The Megapixel Myth

[zjpmario]

:bsmilie:Today, Happen to find this and read....What you guys think? Agree or not...

The Megapixel Myth

THE MYTH
The megapixel myth was started by camera makers and swallowed hook, line and sinker by camera measurebators. Camera makers use the number of megapixels a camera has to hoodwink you into thinking it has something to do with camera quality. They use it because even a tiny linear resolution increase results in a huge total pixel increase, since the total pixel count varies as the total area of the image, which varies as the square of the linear resolution. In other words, an almost invisible 40% increase in the number of pixels in any one direction results in a doubling of the total number of pixels in the image. Therefore camera makers can always brag about how much better this week's camera is, with even negligible improvements.

This gimmick is used by salespeople and manufacturers to you feel as if your current camera is inadequate and needs to be replaced even if the new cameras each year are only slightly better.

:bigeyes::bsmilie:

 

[shojibake]

If you use sharpening, compression algos on larger resolution files, they will have more info to work with.

 

[zjpmario]

I see... For normal usage the MP big or small is not a problem...as what I understand.

 

[zac08]

Actually with a lil more res to work with, generally you'd get a lil better results.

But it varies again with the quality of the shot in the first place.

 

[Edlet]

Don't agree with Ken Rockwhatever. :nono:

Other things being equal (iso performance, noise etc).
The more Megapix the merrier, whatever you want to do with the extra pixels (for cropping, resizing, noise reduction) is totally up to u.

 

[varf]

Other things being equal (iso performance, noise etc).
The more Megapix the merrier

but that is the crux of the problem - the other things are NOT equal.

 

[synapseman]

It's just one man's opinion. There's at least a part-truth to his articles, but I wouldn't swallow everything wholesale.

With each subsequent generation, there are improvements to the hardware and software to the camera. As someone here rightly pointed out, in the real world, the other parts are not equal, so a Generation-III 12 megapixel CCD would be significantly better than a Generation-1 8 megapixel CCD.

 

[kairospix]

Don't agree with Ken Rockwhatever. :nono:

Other things being equal (iso performance, noise etc).
The more Megapix the merrier, whatever you want to do with the extra pixels (for cropping, resizing, noise reduction) is totally up to u.

but that is the crux of the problem - the other things are NOT equal.

that's true performance of a camera and the final output are sbujected to so many variables that just claiming ceteris paribus and thus more megapixel will be better is not showing a good grasp of reality...

for example sensor physical size does affect the results of squeezing in more megapixels

so if ceteris paribus means everthing don't change including sensor size then for sure increase megapixel you are gonna get poor results...

it's like saying if all else in me remain the same (no incores in exercise etc) then if I increase my intake then I will be healthier since i have more energy input... er I think things are not so simple...

 

[Oly5050]

:bsmilie:Today, Happen to find this and read....What you guys think? Agree or not...

The Megapixel Myth

THE MYTH
The megapixel myth was started by camera makers and swallowed hook, line and sinker by camera measurebators. Camera makers use the number of megapixels a camera has to hoodwink you into thinking it has something to do with camera quality. They use it because even a tiny linear resolution increase results in a huge total pixel increase, since the total pixel count varies as the total area of the image, which varies as the square of the linear resolution. In other words, an almost invisible 40% increase in the number of pixels in any one direction results in a doubling of the total number of pixels in the image. Therefore camera makers can always brag about how much better this week's camera is, with even negligible improvements.

This gimmick is used by salespeople and manufacturers to you feel as if your current camera is inadequate and needs to be replaced even if the new cameras each year are only slightly better.

:bigeyes::bsmilie:

Thanks for bringing this up. It is not new to me, but I think a lot of people are not aware of this. Megapixel is only one part of the solution. If u go into the 4/3 system u will understand why MP is not the be all and end all. I think Oly understood that and that was why, they had the courage to introduce the E1 with only 5 MP!! And yet, when printed, the images were outstanding.

 

[giantcanopy]

While i understand the marketing hype of more megapixel.
I certainly will not resist getting a new dSLR with more megapixel.

Ryan

 

[theRBK]

know what you are going to do with your images... a 30Mpixel image is not needed for small prints in 4R-8R or for web viewing and all that is needed is less than 12Mpixels (even 6 might be enough)... but if printing to A0 size, it sure is (not necessary but) useful... to each his or her own... and get what you need... as the Stones sing it, "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need" (apologies to the Rolling Stones)

 

[zjpmario]

I think when buying a camera, don't just let the MP thing catch you only, look into the overall features of the camera. maybe this thread might boost up the 2nd hand camera market...haha!.....

 

[dw2chan]

megapixels do not have anything to do with a camera's quality. just compare a 10mp P&S to a 6-8mp dslr.
also increasing MP can have negative effects. an example is the upgrade from the canon xt -> xti. they crammed 2 more MP onto the same sensor, I've heard that this has made the xti to be more noisy than the xt due to the increased pixel density or something.

but with that said...high MP images have their advantages in PP....but only if the IQ is there as well.

 

[zerartul]

MP does help if the lens on the camera is better then the sensor recieving it. And under sufficient light, canon xti with 2 more pixel in ISO 100 wont be noisier then a xt. Glass optics has limitations and currently we are already stretching the limits for some of them. Do note as technolgy advances, its pretty possible to squeeze the same amount of pixel on the same size yet produce lower noise images. Example is a D300 which is at 12mp and has less noise then the its predessor the D200 due to technology improvement.

 

[Clockunder]

Thanks for bringing this up. It is not new to me, but I think a lot of people are not aware of this. Megapixel is only one part of the solution. If u go into the 4/3 system u will understand why MP is not the be all and end all. I think Oly understood that and that was why, they had the courage to introduce the E1 with only 5 MP!! And yet, when printed, the images were outstanding.

DSLRs around the same era as the Olympus E-1 ;

Canon 10D - 6.5MP (1.6x crop factor)
Canon EOS 300D - 6.3MP (1.6x crop factor)
Canon EOS 1Ds - 11.4MP (full frame)

Nikon D70 - 6.1MP (1.5x crop factor).

Olympus E-1 - 5MP (2x crop factor).

========
Compared to the Olympus E-1 :
1.6x crop factor image sensor has about 50% more surface area.
1.5x crop factor image sensor has about 65% more surface area
Full frame has about 4x more surface area.

Do some calculations with the numbers above and anyone can easily see E-1's less no. of pixels is not exactly "less" when compared to others.

So despite the E-1 having less pixels, its pixel density was much higher than others and its pixel pitch was smaller. As a negative consequence, the E-1 was famous for its notoriously much higher noise level when compared to others.

====
It's not about courage. It's the limitation of a smaller sensor used by the 4/3 system, given the image sensor technology in those days. That was also why there were widespread talks/discussions about the comparatively high noise level of the E-1 and many Olympus film SLR users had switched to other brands during those days for their DSLRs.

 

[Clockunder]

:bsmilie:Today, Happen to find this and read....What you guys think? Agree or not...

The Megapixel Myth

THE MYTH
The megapixel myth was started by camera makers and swallowed hook, line and sinker by camera measurebators. Camera makers use the number of megapixels a camera has to hoodwink you into thinking it has something to do with camera quality. They use it because even a tiny linear resolution increase results in a huge total pixel increase, since the total pixel count varies as the total area of the image, which varies as the square of the linear resolution. In other words, an almost invisible 40% increase in the number of pixels in any one direction results in a doubling of the total number of pixels in the image. Therefore camera makers can always brag about how much better this week's camera is, with even negligible improvements.

This gimmick is used by salespeople and manufacturers to you feel as if your current camera is inadequate and needs to be replaced even if the new cameras each year are only slightly better.

:bigeyes::bsmilie:

Nothing new.

Whether more pixels give better image resolution depends very much on the lens' ability to resolve details and this has very much to do with lens quality as well as magnification factor (i.e. distance/focal length), other than image sensor technology and image processing.

In all point and shoot compact cameras, the limitation is in the lens' ability to resolve more details especially when the subject is far. This is because of the lens' quality and the high de-magnification factor required (since a very short actual focal length is used on the tiny sensor).

Basically, you're not going to get more than what the lens can resolve.

Also, as someone here has already mentioned, more pixels means higher pixel density and smaller pixel pitch which means more noise unless the sensor size is increased correspondingly to compensate and/or technology improves.

If the no. of pixels is increased without adequate compensation from the other factors, you'll only get degradation of the image quality. This can be seen in the new Fujifilm F50fd (12MP) vs old F31fd (6.3MP).

And yes, a camera's output quality is more than the no. of pixels.