View Poll Results: Would you choose more megapixels or better dynamic range?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Megapixels! The more the merrier!!!

    3 4.00%
  • Dynamic Range! Picture quality is No. 1!!!

    72 96.00%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47

Thread: More megapixels vs. better dynamic range

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by jasonpgc


    Without interpolation....

    To produce a 4R at 300 Dpi, you'll need at least 1200*1800=2.16 megapixels.

    To produce a 8Rs at 300 Dpi, you'll need at least 2400*3600=8.64 megapixels.
    Well, this 300dpi thing is overhyped. You don't need 300dpi for a good print. Even if 300dpi is desired, digital files enlarge and interpolate a lot better than film scans.

    Regards
    CK

  2. #22

    Default

    Originally posted by Zoomer
    Yes, I know that you can do that. But you paid for a large full frame sensor. A bit of a waste.
    Well, it really depends on what you need and what you want (if you know what you need is what you want.)

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    Well, this 300dpi thing is overhyped. You don't need 300dpi for a good print. Even if 300dpi is desired, digital files enlarge and interpolate a lot better than film scans.

    Regards
    CK
    For one thing that I fully agree with you..... interpolation from Digital files is definately more superior to film scans. You don't need super megapixels to produce large prints, you'll still have a pretty clean picture since there are no grain. But given a choice, I would still prefer 9 MPS over 2 extra D range. The reason is that with 3 times the pixel amount (Compare with 3MPS), I can use interpolation on the 9MPS to create huge detailed poster image...Greed never ends
    Last edited by jasonpgc; 24th January 2003 at 12:17 PM.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    Well, this 300dpi thing is overhyped. You don't need 300dpi for a good print. Even if 300dpi is desired, digital files enlarge and interpolate a lot better than film scans.
    Regards
    CK
    True, from my experience, 150 ppi (pixel per inch, not DPI) is good enough for color photo. 300 ppi will be better, but not so much difference can be seen by our eyes at normal viewing distance, unless using a loupe at close distance.

    The key issue of having more resolution in digital image, is not because of printing size, but more toward the amount of details it can hold. A 2MP file can be interpolated to 4MP file and printed nicely at 8R, but it will lose to non-interpolated 4MP file in term of details. This is essential for still-life, archival, architectural and some landscape photography.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    Definitely dynamic range. We can never get enough of it, whether on film or digital. Once we have a comfortable resolution (e.g. 6mp), don't really need more unless you are printing BIG or doing severe cropping.
    Regards
    CK
    Dynamic range is important for certain type of photography. But do you know that current DSLR already has wider dynamic range than film? It is up to 6 stops (even some digital back can go to 12 stops), as compared to 5 stops for negative color film, or 3 stops for slide film. So theoritically digital will be better than film to shoot wide-latitude scene such as night cityscape, sunset landscape, theater/stage photo.. etc. Is that true?
    Why somebody still wish to have "film performance" on digital?

    oops.. there's one more question; if dynamic range is one of the most important factor, then slide film should be out and no more in use already. But why many still praise Velvia or Provia ?
    anybody care to enlighten......

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Originally posted by tsdh

    Dynamic range is important for certain type of photography. But do you know that current DSLR already has wider dynamic range than film? It is up to 6 stops (even some digital back can go to 12 stops), as compared to 5 stops for negative color film, or 3 stops for slide film. So theoritically digital will be better than film to shoot wide-latitude scene such as night cityscape, sunset landscape, theater/stage photo.. etc. Is that true?
    Why somebody still wish to have "film performance" on digital?

    oops.. there's one more question; if dynamic range is one of the most important factor, then slide film should be out and no more in use already. But why many still praise Velvia or Provia ?
    anybody care to enlighten......
    Others may have their own reason for shooting slides, but my reason for choosing slide is for the 3D picture you see on the lightbox. The effect is the ONLY ONE of its kind. Every element just pop out from the slide. You can't compare a monitor image or print to this effect. And also, the lack of D range in slide produced some very contasty landscape image ("Ok, thats My taste"). The main strenght of slide is still the super rich med color tone, the rich detail and the smoothness of the chemical pallet. However, if you print or scan them, ok, slides may not be even better than negs, let alone the larger files from DSLR.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UP NORTH
    Posts
    727

    Default

    dynamic range laa....high res big file....my pc buay tahan..

  8. #28

    Default

    Originally posted by tsdh

    True, from my experience, 150 ppi (pixel per inch, not DPI) is good enough for color photo. 300 ppi will be better, but not so much difference can be seen by our eyes at normal viewing distance, unless using a loupe at close distance.

    The key issue of having more resolution in digital image, is not because of printing size, but more toward the amount of details it can hold. A 2MP file can be interpolated to 4MP file and printed nicely at 8R, but it will lose to non-interpolated 4MP file in term of details. This is essential for still-life, archival, architectural and some landscape photography.
    So good?

    Maybe I should develop my prints at where you guys do it. Because at 300dpi 4R print developing from a 3Mpix jpg, holding a colour glossy photo 20cm from my face I still can see pixelation.

    Areas of pixelation that disturb me - teeth when smiling, eyebrows, hair fringes, edges of plant leaves, brick walls, straight graphic lines like signs etc.

    What do you mean by dynamic range? Do you mean bright and dark areas can get properly exposed at the same time?

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by jasonpgc


    Others may have their own reason for shooting slides, but my reason for choosing slide is for the 3D picture you see on the lightbox. The effect is the ONLY ONE of its kind. Every element just pop out from the slide. You can't compare a monitor image or print to this effect. And also, the lack of D range in slide produced some very contasty landscape image ("Ok, thats My taste"). The main strenght of slide is still the super rich med color tone, the rich detail and the smoothness of the chemical pallet. However, if you print or scan them, ok, slides may not be even better than negs, let alone the larger files from DSLR.
    The 3D effect works best with a good loupe.

    Regards
    CK

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by shawntim


    So good?

    Maybe I should develop my prints at where you guys do it. Because at 300dpi 4R print developing from a 3Mpix jpg, holding a colour glossy photo 20cm from my face I still can see pixelation.

    Areas of pixelation that disturb me - teeth when smiling, eyebrows, hair fringes, edges of plant leaves, brick walls, straight graphic lines like signs etc.

    What do you mean by dynamic range? Do you mean bright and dark areas can get properly exposed at the same time?
    That sure sounds like a lab problem. They might even have oversharpened. Btw, 4R @ 300dpi is not 3Mpix. A 4 x 6" print at 300dpi is only 1800 x 1200, which is only 2 megapixels.

    Regards
    CK

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    That sure sounds like a lab problem. They might even have oversharpened. Btw, 4R @ 300dpi is not 3Mpix. A 4 x 6" print at 300dpi is only 1800 x 1200, which is only 2 megapixels.

    Regards
    CK
    could it be the source problem? if the "3MP" was interpolated, there'll be pixelation.
    Check out my wildlife pics at www.instagram.com/conrad_nature

  12. #32

    Default

    Originally posted by shawntim


    So good?

    Maybe I should develop my prints at where you guys do it. Because at 300dpi 4R print developing from a 3Mpix jpg, holding a colour glossy photo 20cm from my face I still can see pixelation.

    Areas of pixelation that disturb me - teeth when smiling, eyebrows, hair fringes, edges of plant leaves, brick walls, straight graphic lines like signs etc.

    What do you mean by dynamic range? Do you mean bright and dark areas can get properly exposed at the same time?
    Something might be wrong with your source file. Jpeg compression artifacts?

    I've printed a 8R from the 602(6MP/fine/soft) using Qimage and and Epson Photo 1200 and I can't see any pixelization or artifacts whatsoever. Even at <20cm distances.

  13. #33

    Default

    Agree that 300 dpi is an 'ideal' and that its pretty safe 200 dpi++ upwards.

    Another point, if you print a say, iso 800 3Mp image at A4 and compare to say, an iso 800 6 Mp image at A4, the 6Mp image's high iso 'noise' would be less noticeable.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Originally posted by jasonpgc
    Please Forgive me for saying this. To me, Both are losers if you are talking about DSLR.

    I would say getting to Full Frame is more important for me.
    amen!
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    Your solution is simple. Migrate over to the other camp and you have the equivalent of 18-36mm available to you. With the advent of the new DX lenses, FF isn't important anymore.
    once again, this point about DX lenses is nonsense.

    Sorry, but we want to shoot our 17-28mm range at f2.8, thank you very much. We also would like to use our 24mm at f1.4 or f2.8, using prime 24mm lenses with less inherent distortion than zooms and having better sharpness and contrast with a smaller form factor.

    and judging from YOUR opinion (not mine) of the 24-85 AFS, i doubt this new shiny 12-24 or watever is going to be any better. When it makes it out of the Nikon factory, that is. Can anyone say 70-200 AFS?

    how long more before new DX lenses will come out? and when they do, wat would be the state of the DSLR industry? lots of third party chip makers are coming out with full frame, high megapixel count digital sensors. Isn't there a new one with 8 megapixel recently announced on dpreview? this sounds commercially it is now possible to produce these things. Kodak has one. Canon has one. Very soon these new chips will be licensed. And you're willing to stick to the small frame sensor with lower megapixel count, lower dynamic range and new untested lenses that aren't backward compatible with your existing film bodies?

    How long can u use those DX lenses before your digital SLR becomes obsolete and you can't use these DX stuff on that shiny new nikon full frame DSLR? think about it.

    yes, Nikon is definitely going to come out with a full frame sensor DSLR soon. you can bet on it. Market forces will surely dictate that. And then all who bought the DX lenses will be dumped like used girlfriends. u know, like Nikon dumped the special IX lenses made specially for their small sensor size APS SLR bodies........ sounds familiar?

    oh why is it u blinded nikon fans can't see all that?!?!
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  16. #36

    Default

    RD: Wah...y so strong a reaction? relax relax hehe

  17. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Definitely Dynamic Range.

    I am already contented with my 6MP camera.

    I wish I can shoot extreme complex contrasting scenes without blowing any highlights and underexposing any detail.


  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    This is in response to Red Dawn.

    Given unlimited $$$, I too would want to full frame, not only for the resolution, but more for the cropping factor issue.

    However, if you read the review on 12-24, the distortion is in fact minimal. Take a look at the sample here and read the review here. The lens is already on sale in US (B&H has sold them already)> 2 weeks. Nikon SG has already published the price so I think it is here or else very soon.

    Again, I have to do the comparison. I spend an additional $ just to get the DX lenses, but when I switch between film and digital, ONLY the DX lenses are the ones that I need to buy. It is totally unlike when Canon switched to current mount, requiring all the old mount lenses totally discarded if they want to use on the "from-then-on" cameras. All the Canon cameras had to use the new mount and so anyone who wants to use the camera, will now have to buy all the lenses. This is totally different here, where even the 12-24DX lens can be used even on film at the 24mm range; no vignetting seen. Buy the DX ONLY for the digital but the existing Nikon lenses and new non-DX lenses can be used for both. What is wrong with that?

    Eg: List price for 12-24 DX is S$1970. Compare that to the price of a FF digital. I do agree the high pixel is a very important and worthwhile thing to pay for. But if 4-6MP range is all that you need (like in news), then with the above DX lens, it allows the range to be covered. The 17-55 DX is announced and so is the 10.5DX lens. So Nikon is going full steam with the DX range.

    As for FF, I bet that many will point out that with the exception of the 1Ds, the Kodak camera is not working out well. You know the issues. How long more and at what cost? At the price of what a 1Ds is going, and without competition, how long before price will drop? Furthermore, with the high cost in both investment in R&D and hence selling price, how many will sell? Without volumn and with high R&D cost and risk as well, my guess is that it will take 5 years before FF becomes popular (defined at the same sales % as the current DSLR) if ever.

    Your attitude frankly is reflective of what Canon's attitude internally, and what it wants all their users to have: Buy and discard after 1-2 years. Some Nikon users are still using the cameras after 3 years for digital cams earning $$$ with it, 5-8 years for film bodies and some even use their lenses for > 10 years.
    Last edited by Watcher; 22nd July 2003 at 01:23 PM.

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default Re: More megapixels vs. better dynamic range

    Originally posted by Larry
    following the announcement of Fuji's 2 new Super CCD technologies from this thread (the Super Dynamic Range or SR sensor, and the High Resolution sensor, or HR), i got thinking - what if i were given a choice to pick between better dynamic range or more megapixels in a digicam (no particular brand)? e.g. say a 3-megapixel with improved dynamic range or 6 megapixels (can produce bigger prints)...

    just wondering what others think, so pick your option and if you want, state your reasoning and logic below.
    Why not get a medium format camera with a digital back? Mamiya with a Phase One 25 Back 22MP, 16-bit range.

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    5,499

    Default Re: Re: More megapixels vs. better dynamic range

    Originally posted by Watcher
    Why not get a medium format camera with a digital back? Mamiya with a Phase One 25 Back 22MP, 16-bit range.
    simple reason - cos i don't own a bank, nor do i have the guts to go rob one...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •