Re: Going from 3 to 4 MP good for 8x10 prints?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by CNT, Sep 16, 2003.

  1. CNT

    CNT Guest

    That was how I looked at this way, but found out from few trustworthy names
    in here saying the 5MP makes it worse than the 4MP, so better off going with
    4MP for picture quality. If numbers were more important, then go for the
    5MP. BUT, for solely 8x10, maybe the 5MP has it's propose? I am no where
    near camera expert, so you know.

    Chuck

    > If you're going to leave your 3 MP camera behind, why not jump up to a
    > 5 MP instead of just 4 MP? If the extra resolution isn't needed, you
    > can always use the extra detail to have more flexibility in croping.
    > The Canon S50 is well priced for it's features and image quality.
     
    CNT, Sep 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. CNT

    gr Guest

    "CNT" <> wrote
    > That was how I looked at this way, but found out from few trustworthy

    names
    > in here saying the 5MP makes it worse than the 4MP, so better off going

    with
    > 4MP for picture quality.


    ?!?

    All else being equal, 5MP beats 4MP for quality. Perhaps some 5MP camera are
    of poorer quality and design than some 4MP cameras, but in general a 5MP
    camera will give you higher quality results. Check out sample pictures from
    the various camera review sites and see for yourself.

    I think it's not really worth upgrading from 3MP to 4MP. If you're going to
    upgrade, you may as well go for 5MP or higher.
     
    gr, Sep 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. CNT

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:10:09 -0400, "gr"
    <> wrote:

    >"CNT" <> wrote
    >> That was how I looked at this way, but found out from few trustworthy

    >names
    >> in here saying the 5MP makes it worse than the 4MP, so better off going

    >with
    >> 4MP for picture quality.

    >
    >?!?
    >
    >All else being equal, 5MP beats 4MP for quality. Perhaps some 5MP camera are
    >of poorer quality and design than some 4MP cameras, but in general a 5MP
    >camera will give you higher quality results. Check out sample pictures from
    >the various camera review sites and see for yourself.
    >
    >I think it's not really worth upgrading from 3MP to 4MP. If you're going to
    >upgrade, you may as well go for 5MP or higher.
    >



    "All else being equal" is the problem.

    One of the main issues with consumer or even prosumer
    digicams is noise. Sensor areas are still very small,
    around 10mm on a side for the chip itself.

    If you cram 25% more sensors into the same area, you
    end up with noisier pixels.

    So the extra resolution comes at the cost of extra noise.

    That's why dSLRs (e.g. the 10d) are significant; it's the
    first big jump in sensor size. And even then, the sensor
    is still around 1/3 the area of a 35 mm frame.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Sep 16, 2003
    #3
  4. CNT

    Ken Alverson Guest

    "Rafe B." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > One of the main issues with consumer or even prosumer
    > digicams is noise. Sensor areas are still very small,
    > around 10mm on a side for the chip itself.
    >
    > If you cram 25% more sensors into the same area, you
    > end up with noisier pixels.
    >
    > So the extra resolution comes at the cost of extra noise.


    Certainly, unless something else improved, the noise per pixel is going to go
    up with smaller pixels. However, has anyone done a comparison of the noise
    across the same area of the image between 4 and 5 MP cameras? A piece of the
    image that is 200x200 on a 4 MP camera will be 224x224 on a 5 MP camera. I
    suspect that the 224x224 piece, despite having higher per-pixel noise, would
    have less noise when resampled to 200x200 than the 4 MP image would.

    Ken
     
    Ken Alverson, Sep 16, 2003
    #4
  5. CNT

    VT Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:16:27 GMT, Rafe B. <>
    wrote:


    >One of the main issues with consumer or even prosumer
    >digicams is noise. Sensor areas are still very small,
    >around 10mm on a side for the chip itself.
    >
    >If you cram 25% more sensors into the same area, you
    >end up with noisier pixels.
    >
    >So the extra resolution comes at the cost of extra noise.
    >


    Agreed - and the more comprehensive tests show this -
    at lower light levels and at higher ISO speeds.

    Other tests seem not to being this up as a significant issue.

    So which is right?

    Perhaps neither,
    perhaps both......


    It is significant (in favor of the 4Mp)
    if one does low light (high ISO) photography.

    It is also significant (in favor of the 5Mp)
    if one does general/normal light level photography.

    I would say for most people not specializing in low light photography
    the 5Mp makes a better choice, because of the added crispness of the
    overall photo (although not easily seen until enlargements of about
    10x8 or larger).

    In fact the most vocal person about the "shortcomings" of the 5Mp
    Canon S50 - was from Phil Askey - who also actually said this in his
    S50 review:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons50/page12.asp

    QUOTE:
    When the 1/1.8" (7.2 x 5.3 mm) five megapixel CCD was first announced
    there was universal concern about levels of noise which would be
    produced from such small pixel cell sizes. While not quite as clean as
    some newer three megapixel digital cameras levels of noise exhibited
    certainly aren't higher than from previous four or five megapixel
    digital cameras. Taking into account the S50's higher than indicated
    sensitivity we can see from the graph below that it matches the Sony
    DSC-V1 all the way up the sensitivity range.
    UNQUOTE

    So is noise "significant"? or not

    The best way to determine this is to print out the test sample images
    from both the intended 4Mp and 5Mp digicams (of which there are plenty
    on the web) to the typical largest size one would normally want (use a
    significant cropped area to save paper/ink) and see if one can see any
    difference - if not, go for the cheaper camera - if one can - then
    determine if any price differential is worth the added image
    quality....... I guess only you can be the judge - as they say YMMV.

    Having done my own ad-hoc printing "tests" to 10x8 I found -

    3Mp was satisfactory - but I could detect some image breakdown - but
    only with a 2.5x magnifying glass.

    I could not see image breakdown on the 4Mp, and for me there was
    noticable improvement over the 3Mp.

    5Mp did add more crispness/snap to the print - although it was hard
    for me to quantify.

    That thread was:
    Resolution - when is Enough ENOUGH? (a personal view)
    date: 9/9/2003
    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&rnum=1


    For me someshere between the 4Mp and 5Mp - ie: 227ppi to 260ppi
    printing was "good enough".
    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHES for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Sep 16, 2003
    #5
  6. CNT

    gr Guest

    gr, Sep 16, 2003
    #6
  7. CNT

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:38:25 -0400, "gr"
    <> wrote:

    >"Rafe B." <> wrote
    >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:53:13 -0400, "gr"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >"Rafe B." <> wrote
    >> >>
    >> >> One of the main issues with consumer or even prosumer
    >> >> digicams is noise. Sensor areas are still very small,
    >> >> around 10mm on a side for the chip itself.
    >> >
    >> >Read these:
    >> >http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/c5050/c5050-dark.html
    >> >http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/c5050/c5050-noise.html

    >>
    >>
    >> And then what?
    >>
    >> Both my digicams show noise in shadow detail,
    >> and in very low light situations. The G2 is worse
    >> than the 10D, not surprsingly.

    >
    >The point is that it's no worse than the 35mm film we all used to love and
    >enjoy. The whole issue with noise in digital cameras is way over-hyped. It's
    >not a big deal, unless you choose to shoot at high ISO (in which case, it's
    >as noisy as high ISO film). What's the big deal about noise? A 5MP camera
    >won't even show it in an 8x10" print, unless you examine the shadows with a
    >magnifying glass!



    I'll be happy to post some "comparative" samples of digicam
    noise vs. noise from scanned film.

    Both are ugly, though (IMHO) the digicam noise is more
    detrimental to the print.

    It's not so much an issue of high-ISO as low-light. The
    noise and artifacts are absent in other parts of the same
    image(s) that are not in shadow.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Sep 17, 2003
    #7
  8. "CNT" <> writes:

    > That was how I looked at this way, but found out from few trustworthy names
    > in here saying the 5MP makes it worse than the 4MP, so better off going with
    > 4MP for picture quality. If numbers were more important, then go for the
    > 5MP. BUT, for solely 8x10, maybe the 5MP has it's propose? I am no where
    > near camera expert, so you know.


    In general the 5MP cameras are noiser than 4MP cameras, since the sensor is
    generally the same physical size, but packed closer together. Quality of the
    lens, compression algorithms, and in-camera processing also play a part in the
    ultimate picture quality. FWIW, I get great 8x10's from my 2 megapixel Olympus
    C-2100UZ (but then the lens and minimal compression were real good).

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Sep 17, 2003
    #8
  9. CNT

    Dr. Bob Guest


    >
    >

    lens, compression algorithms, and in-camera processing also play a part in
    the
    > ultimate picture quality. FWIW, I get great 8x10's from my 2 megapixel

    Olympus
    > C-2100UZ (but then the lens and minimal compression were real good).


    I have gotten what I consider fine 8x10's from my HP618 (2mp). I have just
    ordered a Canon G-3 (4 mp), and I'll be interested to see how much diff.
    there is. BTW, I usually upped the HP file size to 3mp, using Genuine
    fractals, before printing.
     
    Dr. Bob, Sep 22, 2003
    #9
  10. "Dr. Bob" <> writes:

    > >
    > >

    > lens, compression algorithms, and in-camera processing also play a part in
    > the
    > > ultimate picture quality. FWIW, I get great 8x10's from my 2 megapixel

    > Olympus
    > > C-2100UZ (but then the lens and minimal compression were real good).

    >
    > I have gotten what I consider fine 8x10's from my HP618 (2mp). I have just
    > ordered a Canon G-3 (4 mp), and I'll be interested to see how much diff.
    > there is. BTW, I usually upped the HP file size to 3mp, using Genuine
    > fractals, before printing.


    Most of my printing is on commercial Fuji Frontier machines, and I don't bother
    upscaling the image, since the printer does continous tone printing.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Sep 24, 2003
    #10
    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. Rick Warburton

    what scanner for 8x10 MF prints cuz cant afford...

    Rick Warburton, Oct 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    424
    Barry Smith
    Oct 30, 2003
  2. Dr. Slick
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    733
  3. Mr.Happy

    digital vs. film 8x10 prints

    Mr.Happy, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    662
    Mark B.
    Oct 4, 2005
  4. flashlarue
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    759
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,009
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page