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: Scotius on 3 Aug 2010 18:21 On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0700, bobwilliams <mytbob(a)cox.net> 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? That's a damned good question actually. On a monitor, there's no visible difference (at least not to me) between an image in RAW format (or TIFF), and one in JPG (or JPEG) format. RAW is only necessary if you want to print images. Still, there are situations where a DSLR will get you a far better photo even in JPEG than any P & S camera will. >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? Let's just say for the sake of argument that for a large screen monitor, you want at least a 3 MP image. Then it would seem like if you made a good 3 MP camera much cheaper than others could produce their 10 or more megapixel cameras, you'd sell a ton, right? Wrong. It isn't about what's true or real; it's about what people PERCIEVE things to be. That's a matter of marketing, and I'm sure that with a few focus groups, I could prove to you a number of ways that a 3 MP camera would die on the shelves. Now, IF (and it's a big IF) you could truly produce it cheaply, or even for the same price but give consumers options at that same price that the others could not match without going up radically, you might find a niche in the market of people willing to buy your product. Probably not however. Let's just say for the sake of argument that at 150 - 200 dollars, you manage to build a very nice little 3 MP camera that comes with things like an external flash, (more powerful than the built in one), and some attachable lenses for a variety of types of photography, most likely plastic ones, but with a good hard coating so they could last a while. You might have something quite useful, but the very next thing that would happen is this; one of the big companies would produce a lens system for their's that would allow attaching different ones (then it's no longer an advantage for your company), and they'd be charging as much as an entry level DSLR. Some very practical people would still buy yours', but a lot of potential customers would be afraid that their peers would look down on them and not buy yours. The VW bug had some adherents in the US in the '70s, but how many of them were people whose friends all drove sports cars? It's a marketing matter, not a matter of practicality. If you put together a good campaign though and attached the idea of practicality to what a lot of people don't like about big, over-priced systems though, you'd have a chance to at least make some profit in the short term. If you decide to go for it, let me know and I'll help design the campaign... for a percentage of what money the company makes. >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
From: Scott on 3 Aug 2010 22:56 "eatmorepies" <jckipper(a)lineone.net> wrote: snip > 2. Because they want a feature that is in a new model and it comes > with > higher resolution (I bought the 5D2 for it's high ISO abilities) - and > you > may set the camera to lower resolution (a). Agreed. I recently bought an ixus 200is for it's 24mm lens and low light performance. The ridiculous amount of pixels included was overkill. I really only needed 2-3MP max for my intended purpose. snip
From: Scott on 3 Aug 2010 23:06 The advantage of digital phography is printing only those shots I really like and need. i used to shoot as part of the duties of my previous job. At each event easily hundreds of shots were taken by my team. Of these, less than a hundred would be selected and uploaded to our server. Of those, only a few might eventually be printed when we wanted to put up a display. Most of the shots were kept as softcopy for the other officers' usage. A caveat is that most of those shots were printed at 8R, so 6MP was about right back then. bobwilliams <mytbob(a)cox.net> 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
From: bobwilliams on 4 Aug 2010 05:18 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 I ABSOLUTELY agree that IF you plan to print at 8X10 or larger, more pixels are better. And good glass is of paramount importance. After all, it is the lens that creates the image. Bells and whistles in the camera are nice but a mediocre lens will yield mediocre images. But notice that I emphasized (CAPS) in my first question..... " 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?" It is for those people, which I suspect is the largest segment of the digicam public, that my mythical 2 MP would be aimed at. I personally print about 2-3% of my images at 8x10 for archiving in large loose leaf binders with plastic sheet protectors. I'd say that I probably have about 300 8x10s in 3 binders for quick and easy display. These are my best-of-best pics My primary, serious camera is a Panny FZ 50 which is 10MP. It has a Leica lens that IMHO produces outstanding images even on a 1/1.8" sensor. I understand that the high megapixel count is a very effective marketing tool and probably is the main reason why a 2MP camera despite significant advantages in image quality and low light performance would not find a spot in the heart of the general public. They seem to be thrilled with results from their little cellphone cameras.........Sigh Bob
From: Jeff Jones on 4 Aug 2010 05:58
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:18:11 -0700, bobwilliams <mytbob(a)cox.net> wrote: >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 > >I ABSOLUTELY agree that IF you plan to print at 8X10 or larger, more >pixels are better. And good glass is of paramount importance. >After all, it is the lens that creates the image. >Bells and whistles in the camera are nice but a mediocre lens will yield >mediocre images. > >But notice that I emphasized (CAPS) in my first question..... >" 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?" >It is for those people, which I suspect is the largest segment of the >digicam public, that my mythical 2 MP would be aimed at. > >I personally print about 2-3% of my images at 8x10 for archiving in >large loose leaf binders with plastic sheet protectors. >I'd say that I probably have about 300 8x10s in 3 binders for quick and >easy display. These are my best-of-best pics > >My primary, serious camera is a Panny FZ 50 which is 10MP. >It has a Leica lens that IMHO produces outstanding images even on a >1/1.8" sensor. > >I understand that the high megapixel count is a very effective marketing >tool and probably is the main reason why a 2MP camera despite >significant advantages in image quality and low light performance would >not find a spot in the heart of the general public. They seem to be >thrilled with results from their little cellphone cameras.........Sigh >Bob > > > And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and appreciated. What is it with you tech-head pixel-pervs? I guess since none of you ever know how to take any images of worthwhile content, the only thing that any of you have left to admire and be concerned about are the dots. It doesn't matter how many of those you have, or how high of a resolution they can be combined into, none of them matter if you don't have something worthy of being depicted by those dots. Here's some dots .................................. I have 21 million of them! All of them just as sharp and clear as those above, each of them available in 8 million shades too! Ain't they wonderful!?! I bet you'd pay $10,000 to be able to have a device to create such perfect dots, and so many of them, all just as perfect! A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it. You fuckingly useless idiots. |