ther sensor are fully
    recorded, that is not overly compressed. I have had good results with 7x5
    prints from a 2MP camera saving "large" JPEG at minimum compression, but if
    a users reduces the size and maximises compression to get more pictures in a
    memory card they wll have to print smaller to compensate.

    The same caveats apply to the zooming in and cropping.


    It is also worth pointing out that lens quality and the sensor size and
    quality will also have a great bearing on the print size and zoom/crop
    levels that can be obtained. Megpixels alone are not the only
    parameters when buying a digital camera.

    Not all pixels are equal
     
    Chris Down, Apr 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Furman Guest

    wrote:

    > A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
    > camera
    > - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
    > but
    > I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
    > of
    > various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
    > http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.


    Nice demo. Amazingly little difference.
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Dave Cohen Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > wrote:
    >
    >> A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
    >> camera
    >> - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
    >> but
    >> I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
    >> of
    >> various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
    >> http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.

    >
    > Nice demo. Amazingly little difference.


    I like the 8mp. Nothing to do with resolution, nice looking young lady.
    Seriously, a nice site but bigger pictures would be nice.
    Dave Cohen
     
    Dave Cohen, Apr 28, 2006
    #4
  5. ? <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:...
    > A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
    > camera
    > - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
    > but
    > I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
    > of
    > various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
    > http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
    >

    Very nice site.Excellent depicts the *real* megapixel problem, which is
    largest blow up and smallest cropping.


    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician
    542nd mechanized infantry batallion
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Apr 28, 2006
    #5
  6. bmoag Guest

    No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are going to
    get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras will be in for
    serious disappointment.
    Megapixels are not an absolute measure of image quality and are almost
    irrelevant when evaluating this class of camera once you get past 5mps.
     
    bmoag, Apr 28, 2006
    #6
  7. CSM1 Guest

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:8sq4g.63401$...
    > No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are going
    > to get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras will be in
    > for serious disappointment.
    > Megapixels are not an absolute measure of image quality and are almost
    > irrelevant when evaluating this class of camera once you get past 5mps.
    >

    You sir, are correct, Megapixels is not the only measure of quality.

    There are many other factors that affect the quality of a image.
    The quality of the lens is a major factor.
    Little things such as how steady you hold the camera can have a huge effect.
    (Use a tripod).
    Sharp focus will make a difference.
    How you frame the subject can make the difference between a so-so picture
    and a very pleasing, picture.

    --
    CSM1
    http://www.carlmcmillan.com
    --
     
    CSM1, Apr 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Chris Down Guest

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:8sq4g.63401$...
    > No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are going
    > to get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras will be in
    > for serious disappointment.
    > Megapixels are not an absolute measure of image quality and are almost
    > irrelevant when evaluating this class of camera once you get past 5mps.
    >

    Agreed


    I had a terrible struggle recently with the husband of a friend who insisted
    that because it was 8MP his P&S compact was "better" than my Canon DSLR at
    6.3MP. When he started on about his "digital zoom" being "better" than
    my Canon L 70-200mm IS zoom lens because mine was less than 3x zoom factor
    and his was 10x I remembered an urgent appointment somewhere far away.

    The OP's site is OK as far as it goes in explaining pint sizes and cropping,
    but as a basis for selecting a camera it is only relevant if all other
    factors are equal. As most people never print bigger than 7x5 a 2.1MP
    camera is quite adequate.
     
    Chris Down, Apr 28, 2006
    #8
  9. rob c Guest

    In message <> - John McWilliams
    <> writes:
    :>
    :>Chris Down wrote:
    :>> "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    :>> news:8sq4g.63401$...
    :>>> No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are going
    :>>> to get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras will be in
    :>>> for serious disappointment.
    :>>> Megapixels are not an absolute measure of image quality and are almost
    :>>> irrelevant when evaluating this class of camera once you get past 5mps.
    :>>>
    :>> Agreed
    :>>
    :>>
    :>> I had a terrible struggle recently with the husband of a friend who insisted
    :>> that because it was 8MP his P&S compact was "better" than my Canon DSLR at
    :>> 6.3MP. When he started on about his "digital zoom" being "better" than
    :>> my Canon L 70-200mm IS zoom lens because mine was less than 3x zoom factor
    :>> and his was 10x I remembered an urgent appointment somewhere far away.
    :>

    Aren't "expert" friends wonderful ;)

    A "photo expert" friend saw my 100-400L lens and said, with authority "that
    lens is perfect for portrait work". I guess he saw the "puzzled" look on my
    face and then explained that a 77mm lens is the ideal portait lens.
    My 100-400 uses a 77mm filter....

    Rob
     
    rob c, Apr 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Chris Down wrote:
    > "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    > news:8sq4g.63401$...
    >> No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are going
    >> to get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras will be in
    >> for serious disappointment.
    >> Megapixels are not an absolute measure of image quality and are almost
    >> irrelevant when evaluating this class of camera once you get past 5mps.
    >>

    > Agreed
    >
    >
    > I had a terrible struggle recently with the husband of a friend who insisted
    > that because it was 8MP his P&S compact was "better" than my Canon DSLR at
    > 6.3MP. When he started on about his "digital zoom" being "better" than
    > my Canon L 70-200mm IS zoom lens because mine was less than 3x zoom factor
    > and his was 10x I remembered an urgent appointment somewhere far away.


    Suggest a little wager of, say $100, and get him and his camera together
    with you and yours, pick a sign in the distance, and shoot simultaneously.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 28, 2006
    #10
  11. CSM1 Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Chris Down wrote:
    >> "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    >> news:8sq4g.63401$...
    >>> No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are
    >>> going to get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras
    >>> will be in for serious disappointment.
    >>> Megapixels are not an absolute measure of image quality and are almost
    >>> irrelevant when evaluating this class of camera once you get past 5mps.
    >>>

    >> Agreed
    >>
    >>
    >> I had a terrible struggle recently with the husband of a friend who
    >> insisted that because it was 8MP his P&S compact was "better" than my
    >> Canon DSLR at 6.3MP. When he started on about his "digital zoom"
    >> being "better" than my Canon L 70-200mm IS zoom lens because mine was
    >> less than 3x zoom factor and his was 10x I remembered an urgent
    >> appointment somewhere far away.

    >
    > Suggest a little wager of, say $100, and get him and his camera together
    > with you and yours, pick a sign in the distance, and shoot simultaneously.
    >
    > --
    > John McWilliams


    Put both cameras on tripods to eliminate any chance of camera shake. Turn
    off IS on the Canon for a fair comparison.

    --
    CSM1
    http://www.carlmcmillan.com
    --
     
    CSM1, Apr 28, 2006
    #11
  12. On 2006-04-28 12:14:15 -0400, "CSM1" <> said:

    > "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    > news:8sq4g.63401$...
    >> No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are
    >> going to get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras
    >> will be in for serious disappointment.
    >> Megapixels are not an absolute measure of image quality and are almost
    >> irrelevant when evaluating this class of camera once you get past 5mps.
    >>

    > You sir, are correct, Megapixels is not the only measure of quality.
    >
    > There are many other factors that affect the quality of a image.
    > The quality of the lens is a major factor.
    > Little things such as how steady you hold the camera can have a huge
    > effect. (Use a tripod).
    > Sharp focus will make a difference.
    > How you frame the subject can make the difference between a so-so
    > picture and a very pleasing, picture.
    >
    > --
    > CSM1
    > http://www.carlmcmillan.com


    Very true. After all, a Leica M3, a Nikon FTN, and a throwaway store
    brand camera all have the same Megapixels (35mm film) but there's a
    world of difference due to mechanics, optics etc. Megapixels are only
    the beginning of the argument.
    --
    Michael | "You're going to need a bigger boat."
     
    Michael Weinstein, Apr 28, 2006
    #12
  13. Impmon Guest

    On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:23:48 GMT, "bmoag" <> wrote:

    >No matter what you post the fact is that anyone who thinks they are going to
    >get high quality larger prints from 6-10mp teeny p&s cameras will be in for
    >serious disappointment.


    And some may claim to offer high mpix but the true resolution is that
    of a $30 web cam. I've seen one claiming 10Mpix but the fine line was
    the image were interplorated and the actual image resolution is 3mpix.
    Toss in compression as some cheap cam tended to have fixed setting
    which resulted in blah "my 5 year old can draw better with crayons"
    quality.

    There are many variables, the quality of imaging array, the true
    resolution, image compression, size of apreture (larger = more light =
    brighter picture), quality of lens, etc.
    --
    When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
    too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
    Spam block in place, no emil reply is expected at all.
     
    Impmon, Apr 29, 2006
    #13
  14. Matt Ion Guest

    wrote:
    > A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
    > camera
    > - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
    > but
    > I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
    > of
    > various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
    > http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
    >


    Good idea, but a few things:

    1. It's REALLY small on my 21" monitor running 2048x1536.

    2. Your different crops don't provide a frame of reference to each
    other, so the ACTUAL differences in quality are not obvious. You need
    to show the same crop from different resolutions to properly display the
    differences; ie. use the same crop you have in the 8MP example, on the
    2MP original, and show how a smaller crop gets chunky.


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0617-3, 04/28/2006
    Tested on: 4/29/2006 2:49:53 PM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, Apr 29, 2006
    #14
  15. Sfj Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
    > camera
    > - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
    > but
    > I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
    > of
    > various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
    > http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
    >


    Hmmm. I found this chart in some of my old notes. Sorry can't give
    references, I don't know how valid they are but if true, kind of
    interesting.

    Consumer Digital Camera 0.365 megapixels
    Amateur 1kX1k " " 1.05 megapixels
    Pro 4kX4x " " 16.77 megapixels
    35mm fast film 22.11 megapixel equiv.
    35mm medium speed film 54 megapixel equiv.
    35mm slow speed film 124.76 megapixel equiv.

    http://photographybyshermanjacobsen.com?ID=20060430
     
    Sfj, Apr 30, 2006
    #15
  16. Chuck Guest

    The comparison of film speeds looks sort of valid. The film grain size is
    much smaller as the speed decreases.
    Film processing used to have a siginificant effect on grain size as well.


    "Sfj" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:h05g.11668$...
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
    > > camera
    > > - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
    > > but
    > > I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
    > > of
    > > various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
    > > http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
    > >

    >
    > Hmmm. I found this chart in some of my old notes. Sorry can't give
    > references, I don't know how valid they are but if true, kind of
    > interesting.
    >
    > Consumer Digital Camera 0.365 megapixels
    > Amateur 1kX1k " " 1.05 megapixels
    > Pro 4kX4x " " 16.77 megapixels
    > 35mm fast film 22.11 megapixel equiv.
    > 35mm medium speed film 54 megapixel equiv.
    > 35mm slow speed film 124.76 megapixel equiv.
    >
    > http://photographybyshermanjacobsen.com?ID=20060430
    >
    >
    >
     
    Chuck, May 8, 2006
    #16
  17. Scott W Guest

    Re: New Site: SEE Megapixels vs. Print Size

    Sfj wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >A recurring question on this and other lists is "I'm buying a digital
    > > camera
    > > - how many megapixels do I need?" People have offered various advice,
    > > but
    > > I've just put up a site with a Flash animation that *shows* the effect
    > > of
    > > various numbers of megapixels on your pictures. You can see it at
    > > http://www.pixleyalbum.com/megapixels/.
    > >

    >
    > Hmmm. I found this chart in some of my old notes. Sorry can't give
    > references, I don't know how valid they are but if true, kind of
    > interesting.
    >
    > Consumer Digital Camera 0.365 megapixels
    > Amateur 1kX1k " " 1.05 megapixels
    > Pro 4kX4x " " 16.77 megapixels
    > 35mm fast film 22.11 megapixel equiv.
    > 35mm medium speed film 54 megapixel equiv.
    > 35mm slow speed film 124.76 megapixel equiv.


    This is way off the mark. That would be scanning the film at close to
    10K ppi.
    I have never seen any 35mm film even come close to 20 MP.
    35mm scanned at 4000 ppi
    Gives a scan just of a bit over 20MP, and these scans are always soft.

    Here are what sharp 20 MP images look like
    http://www.sewcon.com/temp/car_20MP.jpg
    http://www.sewcon.com/temp/4000ppi.jpg
    http://www.sewcon.com/temp/beach.jpg

    What people find is that even when 35mm film out resolved a digital
    camera the digital image often looks sharper due to the noise in the
    film scan.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 8, 2006
    #17
  18. Guest

    Re: New Site: SEE Megapixels vs. Print Size

    The most important component of any camera either film or digital is
    the LENS!!. With a poor quality lens + equally as important a poor
    quality LENS FILTER, no amount of megapixels is going to result in a
    technically excellent picture.
     
    , May 11, 2006
    #18
  19. Scott W Guest

    Re: New Site: SEE Megapixels vs. Print Size

    wrote:
    > The most important component of any camera either film or digital is
    > the LENS!!. With a poor quality lens + equally as important a poor
    > quality LENS FILTER, no amount of megapixels is going to result in a
    > technically excellent picture.


    Well this sounds good but I am not sure it is totally true. If you put
    the same lens on a Canon 300D and a Canon 1Ds Mark II you are going to
    get a far better image from the 1Ds Mark II.

    So no matter how good your lens it the sensor size and resolution are
    going to limit the quality of the image.

    This is not to say a good lens in not important, but the sensor is the
    ultimate limit on the image.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 11, 2006
    #19
  20. Chris Down Guest

    Re: New Site: SEE Megapixels vs. Print Size

    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > wrote:
    >> The most important component of any camera either film or digital is
    >> the LENS!!. With a poor quality lens + equally as important a poor
    >> quality LENS FILTER, no amount of megapixels is going to result in a
    >> technically excellent picture.

    >
    > Well this sounds good but I am not sure it is totally true. If you put
    > the same lens on a Canon 300D and a Canon 1Ds Mark II you are going to
    > get a far better image from the 1Ds Mark II.
    >
    > So no matter how good your lens it the sensor size and resolution are
    > going to limit the quality of the image.
    >
    > This is not to say a good lens in not important, but the sensor is the
    > ultimate limit on the image.
    >
    > Scott
    >



    Scott think you would be spending your money in the wrong place,
    certainly the 1Ds Mk II will be better, but only if you crop or enlarge to a
    high level.
    I use a 300D but with Canon L series glass and the quality of shots is
    comparable to the top line pro cameras if I am printing up to 10x8.
    There is little difference the basic technology used in the two cameras, but
    the 1Ds Mk II is more robust, has better water and dust resistance, has more
    exposure options, has a larger buffer, faster burst shooting and many other
    features... These are what differentiate between the two models far
    more than mere pixel count.

    Of course this is all slightly away from the intial posting which aimed to
    help newcomers understand a little about pixel counts and print sizes.

    It did strike me that comparing cameras by pixel count alone is like
    comparing lenses by focal length..The numbers tell you there is a difference
    between the two, but don't really convey any useful information.
     
    Chris Down, May 11, 2006
    #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. Bun Mui
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    858
    Phantom
    Sep 13, 2004
  2. Bill Hilton

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

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    360
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  3. OL'Hippie

    DPI,Megapixels and print size

    OL'Hippie, Feb 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    496
    Don Stauffer
    Feb 22, 2006
  4. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    279
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    404
Loading...

Share This Page