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."
...purchases in the last few months and I have to say that the "megapixel race" is becoming like the megahertz race in that many people use that feature alone as their determining factor. Rarely do they want to discuss optical versus digital zoom (something that Kodak is addressing with their DX6490, a 10X OPTICAL zoom in an inexpensive, well-built camera), output format, etc.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
horses for courses. Glad to hear you camera is all you need. :) (if we had ants that made mounds in NZ!!)
But you may not be as happy to see that quality picture on a sports illustrated double spread for instance.
People still use film because there is still an issue with the merits of film/CCD/CMOS. Until film is well and truely surpassed by digital, expect to see the megapixels get.. uhhh . mega'rer.
I've recently got into SLR digital with a 10D. Along with that I got some 'L' series lenses, and I would expect my picture quality will steadily improve as the pixels go up. I'm looking forward to it.
What? Do you enjoy being able to clearly see an ant from taking a picture with your camera 12 feet above an ant mound?
Actually..... yes...
this is not a flawless plan.. this is inspiration
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. And we're not even talking professional use here, just simple at home printing, when you start talking about actually selling your images or doing other serious work with them, the need for 5+ megapixels becomes painfully clear.
So yes, 2.0 is enough if all you're doing is posting the images online or archiving them for the heck of it, but when it comes to really putting them to work, whether it be printing just for at home framing or for professional work, you'll quickly see the need for those "hyped" high 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 remember watching a review of digital cameras on a gadget show a year or so ago. The reviewer pointed out that the key to the image was the lens, if that is bad, then nothing else matters.
Don't talk pixels, talk optics.
You don't need a lab to make mud.
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
Well, you do need a certain minimum of megapixels, so you can have your photo printed. See, I never print photos on my PC (which is why I don't need an inkjet* with highly expensive ink (1 liter = 1 kg Gold)), but bring or send them to the photoshop instead.
They will print it using a seriously good printer on great paper, and charge a pittance for it. Some shops (and websites) also allow me to design a nice hardcover book full of my photos and text, which makes a great present for friends and family.
But the requirement-limit is at, what, between 3 and 5 megapixels. Using more is useful for cutting images and having only a small part printed, but this happens rather rarely.
Instead I want the following:
* a good optical lens (come on, an f of 2.8 is not that great, unless you live in a really sunny country) with a solid optical zoom (who CARES about digital zoom?).
* Use standard AA rechargable batteries - they are cheap, hold a heck of a charge by now, and are easily replacable - with plain batteries if necessary.
Keep in mind that these things have to be replaced every now and then, and a propriatary one isn't cheap.
* Use CF cards. Cheap, fast, big, and under steady development.
* Allow me to access the camera via USB as an external drive, without needing some kind of stupid program.
* Reasonably small, so I will usually carry it with me in my pocket instead of leaving it at home due to bulk/weight.
Currently, I use the Canon A70/A75/A80. I can recommend them all, except for the lens (2.8, but this currently is standard, except for the great Olympus 5050 with 1.8), and the interface (I have to pop out the CF to read it - I'm not using some kiddy-aimed windows program here).
Not too expensive, either (nope, I have no connection to the manufacturer).
Ciao,
Klaus
* Tip: Buy a used postscripting laserprinter with >= 600 dpi. Dirt cheap, toner lasts forever, you'll love it. And no drivers needed, ever.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
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 =)
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?
You mean sloshing chemicals around in a closed tank? I didn't find that very interesting :-) Making prints was a different ballgame though.
If you want the ultimate B&W print, I don't think you can beat all-chemical process.
But making color prints was a real pain in the butt. I did prints from color negatives and Ilfochromes from slides, but most of the time I ran out of patience before getting everything just right. Sending the images over the net to a printing service, where they are printed straight onto photographic paper, and sent to me via the post, is so much easier and produces so good results that I don't want to go back to the color chemicals ever again.
--
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
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.
Firstly, there are no good LCD viewfinders...especially when we're talking about still frame quality of any kind. Secondly, there is no need for an SLR mechanism on a digital LCD viewfinder, since the picture is being fed from the imaging CCD anyways. Cameras such as the Canon D300, 10D or any other digital SLR don't use LCD viewfinders, because that's not what their customers really want or need...and it would defeat the purpose anyway.
:) More or less, I can do more serious amateur photography without spending my entire livelihood on film/development/printing, which allows me to take many, many more pictures.
When I was in the camera market, I was going for either the Digital Rebel or the gigantic Sony 8MP thing...and eventually settled on the rebel. (Okay, its was the EF Lens capability that won me over). I find that being able to make image adjustments is a lot easier when I'm looking at exactly what will be photographed, instead of some downsized representation. That, and I take good pictures from anywhere in the ballpark with an additional zoom lens.
Granted, this works because I bought my camera to be a camera...not some kind of camcorder...which is one feature most LCD viewfinder cameras offer.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
calibrated image * deviceprofile = output
High-end cameras can attach or apply various sensor profile transforms to the actual sensor data, leaving the pixels in a factory-average sRGB, such as AdobeRGB colorspace. Some can even apply or attach custom tone curves or custom colorspaces if you put the profiles on the memory card.
I haven't used Sane in a while, but it would also need a sensor profile capability.
Since the 2.0 release of GIMP, it has been making small steps leading up to support for attaching color profiles, but not actually applying color profiles.
I've heard that some people on the Xorg team have been considering the full scope of solutions for this problem, but I would rather they just hit the 90% mark with one feature: load an ICC display profile and program a single head on the video card to apply that transform for all X output on that head. Let's not wait for the whole thing (how to profile, how to work multihead, how to manage multiple profiles, etc.) to spring out of the head of Zeus.
CUPS or some other printing subsystem should be able to take ICC printer profiles also, and prefix printer jobs with those profile transforms where appropriate.
Then you'll see a LOT of people in the photography world erase their Windows and their Photoshop, and join the marketplace vote against product activation.
[
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.