Amazon Kindle Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

How many Pixels do you need?


fez 17 262
25 Aug 2005 1:25PM
well so what if its film, its scanned into giga!

meh, but can i vote for 8mp?
Leif 16 777
25 Aug 2005 1:31PM
I have no problem sharpening images, either with USM or high pass sharpening. And I have no problem getting sharp images (good lens, F11, solid tripod, beanbag on the camera). But I've yet to see an A4 image from a 6MP camera in a magazine that is tack sharp. I just don't believe these claims. A4 prints from a 3MP camera can look very nice, but the detail is not there when looked at close. Fine at normal viewing distances though. A 6MP camera is better of course. A3 images from a 6MP camera are nice but again, not sharp.

However, 6MP is probably more than enough for the vast majority of people - the average Joe - though many of us lust after more.

Leif
justin c 17 5.1k 36 England
25 Aug 2005 1:54PM

Quote:But I've yet to see an A4 image from a 6MP camera in a magazine that is tack sharp.




I certainly don't believe an image in a magazine is a good representation of how sharp or unsharp an original full resolution image is.
Print quality varies enormously from publication to publication and even from batch to batch of the same magazine.




Quote:A3 images from a 6MP camera are nice but again, not sharp.


With respect,you must have been looking at some bad examples.
ahollowa 17 1.1k England
25 Aug 2005 2:09PM
I'm not sure that Mega Pixels are that important unless you are looking for large prints. I replaced my D30 with a 10D and ever since I have been convinced that at 6x4 the D30 produced better pictures. I believe this was due to larger pixels. I have also heard that the 8Mp compacts suffer from more noise than the older 6Mp ones. Therefore I think this whole question (and thread) is spurious. The 4 Mp 1D was (and still is) credited with top quality images. This is the most important factor. What does the output look like on your chosen media. If the quality is acceptable then great. If you are happy then great. If not change.

cheers

Al.
Just Jas 19 26.3k 1 England
25 Aug 2005 2:17PM

Quote:Only in some film users fantasy world.


film is fantastic!
jonjeds 17 509
25 Aug 2005 4:34PM
Like the bloke in the duty free shop said to me that other day when I asked herself how many bottles we should take. 'as many as you can carry'.
ahollowa 17 1.1k England
25 Aug 2005 11:52PM

Quote:Like the BLOKE in the duty free shop said to me that other day when I asked HERself how many bottles we should take. 'as many as you can carry'.

You sure you didn't then drink the rest ! Smile)

cheers

Al.
Leif 16 777
26 Aug 2005 3:13AM
"I certainly don't believe an image in a magazine is a good representation of how sharp or unsharp an original full resolution image is.Print quality varies enormously from publication to publication and even from batch to batch of the same magazine."

A can't disagree with that, and some magazines don't seem to understand how to sharpen without producing obvious halos. However, 35mm Velvia, and medium and large format images printed at A4 in magazines usually look sharp to my eyes, so I am assuming the main cause of (slight) softness is the original.


> A3 images from a 6MP camera are nice but again, not sharp.

"With respect,you must have been looking at some bad examples."

I was astonished by the quality, but they were not pin sharp. Whether or not they were bad examples, well I can't say.

I must admit that I was astonished by some images in Amateur Photographer done with the Nikon 4MP pro DSLR whose name escapes me. These were A4 and A3 IIRC. The sharpness was surprising, BUT sharpening halos were obvious, as were some other artifacts. People often judge a camera by the pixel count, but for sure not all pixels are equal.

Leif
shed 17 586 England
26 Aug 2005 3:23AM
This debate will go on for ages if it is allowed to, however, I have previously defended film as I thought it was better. But, and it is a big but, for an A4/A3 print a 6mp SLR will suffice.

I am looking at 2 prints as I type both from a 6mp DSLR. One is from a D70 at 200 ISO and the other is from a KM D7D, this was at ISO 100.

Both of the images were resized to 48mb in photoshop (the size required by Alamy) using PXI Smartscale. The point is to see if the quality will be good enough to use and if an A3 print will meet my demanding standards. This test was enough to convince me to buy a DSLR. The quality from the Konica minolta is better- largely down to the lower ISO, but a 48mb A3 file is both sharp and crucially noise free.

Because it is a clean file, I could make an excellent A2 print, again by upsizing. If this was then sharpened in PS, it would beat film, why? Because there would be no noise or grain whereas even a 645 velvia image, would at that size show a large amount of grain. It might be sharper, but the grain negates any benefit this would give me.

Side by side, two images one film and the other 6mp digital at A3/2, most people would prefer the digital file as it looks visibly cleaner.

The situation would however be reversed as the ISO increases- as was shown by comparing two image at A3, one ISO 100 and the other 200 ISO.

Not sure what this proves if anything, but up to A3 and possibly A2, and 6mp DSLR will suffice and produce a great image. This is especially true if it has been shot with a good lens, at low ISO and in raw format.

Obviously the more mp a DSLR has (within reason) then generally speaking the results should be better.

Also the biggest bonus is that the results are free. With velvia you pay roughly 10 per film inc development and then might only get 3 good images. Very expensive. Then you have the cost of scanning. It soon adds up. So the initial cost of a DSLR (around 700 for the KM D7D) can be easily and quickly recouped and then it can start saving money.

Put another way, a KMD7D and a lens or two will cost 1000, and the results don't cost a thing. With a good film camera (Canon EOS 30v you pay around 330) add a lens and the cost is 400. Then you need to buy a good film scanner (add another 400), and then you need to buy film before you can even use it, then it needs developing. As you can see, it won't take long before the costs of film are significantly more than digital. The 200 you would save buying film will buy 20 rolls of 36 exp velvia once it has been developed. That isn't that many images really (a max of 720) especially if you consider that you need to bracket to ensure a good result. Overally for the budget concious, a DSLR will, in the long run, save you money- and produce a better A4/A3 image.

- Sorry for the long post!


Andrew
User_Removed 16 279
26 Aug 2005 4:32AM

Quote:but for sure not all pixels are equal


...to (mis)quote George Orwell ' all pixels are equal, but some pixels are more equal than others'.
Hazard 17 1.2k United Kingdom
26 Aug 2005 4:50AM
Of course it depend on what you wish to do with the finished image. I have used 6 and 8 and can't tell the difference. I did a wedding for a relative recently with the Nikon D70 6MP and at a size of 8*10 they were perfect.
Of course much of this success is due to the magnificence of the photographer.
shed 17 586 England
26 Aug 2005 5:15AM
It is also interesting to note, that when a betterlight large format scanning back was compared to a 4x5" piece of film the digital betterlight won the test.

Ok, so it costs an arm and a leg and isn't suitable for moving subjects, but it just goes to show the technology is there and will continue to evolve and get better.

Andrew
u08mcb 17 5.8k
26 Aug 2005 5:18AM

Quote:especially if you consider that you need to bracket to ensure a good result.


Real men don't bracket.
Marlin_owner 16 658 United Kingdom
26 Aug 2005 6:32AM
ahollowa said:
Quote:Therefore I think this whole question (and thread) is spurious.

I don't agree.


Quote:The 4 Mp 1D was (and still is) credited with top quality images.

I agree, in 90% of cases this camera is perfect. The 8mp 1D II IMO is probably all you could every need. - Barring the pro's needing 'x'mp for submission to galleries etc.

Plenty of shots from the 1D are printed at A4 or above.
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
26 Aug 2005 6:41AM
Leif If you want to compare out of the camera quality try a big exhibition like wildlife photographer of the year where a number of top photographs from a variety of cameras are on show, some film some digital.

Next by its nature does the number of pixels not affect resolution rather than sharpness. i.e you can have pin sharp images and blow them up and still keep high sharpness, but you are limitted in the resolvable detail.

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.