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."
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
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 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
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.