Re: more q's on the digital rebel

From: John Steinberg (seesig_at_bottom.net)
Date: 12/02/04 

Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:47:43 -0500

Kevin M. Vernon wrote:

> yes - outstanding for the price. But just to fan the "digital/film" flames
> just a teeny bit more....which is better? neither. it ALL depends on what
> you want your end product/result to be. If you don't want prints - or never
> EVER want any prints bigger than maybe 5x7 - go digital, no question. But
> if you ever, EVER want to print something with some actual size to it - say
> a 16x20...or even bigger.

I've printed 8x10s with my lowly CP950 (2.11 million CCD) and the
results have been excellent. And this with only very modest
postprocessing, or none at all. I even have software tools that
utilize clever algorithms that can blow them up further without
significant image breakdown.

It's important to know that the megapixel myth was really started by
the camera makers and swallowed by the public like Crabby Patty
burgers.

Camera makers use the number of megapixels a camera has as a quality
benchmark. It's used because even a tiny linear resolution increase
results in a huge total pixel increase, since the total pixel count
varies as the total area of the image, which varies as the square of
the linear resolution.

IOW, an almost invisible forty percent increase in the number of pixels
in any one direction results in a doubling of the total number of
pixels in the image.

Therefore camera makers can always crow about how much better this
week's newest camera is, even with negligible real-world improvements.

You need about a doubling of linear resolution or film size to make an
obvious improvement. Stated otherwise, that's a *quadrupling* of
megapixels.

A doubling of megapixels (even if everything else remained the same)
tends to result in subtle improvements (if any) and is a poor benchmark
for results. Bit like looking solely at the MHz of a computer as a sole
metric.

The factors that matter for digital cameras, like color fidelity,
sharpening algorithms, chroma, noise control, etc. are far more
significant.

The megapixel myth has worked so well because we homo sapiens tends to
fixate on a single number. "Ooooh, my 8 MP camera pimp slaps your 5MP
camera!"

Alas, the number of megapixels a camera has very little to do with how
the final image looks. There are plenty of lower megapixel cameras that
create better images than poorer cameras with lots more megapixels.
Don't buy into the megapixel count as a quality indicator.

There is no question that film is still superior to digital for many
tasks, but many of the professional shooters I know now use both. They
can be very complimentary and each has their respective strengths and
weaknesses.

> -Kevin - who feels responisble for the clouds in central Indiana - got a new
> 8" dob. *wink*

This might also explain the hurricane force winds we had in NY last
night. The Dept. of Homeland Hair Pieces had the toupee alert set to
level red. I saw Sam Donaldson running down Park Ave. in 1:05 1/4
mile splits. 

-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid
                   -=  I link therefore I'm spammed  =-

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Megapixel Saturation Is Coming?
    ... The biggest benefit to having more megapixels to me is the ability to crop pictures more and still get a good printable image. ... all these cameras give the user the option to lower the resolution so if you think 6 mp is plenty then set the camera for it. ... At what point will the consumer level be saturated ... 20-megapixel cameras for entry level DSLRs before 2010. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Digital Camera question
    ... >>> Earlier in the year when I was in a metropolis I picked up a camera to ... 150 pixels per inch ... so 2 megapixels will give you 12x8. ... sensor size, and the cells needed to get more sensor pixels on the ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: recommendations for good basic point and shoot
    ... I'm not really sure how to think about megapixels -- I know the newer ... that is indeed one good reason for more pixels. ... is, how well focused, how steadily the camera was held, etc. ... roughly twice the resolution as 3 megapixels? ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Dream list
    ... Maybe it's not true, but on another group someone said her son applied for grants and got $600,000 in grant money to start a tree cutting business! ... pictures, and, from what I've seen takes better pictures than a lot of newer, more megapixel ones. ... I know people who have Kodak EasyShare that cost $300 and have 5 megapixels, but the pictures don't enlarge good and don't seem as big and clear as what my camera takes. ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher)
  • Re: Can a 4.1 Take a 8" x 10" Portrait?
    ... Many years ago I used a 1.2mp camera to take my family portrait. ... "Forget the silly debate over pixel counts among digital cameras. ... Resolution has little to do with image quality. ... because even a tiny linear resolution increase results in a huge total pixel ...
    (rec.photo.digital)