Megapixel question

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Does a 5mb camera take a better 4x6 picture than a 2mb? I always thought
the more megabytes the larger the prints it can produce.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Asscrack" <jzurb@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Zl%xc.11250$ej6.8468@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Does a 5mb camera take a better 4x6 picture than a 2mb? I always thought
> the more megabytes the larger the prints it can produce.
>

There is a limit to the amount of detail a photographic print can show. It
is usually at about 250 ppi. With 5 Mp compared to 2 Mp, you have more
latitude for cropping before oyu see any degrading of the quality of a 4X6
print.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I was thinking about upgrading to a 5mb camera. I only need it to print 4x6
prints. And my Canon s100 at 2mb does a great job with 4x6 pics. The
pictures don't look that good on my laptop but the prints are amazing. I
think it is the lcd screen. I got a laptop about 6 months ago. The
pictures looked much better on my old 19" viewsonic monitor. I would like
to compare a print captured by a 5mb camera to see if it is even worth
upgrading.


"Marvin Margoshes" <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:10ch27f8dqvau0f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Asscrack" <jzurb@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:Zl%xc.11250$ej6.8468@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > Does a 5mb camera take a better 4x6 picture than a 2mb? I always
thought
> > the more megabytes the larger the prints it can produce.
> >
>
> There is a limit to the amount of detail a photographic print can show.
It
> is usually at about 250 ppi. With 5 Mp compared to 2 Mp, you have more
> latitude for cropping before oyu see any degrading of the quality of a 4X6
> print.
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:50:06 -0400, "Asscrack" <jzurb@charter.net>
wrote:

>Does a 5mb camera take a better 4x6 picture than a 2mb? I always thought
>the more megabytes the larger the prints it can produce.
>


No. With current home printing technology anything over about 4
megabits doesn't gain you a thing.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Asscrack" <jzurb@charter.net> wrote in message
news:4R%xc.11551$ej6.4144@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| I was thinking about upgrading to a 5mb camera. I only need it to print 4x6
| prints. And my Canon s100 at 2mb does a great job with 4x6 pics. The
| pictures don't look that good on my laptop but the prints are amazing. I
| think it is the lcd screen. I got a laptop about 6 months ago. The
| pictures looked much better on my old 19" viewsonic monitor. I would like
| to compare a print captured by a 5mb camera to see if it is even worth
| upgrading.
|

I take pictures at 1024 x 768, when rotated that would be 768 x 1024. So for
best viewing on a monitor, I set the monitor to 1280 x 1024 (to accomodate the
rotated pictures). If I use a 1024 x 768 resolution on the monitor and try to
view a rotated picture that has print matter within the picture, pixels get
dropped on the screen and the writing within the picture can become illegible.

I rarely print, my canvas is my 17" monitor. If I do need to print, I can get
7.50" x 10.00" prints using Irfanview and I am damn happy with the results using
my Canon i960 printer (barring brown muddiness with deep blacks...my printer is
not on a stable shelf).
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Only on your printer.

Think of it this way. With 5 MP over 2 MP you have another 2.5X optical zoom
lens that you can use ***AFTER*** the picture is taken if you decide
***AFTER*** you see the initial results.


"Hans" <Hans@spamkiller.com> wrote in message
news:hsehc09358uhnu71u7fungmg0ektf1hif5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:50:06 -0400, "Asscrack" <jzurb@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Does a 5mb camera take a better 4x6 picture than a 2mb? I always thought
> >the more megabytes the larger the prints it can produce.
> >
>
>
> No. With current home printing technology anything over about 4
> megabits doesn't gain you a thing.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Useful discussion of a question I am posing to myself because I have an
Oly 2020z that gives me superb 4x6s and 8x10s and I keep thinking of a
4000. In terms of cropping with the 2020z, I have always wondered how
much more latitude one can get by using a good sharpening tool. I use
Photoshop Elements and it seems to help. Any thoughts on the value of
these tools with relatively low megapix cameras?


Gymmy Bob wrote:
> Only on your printer.
>
> Think of it this way. With 5 MP over 2 MP you have another 2.5X optical zoom
> lens that you can use ***AFTER*** the picture is taken if you decide
> ***AFTER*** you see the initial results.
>
>
> "Hans" <Hans@spamkiller.com> wrote in message
> news:hsehc09358uhnu71u7fungmg0ektf1hif5@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:50:06 -0400, "Asscrack" <jzurb@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Does a 5mb camera take a better 4x6 picture than a 2mb? I always thought
>>>the more megabytes the larger the prints it can produce.
>>>
>>
>>
>>No. With current home printing technology anything over about 4
>>megabits doesn't gain you a thing.
>>
>>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Resolution cannot be increased after the fact


but

How it looks to the human is another thing. Isn't that the important part?

"Ron G" <rgood@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:10cjhk7ifpmgt63@corp.supernews.com...
> Useful discussion of a question I am posing to myself because I have an
> Oly 2020z that gives me superb 4x6s and 8x10s and I keep thinking of a
> 4000. In terms of cropping with the 2020z, I have always wondered how
> much more latitude one can get by using a good sharpening tool. I use
> Photoshop Elements and it seems to help. Any thoughts on the value of
> these tools with relatively low megapix cameras?
>
>
> Gymmy Bob wrote:
> > Only on your printer.
> >
> > Think of it this way. With 5 MP over 2 MP you have another 2.5X optical
zoom
> > lens that you can use ***AFTER*** the picture is taken if you decide
> > ***AFTER*** you see the initial results.
> >
> >
> > "Hans" <Hans@spamkiller.com> wrote in message
> > news:hsehc09358uhnu71u7fungmg0ektf1hif5@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:50:06 -0400, "Asscrack" <jzurb@charter.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Does a 5mb camera take a better 4x6 picture than a 2mb? I always
thought
> >>>the more megabytes the larger the prints it can produce.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>No. With current home printing technology anything over about 4
> >>megabits doesn't gain you a thing.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Nice point, eloquently put, but I was simply trying to get some opinion
on the degree to which a good sharpening program can help overcome, very
practical and visible terms, some of the limitations of a camera's
resolution in producing prints of the size I mentioned.

Gymmy Bob wrote:

>Resolution cannot be increased after the fact
>
>
> but
>
> How it looks to the human is another thing. Isn't that the important part?
>
>"Ron G" <rgood@netzero.com> wrote in message
>news:10cjhk7ifpmgt63@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>Useful discussion of a question I am posing to myself because I have an
>>Oly 2020z that gives me superb 4x6s and 8x10s and I keep thinking of a
>>4000. In terms of cropping with the 2020z, I have always wondered how
>>much more latitude one can get by using a good sharpening tool. I use
>>Photoshop Elements and it seems to help. Any thoughts on the value of
>>these tools with relatively low megapix cameras?
>>
>>
>>Gymmy Bob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Only on your printer.
>>>
>>>Think of it this way. With 5 MP over 2 MP you have another 2.5X optical
>>>
>>>
>zoom
>
>
>>>lens that you can use ***AFTER*** the picture is taken if you decide
>>>***AFTER*** you see the initial results.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Hans" <Hans@spamkiller.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hsehc09358uhnu71u7fungmg0ektf1hif5@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:50:06 -0400, "Asscrack" <jzurb@charter.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Does a 5mb camera take a better 4x6 picture than a 2mb? I always
>>>>>
>>>>>
>thought
>
>
>>>>>the more megabytes the larger the prints it can produce.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>No. With current home printing technology anything over about 4
>>>>megabits doesn't gain you a thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I have had 2MPixel pics cropped from horizontal to vertical and ended up
with about 1 MP. Despite all the developers warning I had two of these
printed 11x17" and they look great! The perspective is a little flat, like a
telephoto shot (I guess it's the same thing mathematically) and the clarity
when "eyeballing" the picture up close is not there, like an oil painting of
sorts. This picture contains lots of foliage. It is a garden in Jamaica with
a series of hoops up a mountain stairs.

When I asked the contact person via email if they "blur" the printer dots,
she responded strongly with how they never monkey with the prints and do not
interfere in any way! Well, I thought I was going to get these square
pixelated 11x17" pics back that would have to be displayed as some new photo
effect...LOL When they came I notified the contact that they indeed "blur"
the pixels for printing and that it was a good and necessary thing...LOL


"Ron G" <rgood@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:10cnh534r3tvi89@corp.supernews.com...
> Nice point, eloquently put, but I was simply trying to get some opinion
> on the degree to which a good sharpening program can help overcome, very
> practical and visible terms, some of the limitations of a camera's
> resolution in producing prints of the size I mentioned.
>
> Gymmy Bob wrote:
>
> >Resolution cannot be increased after the fact
> >
> >
> > but
> >
> > How it looks to the human is another thing. Isn't that the important
part?
> >
> >"Ron G" <rgood@netzero.com> wrote in message
> >news:10cjhk7ifpmgt63@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> >>Useful discussion of a question I am posing to myself because I have an
> >>Oly 2020z that gives me superb 4x6s and 8x10s and I keep thinking of a
> >>4000. In terms of cropping with the 2020z, I have always wondered how
> >>much more latitude one can get by using a good sharpening tool. I use
> >>Photoshop Elements and it seems to help. Any thoughts on the value of
> >>these tools with relatively low megapix cameras?
> >>
> >>
> >>Gymmy Bob wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Only on your printer.
> >>>
> >>>Think of it this way. With 5 MP over 2 MP you have another 2.5X optical
> >>>
> >>>
> >zoom
> >
> >
> >>>lens that you can use ***AFTER*** the picture is taken if you decide
> >>>***AFTER*** you see the initial results.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Hans" <Hans@spamkiller.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:hsehc09358uhnu71u7fungmg0ektf1hif5@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:50:06 -0400, "Asscrack" <jzurb@charter.net>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Does a 5mb camera take a better 4x6 picture than a 2mb? I always
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >thought
> >
> >
> >>>>>the more megabytes the larger the prints it can produce.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>No. With current home printing technology anything over about 4
> >>>>megabits doesn't gain you a thing.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:nJidndNpkdW_T1HdRVn-gQ@golden.net...
> I have had 2MPixel pics cropped from horizontal to vertical and ended up
> with about 1 MP. Despite all the developers warning I had two of these
> printed 11x17" and they look great! The perspective is a little flat, like
a
> telephoto shot (I guess it's the same thing mathematically) and the
clarity

No! Telephoto shots tend to look that way because of the very small depth of
field. But they display true detail, the larger zoom the more detail from
distant objects. Artificially blown up (digitial zoom, whether in our out of
camera) cannot do that. You simply 'stretch' the image. My well used example
is of a piece of elastic. Draw a circle on it, then stretch the elastic.
Sure, the cirlce looks bigger, but NO MORE detial. Overdo it and you do
distrort the image.

I would suggest that the 11 x 7 image must be manipulated to prevent
pixelation.

However, at the end of the day image and beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. I have blown up to A4 size 35mm slides scanned at 1600 dpi and
found the image quite acceptable to MY eyes...but maybe NOT to a purist!

Eddie
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I agree that blown up digital images cannot increase detail but blown up
images look flat exactly the same as zoom pictures do, not because of detail
missing or showing but because the perspective is not natural for the
perceived vision point. I believe this is explained in most Photography 101
courses.

The blurred pixels also give the picture a flat look because of lack of
detail. Shadows and small details are not there to give the sharp, depthy
look.

"Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
news:40cd059d$0$28960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:nJidndNpkdW_T1HdRVn-gQ@golden.net...
> > I have had 2MPixel pics cropped from horizontal to vertical and ended up
> > with about 1 MP. Despite all the developers warning I had two of these
> > printed 11x17" and they look great! The perspective is a little flat,
like
> a
> > telephoto shot (I guess it's the same thing mathematically) and the
> clarity
>
> No! Telephoto shots tend to look that way because of the very small depth
of
> field. But they display true detail, the larger zoom the more detail from
> distant objects. Artificially blown up (digitial zoom, whether in our out
of
> camera) cannot do that. You simply 'stretch' the image. My well used
example
> is of a piece of elastic. Draw a circle on it, then stretch the elastic.
> Sure, the cirlce looks bigger, but NO MORE detial. Overdo it and you do
> distrort the image.
>
> I would suggest that the 11 x 7 image must be manipulated to prevent
> pixelation.
>
> However, at the end of the day image and beauty is in the eye of the
> beholder. I have blown up to A4 size 35mm slides scanned at 1600 dpi and
> found the image quite acceptable to MY eyes...but maybe NOT to a purist!
>
> Eddie
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Yes, there is that too.


Eddie


"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:acidnb28zPnjr1PdRVn-hg@golden.net...
> I agree that blown up digital images cannot increase detail but blown up
> images look flat exactly the same as zoom pictures do, not because of
detail
> missing or showing but because the perspective is not natural for the
> perceived vision point. I believe this is explained in most Photography
101
> courses.
>
> The blurred pixels also give the picture a flat look because of lack of
> detail. Shadows and small details are not there to give the sharp, depthy
> look.
>
> "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
> news:40cd059d$0$28960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> > news:nJidndNpkdW_T1HdRVn-gQ@golden.net...
> > > I have had 2MPixel pics cropped from horizontal to vertical and ended
up
> > > with about 1 MP. Despite all the developers warning I had two of these
> > > printed 11x17" and they look great! The perspective is a little flat,
> like
> > a
> > > telephoto shot (I guess it's the same thing mathematically) and the
> > clarity
> >
> > No! Telephoto shots tend to look that way because of the very small
depth
> of
> > field. But they display true detail, the larger zoom the more detail
from
> > distant objects. Artificially blown up (digitial zoom, whether in our
out
> of
> > camera) cannot do that. You simply 'stretch' the image. My well used
> example
> > is of a piece of elastic. Draw a circle on it, then stretch the elastic.
> > Sure, the cirlce looks bigger, but NO MORE detial. Overdo it and you do
> > distrort the image.
> >
> > I would suggest that the 11 x 7 image must be manipulated to prevent
> > pixelation.
> >
> > However, at the end of the day image and beauty is in the eye of the
> > beholder. I have blown up to A4 size 35mm slides scanned at 1600 dpi and
> > found the image quite acceptable to MY eyes...but maybe NOT to a purist!
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> >
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom