Whither high resolution Digital Images?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: gorilla
Next: I was recently at an all-around outdoors store, and the proprietortold me that some people use spotting scopes...
From: Dave Cohen on 3 Aug 2010 12:12 bobwilliams wrote: > About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG. > I asked something like, > "What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"? > E-Mail to friends and family. > Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their > convenience. > Archive to look at later on your computer. > Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers. > Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving. > Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage > made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made > 8x10 or larger Prints > By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor. > This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions? > > 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed > on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size? > I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major > reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately. > > 2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints. > Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP. > 4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP. > If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital > images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in > this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a > high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering > 10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors? > Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main > criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will > it stop? > A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns. > By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel > spacing of 5.0 microns. > With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much > better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on > the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints. > Emails could be sent without resizing. > > Comments.......Bob Williams People make their purchases based on needs, availability and cost. The fact that they settle on a final choice doesn't necessarily mean every feature offered was optimum for them. I purchased a small p&s because I just don't take that many pics anymore and something pocketable and cheap were the deciding factors. It takes pretty good pics and I don't find the higher than necessary pixel count to be much of a downside. If I were younger with a family my choice would have been quite a different one. If I were doing this for money it would be different again.
From: Robert Spanjaard on 3 Aug 2010 12:21 On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0700, bobwilliams wrote: > About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG. I asked > something like, > "What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"? E-Mail to friends > and family. > Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their > convenience. Archive to look at later on your computer. Make 4x6 prints > to send to friends and family without computers. Make 8x10 or larger > prints for physical archiving. Much to my surprise, of those who > responded, only a small percentage made any prints at all. And only > about 10% or responders commonly made 8x10 or larger Prints > By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor. > This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions? > > 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed > on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size? > I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major > reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately. > > 2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints. Most people > have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP. 4x6 prints made > at 288 ppi require only 2 MP. If these are the most commonly used > options, for displaying digital images, even among pretty sophisticated > photographers, (such as those in this NG), Why on earth don't camera > makers cater to this crowd with a high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor > P/S camera, Because a 2 MP camera would only have 0.5 MP red pixels, 0.5 MP blue pixels, and 1 MP green pixels. If you want a sensor which has at least 2 MP for every component, you'll need 8 MP. And that's a _minimum_ requirement, so the 10-14MP range of current compacts isn't that weird at all. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Martin Brown on 3 Aug 2010 12:55 On 03/08/2010 17:21, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0700, bobwilliams wrote: > >> About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG. I asked >> something like, >> "What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"? E-Mail to friends >> and family. >> Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their >> convenience. Archive to look at later on your computer. Make 4x6 prints >> to send to friends and family without computers. Make 8x10 or larger As 5x7 prints are the same price at our local shop I go for them for proofs. I only print the good stuff and I always shoot at maximum resolution highest quality. You never know when the image might be needed. I don't see much point in having a sensor with a resolution that goes beyond the capabilities of the glass in front of it. That threshold is starting to be crossed in some P&S cameras. >> prints for physical archiving. Much to my surprise, of those who >> responded, only a small percentage made any prints at all. And only >> about 10% or responders commonly made 8x10 or larger Prints >> By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor. >> This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions? >> >> 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed >> on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size? >> I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major >> reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately. Printing up to A3+ myself and wanting source material that will stand enlargement to 30x40" without too much visible pixelation. >> >> 2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints. Most people >> have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP. 4x6 prints made >> at 288 ppi require only 2 MP. If these are the most commonly used >> options, for displaying digital images, even among pretty sophisticated >> photographers, (such as those in this NG), Why on earth don't camera >> makers cater to this crowd with a high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor >> P/S camera, > > Because a 2 MP camera would only have 0.5 MP red pixels, 0.5 MP blue > pixels, and 1 MP green pixels. If you want a sensor which has at least 2 > MP for every component, you'll need 8 MP. And that's a _minimum_ > requirement, so the 10-14MP range of current compacts isn't that weird at > all. That is an artificial requirement to have at least 2Mpixel of each channel. On a good quality dyesub print it is quite difficult to spot images printed at 150dpi from those printed at 300dpi. This is for real images with typical mix of content and not resolution testcards. In other words on a top of the range printer you can just about get away with a 10x8" print from a 1600x1200 source image. It will not stand close inspection by someone who knows what to look for but most of the public cannot see the difference unless it is pointed out. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Alfred Molon on 3 Aug 2010 13:13 In article <17SdnVQz2f-lRsrRnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, bobwilliams says... > With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much > better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S I don't think colour fidelity has anything to do with pixel spacing. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: G Paleologopoulos on 3 Aug 2010 14:13
"Robert Spanjaard" <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote news:3b9ca$4c5841fb$546ac3cf$20543(a)cache50.multikabel.net... > >................................................... > Because a 2 MP camera would only have 0.5 MP red pixels, 0.5 MP blue > pixels, and 1 MP green pixels. If you want a sensor which has at least 2 > MP for every component, you'll need 8 MP. And that's a _minimum_ > requirement, so the 10-14MP range of current compacts isn't that weird at > all. > Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com An "X megapixel" camera has X megapixels as output from the processing done on the charge read from the sensor's PHOTOSITES, filtered for R G and B and Bayer composited. The photosites are in such numbers so to produce the quoted full color megapixels. The actual photosite RGB matrix is proprietary., as is the percentage of neighboring pixel usage. |