Does mega pixal = to quality picts?


Status
Not open for further replies.

melvin

Senior Member
Jun 4, 2005
2,681
0
0
43
TPY
#1
Hi bros and sis,

Recieve an email on shooting with max mega pixal!

See these articles below as it is just for your info only because using the maximum megapixel on our camera doesn't always serve the best solution for the best quality pictures but dampen our storage purpose (as it doesn't sound like an intelligent / smart solution to storage your beautiful pictures) as it is greatly determine and depending on what is your intended print out to be..... 3R, 4R, 5R or 8R etc...

The megapixel is serve for print and editing purpose only not meant for Quality purpose as the larger the megapixel, the more space it would take up our computer / notebook thus will also slow down our computer / notebook's speed! Quality / Beautiful Pictures is very much determine by your camera's setting especially the exposure settings can have an effect on print quality but not the megapixel. Please note that a high ISO will add digital noise to the final print. An ISO 800 photo will look better printed at 5 by 7 inches than at 8 by 10, even if you use a 10-megapixel camera.
http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/digitalimaging/f/pixelsprint.htm

http://malektips.com/digital_photo_printing_0004.html

http://tech.yahoo.com/gd/determining-your-camera-s-largest-print-size/200116
What u guys think?:think:
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#2
Pretty much what everybody (or mostly everybody) knows already. Megapixels = size, not sharpness, quality, detail or whatever else.
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#3
megapixel is one factor in quality, but an increase in megapixel count has to be matched with good processing of the megapixels (in terms of colour, sharpness, noise, dynamic range), and with quality lenses, proper exposure, proper stability of the camera, etc... if everything else is constant (and they never are), then more megapixels does mean better quality... on the other hand, does your final output require so many pixels?...
 

Aspect

New Member
Dec 2, 2004
75
0
0
#4
Sometimes it's difficult to know how big you want to print when you take the shot. If it's a nice shot, maybe you want to go 8R, 10R or even larger. Also, if got more pixels, you can get away with cropping in closer for a tighter composition.
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#5
Sometimes it's difficult to know how big you want to print when you take the shot. If it's a nice shot, maybe you want to go 8R, 10R or even larger. Also, if got more pixels, you can get away with cropping in closer for a tighter composition.
at the cost of an image that is noisy, has bad colour, or is very soft?... I have printed 8R and larger from my old camera (there was one print which was printed at 1.6m x 1.8m for a shopfront, which was cropped from the original image so its less than 4Mpixel... and from its expected viewing distance it looked just fine), a 4Mpixel camera (an Oly E10), because the images taken were sharp and well exposed, and the camera has an excellent lens... :)
 

SianZronG

New Member
Sep 2, 2002
1,417
0
0
Punggol
www.1stjournal.com
#6
at the cost of an image that is noisy, has bad colour, or is very soft?... I have printed 8R and larger from my old camera (there was one print which was printed at 1.6m x 1.8m for a shopfront, which was cropped from the original image so its less than 4Mpixel... and from its expected viewing distance it looked just fine), a 4Mpixel camera (an Oly E10), because the images taken were sharp and well exposed, and the camera has an excellent lens... :)
yes the E-10 had a razor lens, since it's not unmountable =p. Can only be used at low ISO the pics were great!

I wonder if the released cameras with fixed lenses that and you would have to buy different cameras to get different focal lengths. that would be interesting.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#7
Hi bros and sis,

Recieve an email on shooting with max mega pixal!



What u guys think?:think:
I think it's "pixel" and not "pixal". ;)

Other than that, it's kinda what we all already know...
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#8
I wonder if the released cameras with fixed lenses that and you would have to buy different cameras to get different focal lengths. that would be interesting.
can... get a medium format camera lens, and mount variously on a cropped frame sensor DSLR, a non-cropped frame sensor DSLR, and a medium format camera with digital back... but very expensive method at the moment... :)
 

#9
personally, i think size of sensor chip also a very important factor. A 22mp file from a Phase one still looks better to me than a 1dsmkiii due to a seemingly wider dynamic range, more gradation from shadow to highlights. Maybe i'm wrong, but seems like that to me.
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#10
personally, i think size of sensor chip also a very important factor. A 22mp file from a Phase one still looks better to me than a 1dsmkiii due to a seemingly wider dynamic range, more gradation from shadow to highlights. Maybe i'm wrong, but seems like that to me.
its not just the sensor size... phaseone claims that their processing workflow is 16bit whereas most DSLRs are in 12bit and some newer DSLRs might have 14bit... this might be the reason for the smoother gradations (although today's medium format back's high ISO quality has not developed to the state as those in 35mm format DSLRs... horses for courses)... :)

many factors to quality than just megapixels... :)
 

Aspect

New Member
Dec 2, 2004
75
0
0
#11
Sometimes it's difficult to know how big you want to print when you take the shot. If it's a nice shot, maybe you want to go 8R, 10R or even larger. Also, if got more pixels, you can get away with cropping in closer for a tighter composition.
at the cost of an image that is noisy, has bad colour, or is very soft?...
Hi theRBK,
I don't really understand what you mean. Could you explain a little more?
I've done crops of images that were neither noisy, with bad colour or soft.
The content of an image can sometimes (often) be more important than technical quality. In such cases, having more pixels to play with in PP can help lessen the quality loss when cropping or blowing up.
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#12
Hi theRBK,
I don't really understand what you mean. Could you explain a little more?
I've done crops of images that were neither noisy, with bad colour or soft.
The content of an image can sometimes (often) be more important than technical quality. In such cases, having more pixels to play with in PP can help lessen the quality loss when cropping or blowing up.
what I mean is that for there to be an increase in megapixel count resulting in an increase in image quality, the quality of the signal from the imaging chip would need to be good as well... that is, the increase in megapixel count should not come at the expense of noise, dynamic range, etc. and should be within the imaging resolution of the lens... if the other factors are not diminished with the increase in megapixel count, sure, more is good... but if the current technology does not allow for it, then more megapixels may not give us a better image... of course, technology is not a constant, and who knows what is available in the future... :)
 

Aspect

New Member
Dec 2, 2004
75
0
0
#13
what I mean is that for there to be an increase in megapixel count resulting in an increase in image quality, the quality of the signal from the imaging chip would need to be good as well... that is, the increase in megapixel count should not come at the expense of noise, dynamic range, etc. and should be within the imaging resolution of the lens... if the other factors are not diminished with the increase in megapixel count, sure, more is good... but if the current technology does not allow for it, then more megapixels may not give us a better image... of course, technology is not a constant, and who knows what is available in the future... :)
I understand now. Like when I upgrade my 3+ year old 6MP D70 to a new 12MP D300 :)

The original post was about shooting at less than the maximum pixel setting of the camera (e.g. 6MP camera setting to 3MP images).
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#14
I understand now. Like when I upgrade my 3+ year old 6MP D70 to a new 12MP D300 :)

The original post was about shooting at less than the maximum pixel setting of the camera (e.g. 6MP camera setting to 3MP images).
for the first part of the quote, yes it is talking about shooting with less than maximum pixel count... but the second part of the quote and the links seems to talk about the maximum pixel counts of cameras... :confused:

if talking about the first part, then I think it is abit wrong... shooting at the camera's maximum resolution in RAW mode would give the best quality... the usage of the file later on might not require the resolution, and greater storage may be required, but those factors certainly do not impact on best possible quality from the camera... :)
 

Rafael

Deregistered
Jul 5, 2007
346
0
0
#15
More pixels capture more details and therefore theoretically better in most cases.
 

Rafael

Deregistered
Jul 5, 2007
346
0
0
#17
More pixels capture more details and therefore theoretically better in most cases.


Mine is more a assumptious summarily conclusion base on average technology, most brands and experiences rather than a detailed argumentative description which can lead to.......

It's just like concluding whether Canon is better than Nikon, there's just got no absolute answer, it depend very much on many factors.

By the way there'S such things called EFFECTIVE PIXELS.
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Effective_Pixels
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#18
Mine is more a assumptious summarily conclusion base on average technology, most brands and experiences rather than a detailed argumentative description which can lead to.......
er... can lead to what?... if a summary conclusion with the assumption that noise level and per pixel quality would be equal no matter the pixel density, then sure, more pixels is better... but that is not a realistic assumption is it... :)
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#19
By the way there'S such things called EFFECTIVE PIXELS.
effective pixels in camera jargon means the pixels that are used to form an image (as opposed to some which are not active in the image forming process), not the quality of the image from the pixels...
 

Rafael

Deregistered
Jul 5, 2007
346
0
0
#20
Well make a kopitiam guess. :bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom