Slashdot Mirror
Beyond Megapixels - Part III
TheTechLounge writes "Beyond Megapixels - Part I & Part II have both been posted here at Slashdot, and now it is my pleasure to bring to you Beyond Megapixels - Part III. This is the final part of this series of editorial articles examining current digital photography hardware. In this segment I will be focusing on function, filetypes, and features."
I've got a Fuji A201 2 mp camera. The images are crappy, mainly due to a tiny lens and cheap components.
My main camera is a 3^H6 mp Fuji S602Zoom with a big lens, a threaded ring, manual control of everything, a 1cm macro mode, and raw (well, tiff) image output.
I think that while the average point-and-shoot person will not need more than 2 mp, they probably will want a smallish optical zoom and reasonable lens quality.
I would benefit from my camera taking true 6mp shots (Fuji's hexagonal multi-sensor-per-pixel idea. actually 3 mp images in a diagonal hex layout interpolated to 6. I normally run it on 3. I'd say its equivalent to about 4.5 up to about 6 for straight edges (buildings))
I'm a hobbist photographer, and I often print images on A4 if they're good. A4 really needs about 4 mp so as to not see pixels (5760x1440 dpi printer)
So, yes, i want more megapixels.
For the RTFA-ers:
Beyond Megapixels
Beyond Megapixels - Part II
Linux users can use the dcraw util to convert RAW into TIFF format. It also has a plugin for GIMP which works fine. On my camera though, the RAW files are 6.3Mb, and the TIFFs created with dcraw are 18Mb.
:)
Have a look at my pics, too.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I have a C-3000 that does exactly that. Interchangeable lenses, filters, whatever. Just like a regular film SLR. Reasonable price, too.
It's much, much more than just the megapixels that determines how your shots will come out. The megapixels are just the limiting factor on what you can do with the photo afterwards.
Let's take a 2 megapixel image for instance. 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels. An 8 inch x 10 inch print of that photo would print at a resolution of 1600/10=160 ppi (dpi) across, and 1200/8=150 ppi (dpi) down. That is low quality, approximately half of what you see in a typical magazine, and is definitely noticable.
Beyond that, I was recently at my cousin's graduation and commissioning into the army. His family brought their $250-$300 3 megapixel camera and I had my 5 megapixel Sony DSC-F717. The difference is astounding, and the megapixels have only minor significance. Because the basics of photography are not even addressed on their camera (color balance, focal length, exposure time, etc) their images in the darkened ceremony did not come out at all, whereas mine came out great as I adjusted the shutter speed, the exposure values and other settings that they had absolutely no control over.
For point & shoot, put on the web or e-mail, no, it doesn't really matter, but a good camera at 640x480 compared to el 'cheapo camera at the same resolution is quite significant.
I think the general sentiment of this article is very true. I remember when I bought my first digital camera, it was a case of the biggest number of pixels winning. In those days 1.0MP cameras were pretty expensive, and I remember being overjoyed that I managed to get a great deal on a Kodak that reached this "magic figure" producing 1152x864 images - rather than most of the other cameras within my price bracket at the time which were between 640x480 and 1024x768.
Skip forward to last month, and I bought my third digital camera. There were 3MP, 4MP and 5MP models within my price range, but in the end, I settled for a 4MP model with a great lens, full manual control and some nifty other features (a Canon Powershot A80, I'd recommend this model to anyone after a fortnight of snapping with it). It produces 2272x1704 images, quite a lot bigger than I'm ever likely to need.
I'd LOVE a digitam cam like that,...
Digital SLRs are available starting at US$899 (list) for the Canon Digital Rebel/300D/Kiss Digital (the name varies by region).
Visit here to learn more.
SteveM
Since I haven't read them, and I don't see them posted here anywhere, here are the links to the first two stories:
y =beyond_megapixels_part_1
y =beyond_megapixels_part_2
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?director
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?director
Ah yes, I can feel the Slashdotting coming on now =)
NOT. The Canon EOS D300/Digital Rebel which is compatible with almost all EF series lenses, and has its own line of EF-S lenses can be had for only ~$950 bundled with a great 18-55 EF-S autofocus lense. Of course once you've caught the bug you can easily spend thousands on new lenses but the barrier to entry in the DSLR world has come crashing down with several competitors offering similarly priced models (though AFAIK none of them have as good of a lense on their ~$1K DSLR's)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I am what you would consider a serious amatuer photographer. (Note that's not seriously amatuer.) I like taking nice photos and blowing them up/enlarging the best of them to frame and hang on the wall. I've even had one professional gig where I got paid for taking official photos at a wedding. A few extra bucks for me and some decent photos at a cheap price for the couple.
Here is my perfect camera:
1. Six Megapixel. You can print out an 8X10" photo at the same quality as 35mm film. More is better, but does an amatuer really need any more than that?
2. An SLR. This is a single lens reflex. It focuses the image onto the focusing screens by using the light coming through the lens (what you see through the view-finder is what you get) and has interchangable lenses.
3. Has a nice optical zoom. How many X makes a nice optical zoom? I suppose that's up to the individual, but I think 10X or more. More is always better when it comes to optical zoom.
The Canon Digital Rebel seems to be the perfect camera for me. The price is still a bit out there, in the neighborhood of $1000, but I'm sure it will come down as time goes on. I'm thinking we are nearing the end of the major advances in digital cameras. Not that we can't improve them, but they are practically at the quality/price levels of film cameras. You can get a cheapie for less than $100 that takes "okay" 3 megapixel images. Great for 4x6 snapshots. You can also spend about $1000 for everything a non-professional could want. Any improvements beyond this are gravy and probably wouldn't profit the researcher or manufacturer much.
Oh! And ignore digital zoom. I wish it didn't exist. I can enlarge it on my computer after the fact and get the same effect.
But why is the rum gone?
Have you ever tried printing those 2 megapixel images? 2.0 may be all well and good on a monitor, but printing is a whole 'nother ballgame. You won't be getting any kind of acceptable 8x10's out of that.
I've had full page shots from my 2MP Powershot A60 printed in real, live magazines. They work FINE for 8x10 or 8.5x11 for that matter.
The parent poster is correct. 2MP is more than enough for most people. I never recommend more than 3.2 - 4MP for most anyone who solicits my opinion. Unless someone is looking for room to crop an image, anything more is usually a waste of flash memory.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Displays have approximately 100 DPI (dots per inch) of resolution. Printing on a cheapie inkjet has 300 DPI. Printing on a high-quality but still consumer-level laser printer tops out around 1200 DPI. Each time you double the DPI, you need 4 times as many pixels to attain it.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
But you may not be as happy to see that quality picture on a sports illustrated double spread for instance.
Sports Illustrated accepts pictures from the Canon 1D (4MP) and the Nikon D1H (2.6MP). Nowadays its staff photographes are mostly using the Canon 1D-II (8MP).
But, the truth is, number of MP doesn't matter. What matters is the size of the photosites on the sensor. A digicam has little photosites 2x2 microns. To get a picture, you need high amplification, so you get noise in the shadows. You've got a cheap lens, so you get chromatic abberation in the highlights. On top of that, you get low overall contrast. A DSLR on the other hand has photosites 7x7 microns or 9x9 microns. No noise in the shadows at "low" ISOs (which are still higher than most digicams), no abberation in the highlights from those nice lenses, faithful colours overall.
I've recently got into SLR digital with a 10D. Along with that I got some 'L' series lenses
I've a D30 with L glass. It's simply not worth me ugrading to a 10D - the photos I get from my 3MP look beautiful printed at 12x8" (using Photoshop to interpolate as necessary). The way the human visual system works, contrast and faithful colour matters more than resolution. All the lamers who bought the Sony F828 have no idea what a mistake that was, they just want more megapixels to boast about - that 2.6MP Nikon completely blows it away.
300 dpi on a 4" x 6" photo is 2.1 MPixel.
Very few images printed on 1200dpi printers have that many pixels, they are mostly doing interpolation to eliminate jaggies.
Pretty easy. Printers work differently.
On my screen I have 1280x1024 pixels. Every pixel is formed from 3 elements: red, green and blue, but they're small enough so that a yellow pixel appears really yellow to me.
Now, printers print using Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and black. Most cheap printers can't mix colors, which means they have to combine them by dithering. And to make matters even worse, they can't control the intensity. If you have a color printer, try printing colored text. Often it looks pretty ugly.
This means that in order to print my screen on paper and have it look identical, my printer has to either have a much higher resolution so that dithering isn't visible, or mix colors.
If you print your photo on a inkjet without scaling, you'll lose detail due to dithering. If you make it bigger, and print it on a really good printer, then it'll come out pixelated. Jagged lines on a printer are much easier to see, probably because on a screen the pixels glow and to some extend mix with the nearby ones, and on a good printer they won't.
The only downside is that you lose your warranty, but if you print a lot, then you can quickly buy a new printer with the money saved :-)
I mainly shoot 35mm although I do some 6x6cm. I also have a 6.3mp DSLR.
Megapixels are important when it comes time to print. The issue is that a lot of people use their digicams to display images on the web and never make prints. For profoessional uses, prints are very important as well as having high quality sources for reproduction magazines and other publications. While 2mp may be good for the web, I find the prints lacking. Some people may not be able to tell the difference.
Before I got a digital camera, I had someone send me a sample portrait from their 3.0 megapixel camera. They claimed they were able to make 32x24" enlargements that looked great. I printed an 8x10 on my fairly good inkjet and I was dissapointed by the results when compared to both my scanned film (from a pretty good film scanner) and prints I've made in my darkroom. The amount of detail lost in things like the eyes were unacceptable to me. It's how when CD's first came out, they stripped out frequencies they thought were outside the human hearing range but people thought they didn't sound good until they added them back in.
NOw with the 6.3 camera, the results are better but I still like traditional prints from a good negative film, printed through a good lens. The camera also has better metering and white balance features than previous cameras as well. One of the main limitations of most digital sensors in my opinion is that they still use a Bayer pattern. If Foveon can ever reduce their noise issues and get a larger sensor with more megapixels I think that will be orders of magnitudes better. Comparing the current foveon output shot in it's ideal conditions versus cameras with more megapixels provides a stunning difference in the clarity of the photos. There is less interpolation as each sensor registers red, green and blue instead of just one and relying on interpolation.
What I like about digital is the convenience of getting from the camera to my proofing system in a short amount of time. With film I have a quicker turn around time than most since I can just load my film on reels, turn on the machine (as long as I have chemicals still in it) and have my film ready to scan in less than an hour. Though I then have to scan. I still prefer the quality of the prints though from my hand enlargements, especially when it comes to black and white.
When I need to make many copies of a print at a time, traditional methods still win out in terms of speed. After coming up with the right exposure and color filtration, which is quick and easy with a good color analyzer, and determining my dodging and burning strategy, I can turn out prints much faster than my inkjet. The difference in cost also favors traditional printing.
My point, yeah I don't believe megapixels are everything but more data isn't bad since with most newer cameras and sensors, the push for more megapixels also includes better in camera software, better light sensitivity with reduced noise levels, etc. There still needs to be a lot more done in the digital world but it's getting there.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
As mentioned, it is all in what you need it for. Many of today's consumer digital cameras are nothing less than outstanding. If you have had to suffer through the growth of digital cameras like I have ( $20-25,000 ) DCS1 Camera circa 1992 ( 1.5 megapixel approx ) and lousy color and contrast ) All you pukes :) should be thankful today.
Pros will always need large megapixel cameras. Example: Group shots, even then the industry is still working out bugs. The Kodak DCS n14 ( 13.5 megapixel camera )is awesome for group shots and such high detail / high enlargement things. Problem is that even with firmware patchs to it and its follow on model, heavy noise in the shadow areas makes it unusable for existing-low-light photography. An area that a 6 megapixel Nikon D1x or D100 has no problem in. Also as the high end systems are still very expensive, most pros have a narrow experience based on the few expensive systems they have / use.
A very excellent example of digital photography I have scene recently is a 100 years of Flight issue by National Geographic, all shot with a Nikon D1x ( 6 megapixel ) in Raw mode. Excellent photos. ( The Kodak 13.5 megapixel camera would have failed that mission because of all of the noise it still produces in the shadow areas.)
My current work cameras ( I am a USAF photographer ) are the Fuji S2, Nikon D100, Kodak 14n. This systems fit our needs ( industrial photography ). Having used film cameras for ages ( 8x10, 4x5, 120/220, 35mm ), I prefer digital cameras all the time now. Burning in and dodging, croping the digital way is a lot more fun and I find I can concentrate more on taking good photos.
2 to 3 megapixels is great for folks who are sending the pics as email attachments, posting them on the web or even printing snapshots at a kiosk to put in a photo album. You'll probably not see the difference between a 4x6 or even a 5x7 from such a camera and one printed from a 35mm neg.
Once you start printing larger sizes, the megapixels start to matter, but not necessarily as much as other factors like the glass. What good are twenty megapixels if the lens isn't up to the task? The more you do with the pictures the more the number and quality of those pixels begin to matter.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Part of the articles intent was to make a distinction between the "quality" of pixels - 8 megapixels on a small sensor (top-end "prosumer") will likely have more noise than 6 megapixels on a larger sensor (digital SLR) so that when you are viewing the images 1-1 the details can still be better with a lower pixel count.
There is also the matter of the Foveon "X3" chip - it's got only about 3.5 megapixels but each pixel records the red, green, and blue coming to it rather than the traditional sensors that will only record one of the colors (the final image is then an interpolation). The manufacturers say this is equivalent to 11 megapixels, but I don't think it's quite that good - certainly comparable to 6 to 8 however.
Small is good - camera's not much use if you can't be bothered to carry it.
Smaller isn't always best. By reducing the size and weight, you sacrifice stability - a larger, heavier camera with a well-made grip will be easier to keep still in a wider variety of situations. Larger size also allows for faster lenses, all of which makes it easier to take good available light pictures in low light conditions. The greater stability also helps when you add a hot shoe flash or filters/lenses.
The bottom line is that one camera won't meet everyone's needs in all situations. A compact camera is nice to carry around for occasional pictures, but a larger camera is better suited to longer engagements.
A lens starting at 28mm is very desirable for me - for capturing vistas and indoor parties. For a 4x lens, give me a 28-112mm over 34-134mm any day (f2.0 of course...).
Depending on the sensor used, that's probably going to be a big lens requiring a large camera body (so much for that compact camera you wanted). For comparison, take a look at the Olympus C-5060 (1/1.8" sensor, 27mm-110mm 4x zoom, F2.8-F4.8 aperture) and Olympus C-8080 (2/3" sensor, 28mm-140mm 5x zoom, F2.4-F3.5 aperture). Without the wide angle, there's the Olympus C-5050 (1/1.8" sensor, 35mm-105mm 3x zoom, F1.8-F2.6 aperture).
2 MP pictures do NOT work fine for 8x10 or 8.5x11. Unless you really don't care about what you picture looks like. What real live magazines? Certainly not a photo magazine or anyone else who cares what their images look like.
I agree that for most people 3-4MP is good for most people... most people take pictures that are blurry/horribly underexposed. For these people it really doesn't matter what kind of camera you give them, their pictures will always come out crappy (Even if they had a $3k DSLR) because they don't understand some basic principles of photography.
That said, this is a "news for nerds" site... I'd be willing to bet there are a few photography nerds on here that want more than a simple point and shoot. While some people may be fine with grainy, pixilated 8x10s taken with a 2MP camera, I'm not! In fact, my new D70 takes a LOT better pictures than my little 3.1MP point and shoot.
From midwiferytoday.com (did a quick google search):
"To print a full-bleed image inside the magazine, a photo must be 9 inches wide by 11.25 inches tall, at 200 dpi minimum resolution. That is well within the range of a 5 MP camera"
They then say that a 2MP camera is fine for "small" pictures. No respectable magazine is going to print a 2MP picture fullpage.