Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: megapixel
5 megapixel - 14 (3.9%)
10 megapixel - 67 (18.8%)
15 megapixel - 91 (25.6%)
20 megapixel - 60 (16.9%)
25 megapixel - 47 (13.2%)
30 megapixel - 18 (5.1%)
35 megapixel - 59 (16.6%)
Total Voters: 29

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: megapixel  (Read 27386 times)
Dwight Arthur
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #40 on: March 18, 2005, 09:50:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Does a MF back really have the 12 stop dynamic range you refer too? I find that amazing (hard to believe) as I have observed that all other digital sensors (from 2 MP digicams to a 1Ds) don't vary much at all and are substantially less than 12. But I do stand to be educated, having never seen let alone use one.

In actual practice, a lot of dynamic range will only produce incredibly flat images unless you really understand how to control local contrast well. I'm not saying it is not useful, but that most people would have no idea how to use it, or would lack the will to do the extensive editing necessary for each image to use it effectively. I would certainly not want by default to be using that range for every exposure!

Any more dynamic range on consumer cameras would just create photos that the typical user would be often disappointed in. I often find my students (when they first come to me) already complain about the "grey film" that seems to afflict a lot of their shots - a direct consequence of a flat tonal curve combined with a lot of dynamic range. It is easy to correct, and delivers a better photo than if the range wasn't there, but it requires custom editing to make it work, and few photographers with moderate experience understand this. They are amazed at how a simple curve corrections (often applied in local areas only) makes these images snap. But if you try to apply that type of curve in the camera to every shot you would end up with terrible results in different circumstances.

What would be needed to make more dynamic range useful for general use would be automatic curve corrections based on scene contrast and a data base (much like the process of evaluative metering). I'm sure it will come someday, and when it does it will, like most automatic controls, improve the quality of snapshots, but not quite deliver the results obtained manually.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2005, 07:33:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I've recently found my larger format and more pixels lust declining to about zero.  After nearly a year of often very frustrating beta testing of the PTMac panorama stitching software, I now find that the present version is absolutely suited for very efficient and extremely high quality production for what I want to do.  I had previously tested just about every stitching program for PC and Mac and found nothing good enough, but PTMac is now indeed good enough and I now do far more shots for stitching than straight single image shooting.  I've also found that combining bracketing (for subsequent blending) for DR challenging situations with multiple panorama shots is no problem whatsoever.  

Of course, all this multiple image shooting and stitching is work, but carrying MF gear around is also work and digital MF is a major financial hit as well.  Carrying a light and easily backpackable kit (D2X) around and being able to routinely end up with 20 to 100+ Mpixel images represents a phenomenal capability and I don't mind the work or the fact that you occasionally miss a possible shot because of severely moving vegetation that makes good stitching (or bracketing and blending) impossible.  No one camera outfit can do every possible thing for every possible circumstance, but a D2X and multiple image shooting should come close enough for me, and at a price that's not exhorbitant for what you get and at a weight burden that's easy for an aging backpacker.
Logged
Gert
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4



« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2005, 02:17:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I want to give my opinion as a relative newcomer to digital. When I upgraded from 3mp to 8 mp I was very pleased. Better detail, sharpness etc. Also bigger files and more money. I thought this over and I guess you could repeat this every two years or so, technology is advancing.
I think this last sentence is crucial. Photography is about photographs, not mp or anything else. I have been taught that a good photographer using a 3mp camera can run corcles around a mediocre photographer using the latest state of the art camera, because your own arfullness is more of an assett than the artfullness of the camera.
Therefore I stick with my 8mp A200, I exercise and try and throw away Mbits, and try to become a good photographer. That may take some time/years. Then I'll think again about Mp.
Logged

Gert
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2005, 05:38:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
..., but I find I have spent an ever increasing amount of money chasing higher and higher resolution products that in the end create great pictures but ones that lack a certain "snap" of some of my older technology gear. I wonder if others feel the same and feel this forum might be a good place to capture the issue Huh
I think the 'general forum' is a great place to ask the question - several very knowledgeable photographers drop in from time to time.  

Why not break it out as a separate thread?
Logged
BCBryan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2005, 10:16:23 PM »
ReplyReply

One aspect of the whole question which seems to have been overlooked is the linkage between file size and equipment (beyond cost). Currently if you are a wildlife photographer, there are limits to the available equipemnt which will allow you to easily track and shoot moving birds in flight, for example. The range of gear for landscapes is much broader, including medium format. So to some extent the result of the poll are "conditioned" by the type of photography we do and our impression of the available gear to suport that medium.

BCBryan.
Logged
Jo Irps
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2005, 06:44:46 AM »
ReplyReply

It has ben produced by BBC TV donky years ago!
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 18, 2005, 04:57:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm kind of giving up on CD for image file transfer/storage. DVD is much more practical. CD's aren't even as big as the memory cards I use (4GB Microdrives).
Logged

DAL
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #47 on: May 05, 2005, 06:35:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Good day everybody, I was at a landscape photographers showing last night and I was blown away by his prints which were close to 4' long! They were tack sharp, even from 6" away. The colors were amazing, the depth of field was increadible, it felt like you could walk right into the scene. they were printed on Wahl...? something paper, he had scanned on a $25,000 scanner a got 350mb files. I am quite difficult to impress and I was blown away. He also used the Fuji technology. Hasselblad Xpan and Fuji Provia 100, I'd say it equals 20 plus MP. I have a digital camera and was about to sell my 35mm, but I think I will wait for now.
Don
Logged
DAL
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #48 on: May 06, 2005, 02:16:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm LOL at the last sentence of your post! Thanks for response it was greatly appreciated and well recieved. I have google'd the photographers you mentioned and was equally impressed by their work. The value of my equipment is'nt quite that of a door stopper yet, but I figuire I have some time to decide. Thanks again, Don
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2005, 01:28:15 PM »
ReplyReply

"All the science aside concerning the eye's blur circle etc., those old photos capture some characteristic not measured in our laboratories "

Do they really?  Or do some us just wish it so?

I don't know the answer, but find the question interesting.  

What if you took a double MkII image, stitched it, printed a 8 x 10 'negative' on an inkjet, and made a contract print?  Would the the 'some characteristic' be there?

Science works along the lines of an observation is made and then the measurement system is developed.  Sometimes the first step is to find out if the observation is real or imagined.

I'd love to see the results of a blind test....
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #50 on: July 17, 2005, 11:43:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I never voted. This is another silly thread. It's like asking how much salary will be sufficient.
Logged
PKo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #51 on: August 31, 2005, 07:33:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As long as you are viewing from the correct viewing distance (the diagonal of the print), the print will appear the same no matter what size it is. The issue is the angular resolution of the eye. If you increase the viewing distance, resolution (and depth of field) appears to increase. The opposite is true if you decrease the viewing distance. So go ahead, print those images as large or as small as you like.
Let me add a comment: I remember how fascinated I was at the time when I discovered for me the fact of relation of viewing distance to perspective and sense of the third dimension of an image. Having all my prints small enough to keep them in the album I never experinced this feeling of space before, because usual viewing distance of these images was too far, two or three times more than it was appropriate. With larger prints I could observe the fact that from a specific distance images got some space and perspective. From theese time i believe that viewing distance of the final print is the most important thing  that comes to think about before or paralel with composition of the image, because it relates to the focal length (not simply to diagonal of the print). The effect of the third dimension feeling, as I believe, is strongest, when the angle of lens is close to the viewing angle. So I would agree, but this is my comment: when most lanscape images are taken with short focal lenghts lenses, I would expect that the best viewing distance would be (much) closer than diagonal of print, for practical reasons they should be printed larger (to keep a convenient viewer distance) and thanks to it there should be much much more need for details for them.
Petr
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 01, 2005, 04:10:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As a general rule, if there are two or more contributing components to image quality, such as film and lens, or sensor and lens, the system resolution, or final result, will be somewhat worse than that of the lowest resolving component.
A concise and excellent summary. And right on.
Logged

Joja
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #53 on: January 03, 2005, 09:10:20 AM »
ReplyReply

thats exactly what i mean!
one day will come when youll dont have to look as many possible megapixels because all cameras will have more than enough.
so the choice of number will solely depend on what youll find suiffecient..
and youll have to take all factors like processing and filesize etc into account to make your choice.
for example, if someone publishes his/her pictures solely on postcards, then he/she doesnt need much megapixel.
but when youre goal is exhibition sized prints, then youll need more of them ...

i hope youll understand what ill mean..
Logged

------------------------------------
http://www.johanjanssens.com/
------------------------------------
gary_hendricks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 04, 2005, 11:58:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi

You may want to check out this article which sums up this topic about megapixels quite nicely.

http://www.basic-digital-photography.com/how-man....ed.html
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5168


« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2005, 04:11:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am waiting for the sensor that can match the eye brain combination of about 15 F stops.
I agree that more dynamic range is a far higher priority for me; it seems natural that catching up with (negative) film on that front should be a higher priority than moving ever further beyond (35mm color) film for resolution.

But I believe that the 15 stops number if anything applies to the eye + brain + iris combination; the retina itself does not have any particular advantage in dynamic range over good electronic sensors. The equivalent of an eye scanning over a very high contrast scene, adjusting iris opening as it goes, might require a camera that takes several images in rapid succession at very different exposure times, though Fuji's SR idea might be able to be pushed to that level.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #56 on: January 18, 2005, 09:39:06 PM »
ReplyReply

There's a movie version coming out this summer...
Logged

djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #57 on: February 11, 2005, 08:36:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a 6MP Contax, which took lovely images when it wasn't being a PITA, but didn't enlarge quite well past 9x12 or so. Now I have 16MP 1Ds mkII which does lovely 13x19s though the glass although very good is not quite up to the Zeiss under extreme light conditions. I am never-the-less pleased as pie (I was going to say #### but ... ) with the performance of the 1DsII after a stint in China.

I signed up for 25MP (the high-quality kind, of course) because eventually the 16 will lose their WOW factor and by then the 25s will be available, and you really gotta have an upgrade at some point . Like in cubic inches, there's never enough, as long as they're practical of course. Just make sure you have the supporting CPU, memory and storage space ...

DJ
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #58 on: March 18, 2005, 11:06:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I haven't had a chance to try a p25 back (or any MF stuff), but apparently that does have a 12 stop DR.  Other MF backs are not anywhere near that good or nearly as expensive.  I presently have a 1ds with the typical limited DR of other 35mm digital cameras (5 stops or so, depending on how much shadow noise you're willing to live with).  I have to do a lot of bracketing and blending to get by with such limited DR.  It's better than shooting slides, but I would certainly welcome a 12 stop sensor.  The prospect of having to process for contrast is no problem at all.  I'm already doing a lot of individual processing for virtually every image I shoot.  Dealing with shadow noise, blown pixels, and too little DR is far worse than dealing with too much DR.  As far as I'm concerned there can't possibly ever be too much DR.  

A $25,000 MF back would surely not be aimed at the same market as a low end digital camera for people that might not have a clue about Photoshop (like your beginning students).  

The important thing is not so much what the image coming out of the camera looks like, but how much noise free information there is.  God gave us Photoshop so that we could spice up bland digital camera output.
Logged
valis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2005, 01:57:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Ooops -- I didn't realize I was responding to a post from four months ago.  I'll just assume that my point has probably been made a few times over in the course of the thread, and back down now.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad