willie45
old hand
Reged: 08/05/2006
Posts: 752
|
|
Hi
I saw a reference to this in another post but as it was a poll I didn't want to hijack the thread and take it onto another subject. Similarly if it is something which has already been covered elsewhere, please excuse my ignorance, but it is something I have been wondering about recently and particularly after the recent spate of sensors with loads of megapixels in them.
I have wondered if you would really notice any difference at all after around 10 megapixels or so in a print. It seems to me that printers have a limited capacity for printing detail and so extra resolving power in the camera even if brought out to its best with a superb lens, would probably not show in the print. I am talking, here, about the inkjet type printers most people use at home, and not some hugely expensive cutting edge professional beast.
Is this right or not? 
Willie
Edited by willie45 (20/09/2008 14:22)
|
Roy5051
Reged: 02/09/2001
Posts: 713
Loc: Somerset UK
|
|
Probably, yes. I think that it would be dificult to tell, from any print, what resolution the camera was. I have interpolated 2 megapixel files to print at A3 and have shown them at my camera club. No-one could tell me what size sensor was used. I think we have all been bamboozled by the manufacturers and the magazines into believing that more pixels equals better pictures - it does not necessarily follow!
--------------------
Roy
Why do people with expensive cameras say you don't need one to take good photographs
|
TimF
Senior Member
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 16475
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
More pixels definitely equals better rendition of fine detail, but as we all know, it also means smaller pixel sites and that equates (all other things being equal) to higher noise levels on a smaller chip compared to a large one. See this article for more on that. Sensor size vs. noise is covered fairly near the end.
The tiny number of images I've seen so far from the Canon 5D II, and it must be remembered that these have been on a laptop screen through a mobile BB widget (which reduces image quality by default) does make me wonder if Canon have overstepped the mark by cramming 21 megapixels onto the thing again.
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
You see something happening and you bang away at it. Either you get what you saw or you get something else--and whichever is better you print. - Garry Winogrand
|
willie45
old hand
Reged: 08/05/2006
Posts: 752
|
|
Quote:
More pixels definitely equals better rendition of fine detail
I take these points Tim, but assuming that as a fact and assuming the other stuff you mention can be handled by clever processing engines and other gubbins I don't understand, would it show up in a print. Would the printer be able to show the extra fine detail that the sensor captured?
Willie
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1179
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
I print up to A2. There is a definate improvement from a scaled up (about 35MP) 8MP file to a 115MP file (4x5 scanned at 2,400 dpi) the difference is a softness from the smaller file. With prints up to A4 you can't tell the difference. I'll be interested to see how one of the new 20+mp cameras work (if I can afford one  ). I would expect them to be fine up to A2 and a bit beyond.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4967
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I have wondered if you would really notice any difference at all after around 10 megapixels or so in a print.
If you print 6x4 or 7x5, no way is even 10 MP justified. If you print A4, 10MP is OK but you don't need any more. If you want to print A3+ then more than 10MP may be useful (assuming the lens etc. is up to the job).
|
willie45
old hand
Reged: 08/05/2006
Posts: 752
|
|
I often print at A3 and sometimes A2. I am wondering if I there would be any point in going above around 10 because even if you printed at A2 the printer might not be able to reproduce the extra detail
Willie
|
Monobod
'Phantom' of the forum!
Reged: 03/04/2003
Posts: 5991
Loc: Just West of Norwich, Norfolk
|
|
Just look at the numbers. A ten megapixel camera such as the K10D gives an image with 3872 pixels on its longer side.
if this is printed at 300 pixels to the inch it gives an image 3872/300 = 12.9 inches wide.
Most good quality printers can print at 1440 or even 2880 dots per inch, so the printer is using 2880/300 = 96 dots of ink per pixel.
I think the printer is more than capable of rendering an image from a 15 megapixel camera without any problem.
--------------------
David.
-----------------------------------------------
Photos hosted by Flickr.
www.flickr.com/photos/monobod/
-----------------------------------------------
I see the world thro' a viewfinder, but the world watches me via CCTV!
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4967
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I am wondering if I there would be any point in going above around 10 because even if you printed at A2 the printer might not be able to reproduce the extra detail
I think it is far more likely that the deficit of detail in a big enlargement would arise because of lack of detail conveyed by the lens than because the printer wouldn't manage to print any detail that was present. With the Canon 40D, the image of a correctly focused star (which should be a point) is a circle with a radius of several pixels with all the lenses I've tried ... the smallest circles are in fact given by astronomical telescopes rather than camera lenses, which are compromised by the need to cover a relatively wide angle of view. I think that lens resolutions need to at least double to cope with the imaging demands of the Canon 40D, which is "only" 10MP on an APS-C sensor, roughly the same pixel density as the 21MP full frame models.
|
john_g
Pooh-bah Hoo-ha
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 2536
Loc: Surrey
|
|
Quote:
Just look at the numbers. A ten megapixel camera such as the K10D gives an image with 3872 pixels on its longer side.
if this is printed at 300 pixels to the inch it gives an image 3872/300 = 12.9 inches wide.
Most good quality printers can print at 1440 or even 2880 dots per inch, so the printer is using 2880/300 = 96 dots of ink per pixel.
I think the printer is more than capable of rendering an image from a 15 megapixel camera without any problem.
Yep, that's how I'd expect it to be. I think the limiting factor for printers is their colour accuracy and how wide the usable range of tones is between black and white.
In terms of at what point does increased pixel count fail to deliver improvements is surely down to how good the lens is, how noisy the sensor is and what its dynamic range is.
--------------------
John
Who could suppose that angels move the stars, or be so superstitious as to suppose that because one cannot see one's soul at the end of a microscope, it does not exist?
R.D.Laing The Politics Of Experience
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_gass
|
Monobod
'Phantom' of the forum!
Reged: 03/04/2003
Posts: 5991
Loc: Just West of Norwich, Norfolk
|
|
Exactly, the printers currently outperform the cameras IMHO.
--------------------
David.
-----------------------------------------------
Photos hosted by Flickr.
www.flickr.com/photos/monobod/
-----------------------------------------------
I see the world thro' a viewfinder, but the world watches me via CCTV!
|
willie45
old hand
Reged: 08/05/2006
Posts: 752
|
|
Well this has been very interesting. I wasn't sure how things would stack up and now I know. Its the 5D Mk 2 for me then 
Willie
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
