Prev: A little nostalgia this morning
Next: Ugg! Ricoh 28-300mm superzoom module for the GXR (horrific at 800ISO)
From: David J Taylor on 4 Jul 2010 03:28
"Rich" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66f4902c-c08d-4b1c-b08a-594b10690aa6(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[]
> No. Unless you think someone's sub-standard need is justification for
> producing a camera. Interestingly though, if we agree that a camera
> is sufficient because it can produce a usable 800x600 image for the
> web, then why not stop at 5 megapixels or even 3 and use the extra
> pixel size to improve low-light images?

Agreed - if all someone wants is for projection at, say, 1024 x 768, or 6
x 4 inch prints, and they don't want cropping (since they don't
post-process), then 3-5MP would be just fine. Even with my old 5MP camera
I've taken very acceptable A4-sized prints (297 x 210mm).

What does the eye/brain prefer when looking at a fixed print size? More
pixels and more grain, or fewer pixels, less resolution, but less grain
(i.e. because of lower noise). Depends on the subject, I believe. But
pixel-peeping needs to be used with care.

Cheers,
David



From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 4 Jul 2010 03:50
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:28:32 +0100, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>"Rich" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:66f4902c-c08d-4b1c-b08a-594b10690aa6(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>[]
>> No. Unless you think someone's sub-standard need is justification for
>> producing a camera. Interestingly though, if we agree that a camera
>> is sufficient because it can produce a usable 800x600 image for the
>> web, then why not stop at 5 megapixels or even 3 and use the extra
>> pixel size to improve low-light images?
>
>Agreed - if all someone wants is for projection at, say, 1024 x 768, or 6
>x 4 inch prints, and they don't want cropping (since they don't
>post-process), then 3-5MP would be just fine. Even with my old 5MP camera
>I've taken very acceptable A4-sized prints (297 x 210mm).
>
>What does the eye/brain prefer when looking at a fixed print size? More
>pixels and more grain, or fewer pixels, less resolution, but less grain
>(i.e. because of lower noise). Depends on the subject, I believe. But
>pixel-peeping needs to be used with care.
>

No. Not at all.

The eye/brain prefers an image worthy of their conjoined mind. Something
that conveys anything of value. No matter the resolution. No matter the
noise. As long as that image has something of worth it can be presented at
any distinguishable size and it will be valued by that eye/brain. I've even
posted badly degraded high jpg-compression images of 240x180 pixels stolen
for publications. (intentionally degraded to prevent that very theft)
Because they contain something of VALUE.

Your problem is that you lack one of those eye/brain components. Since you
can read these posts we'll have to assume you have eyes. That leaves only
one other option that you are without. Or at least it's not functioning
properly.





From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 4 Jul 2010 03:55
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:28:32 +0100, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>"Rich" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:66f4902c-c08d-4b1c-b08a-594b10690aa6(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>[]
>> No. Unless you think someone's sub-standard need is justification for
>> producing a camera. Interestingly though, if we agree that a camera
>> is sufficient because it can produce a usable 800x600 image for the
>> web, then why not stop at 5 megapixels or even 3 and use the extra
>> pixel size to improve low-light images?
>
>Agreed - if all someone wants is for projection at, say, 1024 x 768, or 6
>x 4 inch prints, and they don't want cropping (since they don't
>post-process), then 3-5MP would be just fine. Even with my old 5MP camera
>I've taken very acceptable A4-sized prints (297 x 210mm).
>
>What does the eye/brain prefer when looking at a fixed print size? More
>pixels and more grain, or fewer pixels, less resolution, but less grain
>(i.e. because of lower noise). Depends on the subject, I believe. But
>pixel-peeping needs to be used with care.
>

No. Not at all.

The eye/brain prefers an image worthy of their conjoined mind. Something
that conveys anything of value. No matter the resolution. No matter the
noise. As long as that image has something of worth it can be presented at
any distinguishable size and it will be valued by that eye/brain. I've even
posted badly degraded high jpg-compression images of 240x180 pixels that
were stolen for publications. (intentionally degraded to prevent that very
theft, lawsuits ensued) Because they contain something of VALUE.

Your problem is that you lack one of those eye/brain components. Since you
can read these posts we'll have to assume you have eyes. That leaves only
one other option that you are without. Or at least it's not functioning
properly.





First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning
Next: Ugg! Ricoh 28-300mm superzoom module for the GXR (horrific at 800ISO)