1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you take?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Oct 30, 2012.

  1. hhmr

    hhmr Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    I think it's hard to argue with the macro photographers, they need their pixels. If someone has a business which involves creating large images and printing them on very large pieces of paper for sale there is also a justification for pixel hunger.

    Otherwise I really do question the argument that large numbers of megapixels are essential because anything less than a huge print is just a contact print of a snapshot. If all those large prints never leave home, only a stately home has wall or cupboard space enough to house them.

    At some stage we all of us pop our clogs and somebody has to clear out our belongings. Anything which can't be assimilated easily by the rest of the family will probably end up in a skip. I'd tentatively suggest that A4 is an ideal size for prints if you want them to survive you. Maybe you could stretch a point to A3 for a few pictures.
     
  2. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    I couldn't agree more; time was when the amateur photographer was quite happy with a well-produced 10 x 8 inch print. As for popping clogs, I don't hold out much hope for my 5000+ slides, stored under the bed in the spare room. Let alone my digital output (pictures of family members excepted), which takes up more cupboard space than my clothes!
     
  3. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Same here. Next time I buy a new compact I'm going to look for one with a lower pixel count than I already have. What's the point in snaps that never get printed (and rarely, if ever, hold up to close inspection) being 16+MP.:confused:
     
  4. Graham_RM13

    Graham_RM13 Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    That is entirely an issue of magnification. The eye being only able resolve down to a specific size is why we have microscopes at one end and telescopes at the other.

    An image of the the whole of the moon can appear exceptionally sharp on an HDTV as can the eye of a fly. Both are still being viewed, by the eye, at the resolution of the HDTV (1920 x 1080).

    People rave about the quality of the picture on the new iPad (2048 x 1536)

    OK if you are going to produce large images consider that even something the size of an IMAX screen picture is only produced with about 70MP

    The original question/poll used the word "Want" rather than need, which I guess will always result in a more is better opinion.

    All makes for good debate :rolleyes:
     
  5. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Not me, Guv!

    It's that P. 'The Pixel' Stoddart bloke ... ;):)
     
  6. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    You might have a tough job finding one. It is at that end of the market that the pixel race really takes hold, driven by the sales & marketing depts of the camera cos. assisted by some newspapers & magazines in their testing.

    Cannot think of many cameras other than the Nikon P7000/7100 that actually reduced its pixel count in a successor model but my knowledge of the digi-market has a load of holes in it. {Probably ready to be filled with a few more pixels ..... :eek::D

    At the 'serious' end of the market there are greater 'concerns' among makers AND buyers concerning pixel density, performance at small apertures, etc. The pixels are less likely to escape from the factory without being really good ones. ;)

    As the camera market shrinks there may be some carefully designed compacts, as far as pixel density, etc., is concerned but I think you'll have to pay a lot for them. That trend is probably now underway.
     
  7. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Talking about more pixels - can we please have a camera with the same pixel density as the current ones but with the whole image circle populated with image forming pixels?

    If the whole circle were available for editing in PP I see many advantages - not having to change grip for portrait shots (and flash shadows moving to the wrong place) being one and ease of adjusting sloping horizons being another

    Just a thought, probably in the wrong thread.

    Roger
     
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Actually, at the better end of the compact market, several manufacturers have reduced pixel count (Canon being the first) or entered the market with less pixels than perhaps expected - take the Fuji X10 at 12MP, the Canon G15 at a similar level. I'm still using my Canon S90 which was one of the first cameras to feature a reduced-pixel sensor (10MP), and it does fine for everything I don't want to print at my normal size, and don't need high ISO for. At the bottom end of the market, manufacturers continue to cater for consumers who don't really understand.
     
  9. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Yes and no!:D Yes if you mean the magnification of the final output but no if you mean it's just the magnification of the lens as increasing the pixel count on a given size of sensor increases the magnification of the output.

    Recently I've been shooting with a Canon 5D mk1 and compared to what my 7D can do with the same lenses (and magnifications) it's a waste of time shooting really small stuff. It had been a while since I stuck a macro lens on a 5D but I LOL'd when I zoomed in to check for detail on the computer screen.....there wasn't any more:eek: Probably best to stick to shooting pretty pictures on that old thing:)


    I agree. Out of the current range of cameras I think I'd like a 1Dx for shooting sports, a 6D for shooting landscapes and a 7D for shooting macro.

    Must remember to put the lottery on tonight!;)

    As for compacts....well I like mine small. Don't think I've seen any "serious" compacts in the ultra-compact category so I may well have to go bigger again.
     
  10. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    When you say Rollei do mean medium format? Rollei did have 35mm.

    Because that what MF is for.

    If you take the smallest MF at 645 that is 2.7x larger than a 35mm. That means if you take 35mm on a bad day at say 8MP then a 645 is going to work at 21MP. If you take 35mm on a good day it could be as high as 20MP that means your 645 is 54MP.

    Rollei I believe are mainly 6x6 which has even more quality at 4.16x so you are possibly talking 80MP from that format. That is A0 land.

    This is why the winding down of 120 film format is so wrong. Because the cameras and film can still hold against digital when scanned with the right skills. It's only the low end MF digital that is under threat by likes of D800 etc.


    Can you clarify? 3 metre is 118" or 10ft! That very big, above 4A0 size at 2378 x 1682 mm.

    Also my position is not that different from AP's if you read page 47 of this week's magazine.

    They even quote print size of 20x13.4" which is clearly based on 300ppi level. 20x300x13.4x300 = 24.12MP.

    Although the amount of interpolation to get to A2 from 24MP is quite acceptable at around 41%. Certainly been used for the last few years.
     
  11. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak


    The Canon S100 is tiny considering the size of most high end compacts. Great value now since the S110 was announced.
     
  12. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Something which is going to throw a spanner in the works is the newer screens.
    The new Nexus is already 300DPI, and some firms are releasing 340DPI models, and I have no doubt that some publishers will decided that they 'need' files to meet these specs.

    Personally I love my D700's 12Mpixels, but would like more simply to allow an effective increase in magnification so I don't have to lug such big lenses around:D
     
  13. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    SWMBO's S90 is the biggest compact I've ever bought! The new one looks much the same size wise.....the S90 is a heavy enough lump to weigh down one side of my jacket....need smaller and lighter to avoid unsightly bulges:eek:
     
  14. hhmr

    hhmr Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Manufacturers only produce as long as their products sell! I paid a special visit to the Silverprint site and also to Fuji and Harman just now. I see no shortage of 120 products or of cut film either though I'm sure some emulsions will die because nobody buys them. Doing decent scans on affordable scanners isn't all that hard either. With dye based emulsions turning off digital ICE and spotting the scans manually often helps a bit too.

    I think it is slightly unrealisic for photographers to expect a digital something the size of a 35mm film camera and its set of lenses to do the job of quality MF or LF film cameras. Looking at Damien's poll, 40% of us seem to be voting for 16MP rather than anything more. Given that the Leica digital MF offering is seriously expensive I think we will only slowly bgin to see what the masters of our craft can do with it. I'm sure we will see enough results from the Pentax digital MF to assess them much sooner. People whose business demands jumbo prints will probably migrate in that direction.

    I ws out with a crowd from "The Lounge" a few Sundays ago and exposed a few frames with a 19thC 1/4 plate magazine camera on Ilford Ortho Plus (nice tonality and good for a period look). They turned out OK too. We had fun, ended up in a pub and enjoyed each other's pictures a few days later. Let's not allow pixel hunger to spoil the fun!
     
  15. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    I presum you are talking about the Google Nexus 10.

    It has rather odd specs. It claims 300ppi. Yet quotes 2560x1600 which is only 4MP screen.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9651269/Google-Nexus-10-review.html

    http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/916821-a-week-in-tech-windows-8-google-nexus-and-adzero


    10.1" at 300ppi would be 3030 not 2560 pixels. :confused:
     
  16. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Certainly not LF. :)

    But MF 645 might be different. Actually from what I read most MF digital are not even 645 (60x45mm)

    They seem to be about double 35mm.

    It is almost certain that pro dSLR will go to 16bit processing. Pixel count will go upto to at least 64MP.

    Lens will be designed (they might already be at that level :rolleyes: ) to exploit that res.

    So ask yourself what edge does MF then have? DOF, that's it.

    But 6x6 film MF and 6x7 film MF that's a different story.

    Time will tell.

    But it's interesting that not long after the D800/E was released there was a price cut on the Pentax 645D system.

    By the way rumours are flying around that it is Canon not Nikon who is going to shock the market next year with a 40+ MP FF dSLR. Some are claiming a prototype 50MP camera has been tried out in the far east or comments indicate a sensor has be prototyyped. Given that Canon control their sensor fabbing not unreasonable they might have some samples knocked up to see how possible a product would be ie lens tests etc.

    If so there might be some very worried sale people over at Phase one etc. :p
     
  17. hhmr

    hhmr Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Somebody who is running a business ("Art Photography" or otherwise) probably cares. Perhaps Damien should run another thread to find out how many others do, and also how many of them are prepared to own up to being obsessives (in the nicest possible sense of that word)!

    Sensor technology is sure to progress over the next few years both in terms of size, resolution and bit depth. That will just happen so no need to fret about it. Who knows, perhaps in ten years time the settings for less than maximum resolution in cameras may be quite handy for most stuff.

    Meanwhile there's still plenty of film around. If one isn't running a business the best justification for spending money on photography is having fun.
     
  18. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Hear hear:D
    Reminds me I haven't bought a £1 film compact this week...yet:D
     
  19. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Rolleiflexes were 2 1/4 square, at that time they had not entered the 35mm SLR market

    I do mean 3 meters square, they were for window displays in Madrid. We used 1meter wide rolls of a very heavy spanish made paper (Negtor) and had them spliced in the display department after printing. So our exposures and development had to be very accurate. We used a 18x24 Durst enlarger used horizontal and processed on specially made plastic rotating drums that only used 2 litres of chemical per print. before we had the new equipment we hand developed them with sponges. The size was dictated by the windows of Gallerias Preciados.

    The quality and definition that could be obtaind from a rollei neg, depended very much on the film use. I mostly used Adox R17 developed in neofinn blue But sometimes Adox R 14 these were 17 Din 40 ISO and 14 Din 20 ISO. These were thin single coated emulsions so very sharp indeed. with the edge sharpness and shadow detail both enhanced by the beutler type developer.
    They could never be as sharp as the 13x18 cm negs up close, but for some subjects it was a more suitable camera.

    We could have put a 6x9 roll film back on our Plaubel pico monorail but to what advantage?
     
  20. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Trying to workout what the digital equal would be today. So please bare with me. :)

    You say 1 metre wide roll of paper, the aspect ratio of 5x7" is 1.41 same as A paper ie A4, A3, A2 etc.

    So if you printed from 5x7" on to 1 metre surely it would end up being a 1.4 metre x 1 metre print or 1400mm x 1000 metre. Nearest is 2A0 printing. Now that needs 279MP to avoid interpolation at 300ppi. Even MF would need over 300% interpolation to fill it based on 80MP.

    The Rollie 2.25" format based on today film level probably is about 68MP-80MP. Because it is a smaller format than 6x6 or 6x7 MF.

    But maybe I have misunderstood. :) Can you recall the dimensions of the prints in inches or metre? ie 1x3 metres?

    As said sorry if I cannot understand.
     

Share This Page