Save 15% On Excire Foto Software With Code: EXCIRE-EP

How many Pixels do you need?


TimJ 17 482 2 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 6:54AM
Like any technology, people often want the best. Technological advances will push the level of quality demanded (by both ourselves as photographers and stock libraries, etc).

The number of MPs will become like the speed of the CPU in modern computers, so high it warrents less consideration and other aspects become more important.

I'm still very happy with my 6MP camera, but will no doubt upgrade (but for many reasons other than the number of pixels).
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
23 Aug 2005 6:58AM
Down to the DPI scan that the user inputs. Many, believing that by asking the scanner to run at a ridiculously high dpi, try to achieve some megapixel nirvana and end up with nothing but a stupidly large file. Even high end scanners scan at 4,000 dpi for optimum results.
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 7:05AM
Another vote for 6mp does me fine. In detailed view I think I get a better print with 6mp digital than 35mm negative print. I never did master slide so I find it hard to compare. For printing at 10x8 or A4 size I find no need to have more. In fact I have some 15x10 prints from my 6mp camera and they look good, far better than I expected.

Remember you can over sample an image and have a great measured resolution, but the true resolvable detail of the image may well be below that. So just because a scanner scans at a resolution does not mean that the detail is there.
ljesmith 17 1.1k United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 7:31AM
We scan 35mm film to 4k, this gives a 50 megabyte file for every frame, and the quality is pretty good. The next step is to scan at 6k. Now if you scanned a medium format neg at this size you'd have a pretty big file on your hands.

I think film still has something to offer for a while yet.
joolsb 17 27.1k 38 Switzerland
23 Aug 2005 7:34AM
"Down to the DPI scan that the user inputs. Many, believing that by asking the scanner to run at a ridiculously high dpi, try to achieve some megapixel nirvana and end up with nothing but a stupidly large file. Even high end scanners scan at 4,000 dpi for optimum results."

Well yes. I scan at the maximum dpi my MF film scanner is capable of and at 16bit depth so that I have the maximum amount of information for PS to work on. Once image-processing is complete, I downsize to an appropriate size and dpi for the target output destination. This way I feel I can achieve the best possible quality. Of course, I do ending up working on image files of over 300Mb, but for a reason.
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
23 Aug 2005 7:49AM
Waste of time, Jools. I scan on a Imacon at 4,000dpi, occasionally 6x7 at 6,000 dpi. I could if needed scan at 8,000 dpi without interpolation but there would be no point.
joolsb 17 27.1k 38 Switzerland
23 Aug 2005 10:02AM
Why is it a waste of time?

My scanner can do MF at 4800dpi with interpolation or 3200 without (yes, it's a Minolta Multi Pro) and scanning 645 at 4800 gives an image of 10400x7200 (or thereabouts) at 16bit depth. This gives me huge scope for cropping and manipulation which scanning at a lower res wouldn't.

Before I had the horsepower to handle this much data, I used to scan and then immediately resize to 4500 pix long, before any manipulation at all. needless to say, the resulting quality was not as good.
Marlin_owner 16 658 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 10:10AM
joolsb, I'm guessing you are on the pro side here, so I can see your point.

Interesting that one or two have mentioned larger than A4 prints from 6mp. I have a pic in my hall taken with a 3.2mp camera - A3 size, with little issue of pixelation. So it is possible to get bigger pics from 6mp with ease.

Yes a pro would probably slate the quality, but 'average Joe' wouldn't care.

The main reason for posting this thread was trying to understand why people are so eager to upgrade.

It often looks like lots of people are megapixel greedy, wanting (whether needed or not) the most they can get.

I cannot see me needing more than the 8mp I have unless someone starts offering me lots of money to take large pictures for them . . . like that's ever goin' to happen!
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
23 Aug 2005 10:26AM
Jools,
the very fact that you scan with interpolation is a waste of time..it doesnt work. Not even on the Imacon...you're inventing something thats not there.
colin beeley Plus
18 1.2k 10 England
23 Aug 2005 10:37AM
well i for one will not be getting a new camera with more pixels i have a 10D and then got the 20D thinking the image would be a lot better when printed at A3 you can't see anything more. before we get the clever clogs saying you need L lenses that is what i use. but i will say the 20D is a better camera. i think the bubble has burst now there is no need for more pixels not for us donuts any way .
CB.
joolsb 17 27.1k 38 Switzerland
23 Aug 2005 10:51AM
Keith, I take the point.

I read somewhere that, when scanning MF at 4800, the Minolta only interpolates in the direction that the CCDs are being dragged along the tranny. In the other direction, the limiting factor is the number of CCDs - which is fixed at 4800.

Since I'm scanning 645, this means the long dimension gets the full 4800 res whilst the short one is interpolated. It's a compromise, of course, but it seems to work.
patters 17 1.8k 1 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 11:40AM
stop this bickering and go and click on my dog pic
sillyconguru 17 4.4k
23 Aug 2005 11:42AM
Er, no!
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
23 Aug 2005 11:44AM
more chance of me gettin inlvolved in a digi film debate.
Wink
User_Removed 16 4.9k England
23 Aug 2005 12:19PM
Before I went digital, film was best. Now I've changed my mind.
Had the same problem between Vinyl and CDs......Can't remember the last time I played a Vinyl LP.
Col

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.