Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Why more isn't better?

  1. #21
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    509

    Default

    You read TNP, espn? Good to see that they at least write some decent articles from time to time in between their usual salacious lowest-common-denominator gossip columns and pictures of rapists.

    Quote Originally Posted by zekai
    For a 1Ds, the sensor is a correspondingly large 35mm full frame. The resulting quality is definetly better than all the dslr except the kodak series maybe.
    I doubt it The Kodak may have 14MP, but the resulting image is so noisy that it's a joke. A high ISO photograph from Kodak's own website was posted in Fred Miranda's forums, and the comment was: "it looks like I took a whole bunch of pictures with my camera phone and stitched them together".

    I don't subscribe to the megapixel myth either, but at the same time I won't argue with more high quality pixels. The megapixel count is just one way we can rate the camera's sensor. It is NOT the ONLY way, nor is it the BEST way.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default

    I have got a few rolls of film scanned by Kodak Express Noritsu system at something like 1.5Mp. Print out in A4 with an entry level Epson printer turned out to be awesome, practically as good as an image from a 6Mp dSLR.

    So, there are great pixels and so-so pixels. When you scan film, each pixel consist of R, G and B, whereas, the sensors are arranged in RGBGR.....

    To double the resolution, you need to get 4 times the Mp. For example, my 1.5Mp consist of 1000x1500. To double the resolution, you need 2000x3000 or 6Mp.

  3. #23
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    ClubSNAP community
    Posts
    2,775

    Default

    I print only at FDI labs now. And only certain ones.

    As for the pixels... I think enough has been mentioned by other members in here. It is entirely up to each how and what one chooses to believe - correctly or otherwise.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Maybe Nightpiper would like to borrow something like a Oly 8080, Sony F828, Canon Pro 1, etc, shoot it at the full 8mp then send for an enlargement like 10 x 15 or 16 x 20".

    Then do the same with a camera which is more or less equivalent in terms of price like the Canon EOS 300D and Nikon D70. Or the classic D1 if you want.

    Then post the results here.

    Megapixel count does count towards image quality (e.g. 4 very good megapixels is better than 2 very good megapixels, and still better than 8 so-so megapixels), but like I and my members have said, is not the only factor. Quality counts more than quantity.

    Azure, Larry, myself etc speak from experience. Just because that particular pro lab gives you bad results (and we don't even know if it's the image or the camera or some other problems) does not mean that 5mp cannot print 8R and therefore you need a lot more megapixels.

    Do try another lab. The good ones are mentioned a number of times in the forum already. And if you want to really find out whats wrong then post the pic. We would be more than happy to help.

    Regards
    CK

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azure
    As for the pixels... I think enough has been mentioned by other members in here. It is entirely up to each how and what one chooses to believe - correctly or otherwise.

    or maybe individual's acceptence threshold level. maybe becos i m using film all the way thats why i find pixelation an eye sore, no matter how little.

    i will heed ckiang's advice & try other digicams. it cud be that C5050 is using a higher compression algorithm to process image. so, hopefully can get hold of a G5 or 5400 to test again. if possible, i will also want to try a 2.7MP DSLR & see if its really the case of quality outweighs quantity. any D1 or D1h user out there volunteer help do this test? just shoot highest jpg quality & send to photolab straight for 8x12 enlargement.

  6. #26
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Nightpiper, you might find this article in Luminous-Landscapes interesting. He compares an 8MP Canon 1D Mk2 with an 8MP Canon Powershot Pro1. Link to the article is here.

  7. #27
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    ClubSNAP community
    Posts
    2,775

    Default

    Yes, Nightpiper, do try it out. Long list of good labs (just check the Consumers Corner and the Gen/Tech threads) around.

    And if you can make it, come join us when I next organise another view-pictures get-together. I'll specially bring those 2mp and 4mp Coolpix and 6mp S2 prints for you. But you'll have to guess which is which.

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    the juice of it is: pure brute force is only a portion of the whole story. just like the new 1Dmk2, who wants to challenge & say its totally a waste of money, technology, quality, etc. to implement an 8MP sensor. size doesn't matter? really? who doesn't love the 1Ds with 11MP please stand up.
    If you meant given 1Ds for free, yes I'd love it. I'll sell it immediately to buy some nice lenses..

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •