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

How many Pixels do you need?


joolsb 16 27.1k 38 Switzerland
23 Aug 2005 12:36PM
Colin,

Some of us still listen to vinyl. I have a CD player (of course) and an iPod but I keep coming back to vinyl. With a decent setup, thre's nothing to beat it. The really sad thing is, CD took over mainly because only those who really cared about audio knew what vinyl was really capable of. It only sounded better in comparison to the average cheap midi system....

How did we get on to hifi?
joolsb 16 27.1k 38 Switzerland
23 Aug 2005 12:38PM
"Joolsb, I'm guessing you are on the pro side here, so I can see your point."

Marlin, just to set things straight, I'm more of a pro wannabe Smile

But I do care a lot about quality....
PatrickSmith 16 1.2k 2 United States
23 Aug 2005 12:40PM
A co-worker wanted a 20x30 print of one of my 8mp photos from Hawaii I took with my Canon 350D. I thought she was crazy, but I tried it. I uploaded it to photos.com and they sent me back this huge print with no pixelation whatsoever. I was shocked. Even when I look at it closely, the fine quality looks like a 4x6!
Patrick
User_Removed 16 4.9k England
23 Aug 2005 12:57PM
Isn't there a formula ? or understanding ...that 30mps is equivalent in resolution, to 35mm fine grain positive?
Col
elowes 17 2.8k United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 1:22PM
The larger the negative and finer quality the film the bigger the potential image when printed, same goes for pixels. Remember though, the larger the image the greater the viewing distance. Also, the quality of an image should not be judged on the fineness of the grain but on the quality of the content. Mega pixels do not make mega images, a good photographer does that.

Good vinyl classic recordings played on a good quality system will sound better than a recording played on a CD.
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
23 Aug 2005 1:25PM

Quote:that 30mps is equivalent in resolution, to 35mm fine grain positive?


Only in some film users fantasy world.
;|)
randomrubble 17 3.1k 12 United Kingdom
25 Aug 2005 9:10AM
As an overall package Digital at 6mp is not as good as film, even full frame. When you want to crop then a 4000dpi scan wins. Get up to 1Ds levels though, and it's a tough call but it's easier and cheaper to work with a DSLR than film & scan, so I'd come down on the side of digi at 12MP. Vinyl vs CD is however different...

I bought a Pro-ject Turntable last year, and it was an ear opener! I'd have to say that vinyl actually does sound better, of course LPs have to be handled carefully!

In fact using Pro-ject showed up my more expensive DVD player's total lack of seperation of left and right channels in stereo music to the extent where I bought a seperate CD player, and while it's comparable it's stil not as good, so IMO pound for pound Vinyl actually does give you better quality than a CD player.
fez 17 262
25 Aug 2005 9:39AM
heh, megapixels are old technology, marvel at the gigapixel:
Here
MoWiz 16 114 United Kingdom
25 Aug 2005 10:46AM
its a film camera! LOL
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
25 Aug 2005 10:51AM
Yep...it's an 18x9 film camera, from which the negs are drum scanned.
Leif 16 777
25 Aug 2005 11:47AM
I reckon you can easily get decent A4 prints from a 6MP DSLR, and in my experience the results match a 5400 DPI scan of Provia 100F.

However I have heard lots of people say that a 6MP camera gives sharp A4 prints, but to my eyes the results are not sharp, though they are not far off. IMO for tack sharp A4 prints and decent A3 you need 12MP or more. BUT sharpness is not everything - especially at normal viewing distances - and 6MP is very useable, and in many respects better than film - e.g. Kodachrome 64 - due to the absence of grain. I suspect that it is the absence of grain that allows people to make huge enlargements.

Leif
BOB S 19 2.6k
25 Aug 2005 12:15PM
As I sit here, on my wall is an A1 full size print from my Nikon D100 6Mp DSLR, printed on my HP130nr printer !!

BOB
justin c 17 5.1k 36 England
25 Aug 2005 12:34PM

Quote:However I have heard lots of people say that a 6MP camera gives sharp A4 prints, but to my eyes the results are not sharp, though they are not far off. IMO for tack sharp A4 prints and decent A3 you need 12MP or more.



IMHO if an A4 print looks unsharp from a 6MP camera I'd say that would be down to bad photographic technique or inadequate post processing,i.e.sharpening.
Having been using a 6MP Canon 10D for the last year and a half I regually print A4,A3 and A3+ and personally I find it very hard to notice ANY loss of sharpness/quality from just inches away let alone normal viewing distances.
Stitching multiple images and the quality is equally impressive at huge sizes.

Justin.
NikonMan 16 149
25 Aug 2005 12:40PM
if your never goin to print bigger than 7x5 go for bout 5/6 mp, but you have to think o what camera you want, a compact with 8 mp will give u lots of noise where as a 8 mp dslrwont, its also the camera and the lens, not just resolution, id rather have a 6 mp nikon or canon than 8mp samsung
last ten 17 416 Isle of Man
25 Aug 2005 12:41PM
Another vote for a 6mp camera.
I have had loads of A3 images printed via my D70 and it will do my needs and my customers who are all very happy!
And I suppose that is all that counts :o)
Peter

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.