How many pixels are too many?

[DarrenH]

Hi Larry,

To add to your posting, a larger megapixelage allows the photographer to crop out parts of a photo and still have a high-quality image to work with it; a 6MP camera like the D60 or the others only just allows for a half-decent image quality at 11x17 with full-frame.

Cheers,
D

Nobody says why a 35mm because you do not plan to enlarge beyond
wallet size. Of course most of us want larger prints than that but
the point is the amount of information that I care most about now
that we can enlarge without much concern.

The industry need to focus now on making 5- or 6-mp cameras as easy
to use and capable as their 35mm brethren: fast, precise autofocus,
robust sustained frame rates, flawless color balance, zero noise,
superb optics.

I think it's safe to say that, much like the investment required
for Medium Format film photography, as the MP count in digicams
goes up it will become of interest to fewer, more serious
photographers for whom quality is paramount and the need to invest
a thousand bucks for bigger hard drives, faster RAM and new CPU and
motherboard is a small price to pay.

--
Larry Young
http://www.pbase.com/lyoung

 

[DarrenH]

Actually I own a MF camera...and yes, I take the bus.

But I have a bicycle. I did 100K one day last week.

If I did need a car, I'd rent one as I'm not into paying all year for things I only need once in awhile....

And on the image quality of MF...stunning. Digital images look pretty good on-screen, but there's a glassy roundness to everything off of film that current affordable printers haven't yet achieved. Someday however.

Cheers,
D

I think it's safe to say that, much like the investment required
for Medium Format film photography, as the MP count in digicams
goes up it will become of interest to fewer, more serious
photographers for whom quality is paramount and the need to invest
a thousand bucks for bigger hard drives, faster RAM and new CPU and
motherboard is a small price to pay.

That's all nothing compared to the cost of medium format. Those
big cameras are EXPENSIVE. For the price of a an MF setup with a
few lenses, you can buy a brand new car!

I for one prefer 35mm and a car over MF and riding the bus.

The camera doesn't do you any good if you don't have a car to drive
yourself around to scenic places to take photos. You'll just be
taking a lot of super-sharp pictures of your house, with an empty
driveway.

 

[Dave Knadler]

Well yes, but if the detail already surpasses what can be discerned without a loupe, then even more detail -- for most -- would seem a secondary concern.

Nobody says why a 35mm because you do not plan to enlarge beyond
wallet size. Of course most of us want larger prints than that but
the point is the amount of information that I care most about now
that we can enlarge without much concern.

The industry need to focus now on making 5- or 6-mp cameras as easy
to use and capable as their 35mm brethren: fast, precise autofocus,
robust sustained frame rates, flawless color balance, zero noise,
superb optics.

I think it's safe to say that, much like the investment required
for Medium Format film photography, as the MP count in digicams
goes up it will become of interest to fewer, more serious
photographers for whom quality is paramount and the need to invest
a thousand bucks for bigger hard drives, faster RAM and new CPU and
motherboard is a small price to pay.

--
Larry Young
http://www.pbase.com/lyoung

--
http://www.pbase.com/davek/cp4500_photos

 

[phatty]

If you're going to make the most (and justify the investment) of alll those pixels then you'll need some decent optics.

What the heck are you going to do with all that resolution anyways...most people don't print anything larger than 8x10s and the rest are posted on websites or sent through email.

With new cameras around the corner, I'm curious to hear whether or
not any of you have thought about the optimum # of pixels in a ccd?
I have the E10 with 4+ megapixels and the largest card I have is a
340 mb microdrive. At what point, do the number of pixels become a
liability because they not only require more flash memory, but
probably also a larger hard drive to store and process all those
shots?

I'm thinking 5-6 mp would be optimal. What do you think? I know
there are rumors of a 12 mp camera around the corner. I don't think
I want a camera that would require major memory upgrades to use.
How about you?

The 6 mp cameras seem to be taking wonderfully detailed photos.
Maybe 6 is enough for some of us?
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

--

• Phattie -

 

[Ed Leys20479]

... Digital images look
pretty good on-screen, but there's a glassy roundness to everything
off of film that current affordable printers haven't yet achieved.
Someday however.

Cheers,
D

Darren,

Yes, yes, you have it exactly right. The phrase "glassy roundness" neatly encapsulates two of the major things that, for whatever reason, film does easily yet digital struggles with. Though digital can do it once in a while, it seems to be pretty poor at displaying "modeling" and also glassy surfaces. Surfaces that should show curvature, digital more often than not renders very flatly. And windows and reflective wet surfaces? Digital often seems to have put down a fine matte spray over them.

I'm not sure of the exact reason for this, to some degree it makes no sense. The best I can come up with are the "S" shaped characteristic light response curves that film and photographic papers exhibit. At this point I'm not really sure what the characteristic curve of digital is, but from the manner that it blows out highlights (no highlight shoulder, just a quick transition to "blow out") and renders shadows (digital shadows are typically lighter, giving the impression of somewhat greater shadow range--yet deep shadows have no life to them), I suspect that the digital characteristic curve is closer to a straight line. That makes some sense, if I understand the way that CCD/CMOS is typically engineered. But so far when I've seen articles purporting to discuss characteristic curves, they start by talking about the "S" curve of molecular methodology, than veer into discussing monitor calibration for digital techniques and never seem to escape from talking about that sidetrack...

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

 

[DarrenH]

Excellent! At last I've found someone who's seen it too! There just seems to be a light from within that film can capture sometimes that can get lost with digital.

I suspect it's the CMYK filter that is the act of printing an image that digital material must go through before being viewable off-screen. It is to my eyes the weak point in the chain.

Your comment about matte spray is valid; some may simply suggest upping the saturation in Photoshop but it's more than that. If I knew more about film I'd offer speculation, but I think you've summed it up well.

Cheers,
D

... Digital images look
pretty good on-screen, but there's a glassy roundness to everything
off of film that current affordable printers haven't yet achieved.
Someday however.

Cheers,
D

Darren,

Yes, yes, you have it exactly right. The phrase "glassy roundness"
neatly encapsulates two of the major things that, for whatever
reason, film does easily yet digital struggles with. Though
digital can do it once in a while, it seems to be pretty poor at
displaying "modeling" and also glassy surfaces. Surfaces that
should show curvature, digital more often than not renders very
flatly. And windows and reflective wet surfaces? Digital often
seems to have put down a fine matte spray over them.

I'm not sure of the exact reason for this, to some degree it makes
no sense. The best I can come up with are the "S" shaped
characteristic light response curves that film and photographic
papers exhibit. At this point I'm not really sure what the
characteristic curve of digital is, but from the manner that it
blows out highlights (no highlight shoulder, just a quick
transition to "blow out") and renders shadows (digital shadows are
typically lighter, giving the impression of somewhat greater shadow
range--yet deep shadows have no life to them), I suspect that the
digital characteristic curve is closer to a straight line. That
makes some sense, if I understand the way that CCD/CMOS is
typically engineered. But so far when I've seen articles
purporting to discuss characteristic curves, they start by talking
about the "S" curve of molecular methodology, than veer into
discussing monitor calibration for digital techniques and never
seem to escape from talking about that sidetrack...

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

 

[Dasher]

As discussed there are a number of factors, cropping ability, print size, optics, and also the file size, and time to store the image. Basically how much bang for the buck.

I have printed 20x30 posters from a D1h and it was not to bad at all.

I see the pixel count will maxout soon since except in rare occasions we are already darn good at 6 MP.

Maybe other new technologies will not require as many pixels in the future... not neccessarily the F-chip

RB

With new cameras around the corner, I'm curious to hear whether or
not any of you have thought about the optimum # of pixels in a ccd?
I have the E10 with 4+ megapixels and the largest card I have is a
340 mb microdrive. At what point, do the number of pixels become a
liability because they not only require more flash memory, but
probably also a larger hard drive to store and process all those
shots?

I'm thinking 5-6 mp would be optimal. What do you think? I know
there are rumors of a 12 mp camera around the corner. I don't think
I want a camera that would require major memory upgrades to use.
How about you?

The 6 mp cameras seem to be taking wonderfully detailed photos.
Maybe 6 is enough for some of us?
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

 

[tukaram]

If you're going to make the most (and justify the investment) of
alll those pixels then you'll need some decent optics.

What the heck are you going to do with all that resolution
anyways...most people don't print anything larger than 8x10s and
the rest are posted on websites or sent through email.

Not for better printing but for 'TRUE' digital zoom capabilities. Imagine pocket / credit card size cameras like the Dimage x with more than 10x zoom.

 

[BillDrew]

"How many pictures can you fit on my single-sided, single-density 5.25" floppy? They hold about 125K (KiloByte not Meg) and are a big step up from the fast (1500 Baud) tape unit it replaced. I'd like to get one of those really big hard drives that holds 5 M (Meg, not Gig) but they cost over $10,000."

It really wasn't that long ago that the above described part of the wish list for the PC I had (poor old CoCo). In a few years the limits we now have on memory, drive space, ... will sound much like that. The optimum number of pixels is not finite, though there are a bunch of other things I'd like to see ahead of increased pixel count. Lower prices being high on that list.

I have printed 20x30 posters from a D1h and it was not to bad at all.

I see the pixel count will maxout soon since except in rare
occasions we are already darn good at 6 MP.

Maybe other new technologies will not require as many pixels in the
future... not neccessarily the F-chip

RB

With new cameras around the corner, I'm curious to hear whether or
not any of you have thought about the optimum # of pixels in a ccd?
I have the E10 with 4+ megapixels and the largest card I have is a
340 mb microdrive. At what point, do the number of pixels become a
liability because they not only require more flash memory, but
probably also a larger hard drive to store and process all those
shots?

I'm thinking 5-6 mp would be optimal. What do you think? I know
there are rumors of a 12 mp camera around the corner. I don't think
I want a camera that would require major memory upgrades to use.
How about you?

The 6 mp cameras seem to be taking wonderfully detailed photos.
Maybe 6 is enough for some of us?
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

 

[Dennis62370]

The creation of the digital camera was a wonderful thing that made many people re-discover their interest in photography. However one fundamental fact make the joy of being a camera owner quite different in the digital age: the CCD is a fixed, non-interchangeable, device very unlike 35 mm film that goes into just about every "analogue" camera.

In the good old SLR days you had guys like Nikon coming up with new cameras that still could use your 20 year old optics. Quite a visionary technological achievement - and respect for the consumer. Today we no longer see much of this thinking. No backward compatibility, no road ahead - just this years camera models. Today's digital cameras will never end up as classics (even though I have a few at home - impossible to sell), but will merely become electronic scrap of this decade.

Of course there can be no doubt that larger CCD's will be available and media size will develop at the same astounding pace (Moore's law does apply to anything digital - also cameras). And those, including myself, that believe 5-6 mega-pixel should be enough, may soon realize that the mega-pixel race will continue beyond this - whether we need this or not.

But (at least to me) I think the next big think will be a film-like "0 mega-pixel" digital camera with interchangeable CCD and preferably also interchangeable lenses. Maybe a bit like the SiliconFilm thing for 35 mm SLR's. This would give me a camera that may last for more than 18 month and that I can grow fond of and get "intimate" with. This would raise my photography interest to a bit more than a never ending a "gadget search".

Lastly I also think it is worth remembering that a good photography is not measured by mega-pixel, but some more elusive qualities which can not be bought; faces, places, angles and light are not a part of the camera.

Dennis

 

[Beth]

Beth wrote:

So, what I am surmising from the preceeding discussion is that not only do we need to be able to afford very expensive cameras, but to also upgrade our computer (and printer?) with each increase in pixel count since that old drive probably will struggle to handle those news BIG files coming from that new super-duper image grabber?

Thanks Dennis for reminding us that it isn't the camera that makes the photographs, but the brain and eye behind the camera. I guess that's where my question comes in...if the new D60, D100-type, 6 mp cameras rival 35mm, then many of us may not need to go much further. (Read the "First Impressions" article on Luminous Landscape if you don't agree http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60-first.shtml )

Perhapsr more of our energies need to go into taking GOOD photos and less into researching the next best thing. I know this is a personal choice and preference, but I thought I'd raise the issue anyway.

The creation of the digital camera was a wonderful thing that made
many people re-discover their interest in photography. However one
fundamental fact make the joy of being a camera owner quite
different in the digital age: the CCD is a fixed,
non-interchangeable, device very unlike 35 mm film that goes into
just about every "analogue" camera.

In the good old SLR days you had guys like Nikon coming up with new
cameras that still could use your 20 year old optics. Quite a
visionary technological achievement - and respect for the consumer.
Today we no longer see much of this thinking. No backward
compatibility, no road ahead - just this years camera models.
Today's digital cameras will never end up as classics (even though
I have a few at home - impossible to sell), but will merely become
electronic scrap of this decade.

Of course there can be no doubt that larger CCD's will be available
and media size will develop at the same astounding pace (Moore's
law does apply to anything digital - also cameras). And those,
including myself, that believe 5-6 mega-pixel should be enough, may
soon realize that the mega-pixel race will continue beyond this -
whether we need this or not.

But (at least to me) I think the next big think will be a film-like
"0 mega-pixel" digital camera with interchangeable CCD and
preferably also interchangeable lenses. Maybe a bit like the
SiliconFilm thing for 35 mm SLR's. This would give me a camera that
may last for more than 18 month and that I can grow fond of and get
"intimate" with. This would raise my photography interest to a bit
more than a never ending a "gadget search".

Lastly I also think it is worth remembering that a good photography
is not measured by mega-pixel, but some more elusive qualities
which can not be bought; faces, places, angles and light are not a
part of the camera.

Dennis

--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

 

[Lin Evans]

Beth wrote:

So, what I am surmising from the preceeding discussion is that not
only do we need to be able to afford very expensive cameras, but to
also upgrade our computer (and printer?) with each increase in
pixel count since that old drive probably will struggle to handle
those news BIG files coming from that new super-duper image grabber?

Thanks Dennis for reminding us that it isn't the camera that makes
the photographs, but the brain and eye behind the camera. I guess
that's where my question comes in...if the new D60, D100-type, 6 mp
cameras rival 35mm, then many of us may not need to go much
further. (Read the "First Impressions" article on Luminous
Landscape if you don't agree
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60-first.shtml )
Perhapsr more of our energies need to go into taking GOOD photos
and less into researching the next best thing. I know this is a
personal choice and preference, but I thought I'd raise the issue
anyway.

What you have said is exactly correct. We have reached parity with 35mm color film. The difficulty is that marketing hype makes us believe that we absolutely "must" have the latest and greatest with all the new bells and whistles. While many fall into this trap and buy a new digicam every 18 months or so, it's not a necessity. The equivalent for 35mm point and shoot snapshot print size was reached with the two megapixel digitals and probably culminated with cameras like the C2100UZ Olympus. This camera has 10X optical zoom, add-on ability to get 646mm focal length, takes excellent images and is a complete replacement for a 35mm color point and shoot camera.

With the 6 megapixel removable lens dSLR's, the only thing we miss from the 35mm color film perspective is the ability to take advantage of the full wide angle lens capabilities (full sized sensor) and the ability to shoot subjects which frequently cause moire. We gain a great deal on the telephoto end, and with the incredibly inexpensive and powerful software available for tweaking the images (stitching, digital darkroom, etc.) we can adequately compensate in the majority of cases.

The D100 or D60 one buys today will produce images just as good in 10 years as it does today. The present "feeding frenzy" for new technology may not abate, but one shoud separate "need" from "want." In ten years, we will probably all be wondering why anyone wanted to look at these old "flat - two dimensional" photographs anyway? Why not get one of the new three dimensional holographic projectors to see our images captured by the D6000 Canon or D1000 Nikon? Do you believe that in 2002 they actually thought 1 gigabyte micro drives were the "cat's meow." HA!

Lin
--
http://204.42.233.244

 

[David Kieltyka]

At this point I'll take a little grain anyday.

As much as I enjoy using my little Canon G2 digicam the pursuit of a textureless, grainless "ideal" is of no interest to me. I like some texture in my photos. I print only on matte & watercolor papers for this reason. With digital I have to add pleasing texture (as opposed to digital noise, which to my eyes is not pleasing) but with film it's already there and in lots of different forms depending on the film. So for this reason alone I intend to go on using film as long as it's available. And I'll continue using digital stuff too because I like the immediacy of it.

I should add that I never print larger than 6.67x10" (full frame 35mm format) on 11x14" paper. 5x7.5" on 8.5x11" paper is the norm. So I'm not interested in more pixels for the sake of larger prints. More pixels for the sake of higher resolution...that's fine, bring it on.

-Dave-

 

[DarrenH]

Dennis, you make it sound like Moore's Law is akin to Newton's.

It was an invention, not anything remotely close to being a "law".

Cheers,
D

The creation of the digital camera was a wonderful thing that made
many people re-discover their interest in photography. However one
fundamental fact make the joy of being a camera owner quite
different in the digital age: the CCD is a fixed,
non-interchangeable, device very unlike 35 mm film that goes into
just about every "analogue" camera.

In the good old SLR days you had guys like Nikon coming up with new
cameras that still could use your 20 year old optics. Quite a
visionary technological achievement - and respect for the consumer.
Today we no longer see much of this thinking. No backward
compatibility, no road ahead - just this years camera models.
Today's digital cameras will never end up as classics (even though
I have a few at home - impossible to sell), but will merely become
electronic scrap of this decade.

Of course there can be no doubt that larger CCD's will be available
and media size will develop at the same astounding pace (Moore's
law does apply to anything digital - also cameras). And those,
including myself, that believe 5-6 mega-pixel should be enough, may
soon realize that the mega-pixel race will continue beyond this -
whether we need this or not.

But (at least to me) I think the next big think will be a film-like
"0 mega-pixel" digital camera with interchangeable CCD and
preferably also interchangeable lenses. Maybe a bit like the
SiliconFilm thing for 35 mm SLR's. This would give me a camera that
may last for more than 18 month and that I can grow fond of and get
"intimate" with. This would raise my photography interest to a bit
more than a never ending a "gadget search".

Lastly I also think it is worth remembering that a good photography
is not measured by mega-pixel, but some more elusive qualities
which can not be bought; faces, places, angles and light are not a
part of the camera.

Dennis

 

[LightArray]

While the results may seem to rival 35mm, we have not reached parity with 35mm. Just using file size as a delimiter suggests that it must be in the 27meg range +- a few meg. I don't have the exact number in my head. Do we need to get to that point, probably not. Should we strive for a 12megapixel or higher, I say yes.

The problem is this now sounds like I am, and others that agree with me, an equipment junkie. In the end I truly care about how the photo looks and that I have the time to enjoy the hobby. For me it is the photo and not the equipment.

There is a digital mag with a great article about this topic. I am at work now and when I get home I will look for the article. It may or may not be available for posting but I'll get the web site for you.

Beth wrote:

So, what I am surmising from the preceeding discussion is that not
only do we need to be able to afford very expensive cameras, but to
also upgrade our computer (and printer?) with each increase in
pixel count since that old drive probably will struggle to handle
those news BIG files coming from that new super-duper image grabber?

Thanks Dennis for reminding us that it isn't the camera that makes
the photographs, but the brain and eye behind the camera. I guess
that's where my question comes in...if the new D60, D100-type, 6 mp
cameras rival 35mm, then many of us may not need to go much
further. (Read the "First Impressions" article on Luminous
Landscape if you don't agree
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60-first.shtml )
Perhapsr more of our energies need to go into taking GOOD photos
and less into researching the next best thing. I know this is a
personal choice and preference, but I thought I'd raise the issue
anyway.

What you have said is exactly correct. We have reached parity with
35mm color film. The difficulty is that marketing hype makes us
believe that we absolutely "must" have the latest and greatest with
all the new bells and whistles. While many fall into this trap and
buy a new digicam every 18 months or so, it's not a necessity. The
equivalent for 35mm point and shoot snapshot print size was reached
with the two megapixel digitals and probably culminated with
cameras like the C2100UZ Olympus. This camera has 10X optical zoom,
add-on ability to get 646mm focal length, takes excellent images
and is a complete replacement for a 35mm color point and shoot
camera.

With the 6 megapixel removable lens dSLR's, the only thing we miss
from the 35mm color film perspective is the ability to take
advantage of the full wide angle lens capabilities (full sized
sensor) and the ability to shoot subjects which frequently cause
moire. We gain a great deal on the telephoto end, and with the
incredibly inexpensive and powerful software available for tweaking
the images (stitching, digital darkroom, etc.) we can adequately
compensate in the majority of cases.

The D100 or D60 one buys today will produce images just as good in
10 years as it does today. The present "feeding frenzy" for new
technology may not abate, but one shoud separate "need" from
"want." In ten years, we will probably all be wondering why anyone
wanted to look at these old "flat - two dimensional" photographs
anyway? Why not get one of the new three dimensional holographic
projectors to see our images captured by the D6000 Canon or D1000
Nikon? Do you believe that in 2002 they actually thought 1 gigabyte
micro drives were the "cat's meow." HA!

Lin
--
http://204.42.233.244

--
Larry Young
http://www.pbase.com/lyoung

 

[Lin Evans]

While the results may seem to rival 35mm, we have not reached
parity with 35mm. Just using file size as a delimiter suggests
that it must be in the 27meg range +- a few meg. I don't have the
exact number in my head. Do we need to get to that point, probably
not. Should we strive for a 12megapixel or higher, I say yes.

The problem is this now sounds like I am, and others that agree
with me, an equipment junkie. In the end I truly care about how
the photo looks and that I have the time to enjoy the hobby. For
me it is the photo and not the equipment.

There is a digital mag with a great article about this topic. I am
at work now and when I get home I will look for the article. It
may or may not be available for posting but I'll get the web site
for you.

Hi Larry,

This subject has been debated until it's truly old hat. There will always be those who argue that six megapixel pro digital is not equivalent to 35mm fine grain color film, and present argument after argument about "equivalent" resolution and how many megapixels it "takes" to equate. Math formulae are debated and theory after theory are presented. Pixel counting does not tell the story. That we have reached parity with 35mm color film is no longer an issue are a question to those who have extensive experience with both pro-digital and film. It's only those who are still trying to make the decision to jump or stay who have issues with this and the old guard film photographers who have a serious need to justify their desire "not" to change for whatever their personal reasons. The only "proof" I need are the results I get and my customer's acceptance of the end product and agreement on quality and aesthetics.

In late 1995 I did a thorough analysis of our business (commercial photography) requirements on the 35mm color platform. I tested every available 35mm color film and transparency for detail and useability in enlargement. I did likewise with the new (at that time) Kodak DCS-460 six megapixel digital camera. The results were that with the exception of subjects which had patterns causing moire and the issues of wide angle versus telephoto, the DCS-460 was the equal in every way of 35mm color film. I spend nearly $30,000 for the camera body and used my existing Nikon lenses. The camera paid for itself in less than an year. Presently I have about 20 digital cameras ranging from top end professional units to a wide variety of prosumer/consumer models representing seven different manufacturers. Professional level digicam prices have dropped drastically and when one factors in inflation, represent an incredible "bargain" today compared to their prices in 1995.

I am no longer interested in any arguments about film superiority at the 35mm color platform or what appears on any website with "facts and figures". As I said earlier, the only "proof" of any importance are the printed results and my customer's (primarily, discerning fine art galleries) smiling faces when they gladly pay my fees and love the digital results. In the opinion of most of us who use digital and do this for a living, it's a dead issue. Yes, we embrace new technology and if more resolution becomes available and results in further abilities to extend the 35mm frame into medium format crop potential I will love it. But as far as "equivalencies" to 35mm color film are concerned, we have been their and done that already....

Best regards,

Lin

http://204.42.233.244

 

[DKreh]

Beth

you posed an interesting question that has solicited many equally interesting answers and perspectives.

I have an Olympus 3040 that works quite well for most things I do but I would like better scence definition. I have been looking at the 5 megapixtel cameras like the Nikon 5700, Oly E20 and want to see the Oly 5050.

I would like to consider a 6 megapixtel but cannot justify the cost based on my use. Of course in a moment of shear madness and impulse I guess I could and rationalize it later - LOL.

I thing the whole thing in a nut shell is what level of pictures you need versus what you can afford and are you happy at that level.

With new cameras around the corner, I'm curious to hear whether or
not any of you have thought about the optimum # of pixels in a ccd?
I have the E10 with 4+ megapixels and the largest card I have is a
340 mb microdrive. At what point, do the number of pixels become a
liability because they not only require more flash memory, but
probably also a larger hard drive to store and process all those
shots?

I'm thinking 5-6 mp would be optimal. What do you think? I know
there are rumors of a 12 mp camera around the corner. I don't think
I want a camera that would require major memory upgrades to use.
How about you?

The 6 mp cameras seem to be taking wonderfully detailed photos.
Maybe 6 is enough for some of us?
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

 

[Dennis62370]

Yes, you’ve got a point. But in a way it just makes it even worse:

We just fall victim to another idea conceived by humans (not a law), manipulating us in to believing that bigger is better and forcing us into an eternal search for new Giga bit, Giga Hz, Mega pixel and Giga byte gadgets.

Maybe Moore’s "law" was the best thing that ever happened for the consumer electronics industry ;-)

From here, going off topic, I guess...

Dennis

It was an invention, not anything remotely close to being a "law".

Cheers,
D

The creation of the digital camera was a wonderful thing that made
many people re-discover their interest in photography. However one
fundamental fact make the joy of being a camera owner quite
different in the digital age: the CCD is a fixed,
non-interchangeable, device very unlike 35 mm film that goes into
just about every "analogue" camera.

In the good old SLR days you had guys like Nikon coming up with new
cameras that still could use your 20 year old optics. Quite a
visionary technological achievement - and respect for the consumer.
Today we no longer see much of this thinking. No backward
compatibility, no road ahead - just this years camera models.
Today's digital cameras will never end up as classics (even though
I have a few at home - impossible to sell), but will merely become
electronic scrap of this decade.

Of course there can be no doubt that larger CCD's will be available
and media size will develop at the same astounding pace (Moore's
law does apply to anything digital - also cameras). And those,
including myself, that believe 5-6 mega-pixel should be enough, may
soon realize that the mega-pixel race will continue beyond this -
whether we need this or not.

But (at least to me) I think the next big think will be a film-like
"0 mega-pixel" digital camera with interchangeable CCD and
preferably also interchangeable lenses. Maybe a bit like the
SiliconFilm thing for 35 mm SLR's. This would give me a camera that
may last for more than 18 month and that I can grow fond of and get
"intimate" with. This would raise my photography interest to a bit
more than a never ending a "gadget search".

Lastly I also think it is worth remembering that a good photography
is not measured by mega-pixel, but some more elusive qualities
which can not be bought; faces, places, angles and light are not a
part of the camera.

Dennis

 

[LightArray]

Lin,

I agree with you that 6 megapixels is where the difference is negligible or close to negligible and this subject has been beaten to death. I waited for the DSLR to reach 6 before buying (at a reasonable price) and I'm very happy with my Canon D60.

I will add, as I said I would, the interesting article in the Photo Electronic Imaging Magazine at http://www.peimag.com/ . Unfortunately they do not carry the article online. It is a very thoughtful article and I only mention it because everyone likes to quote http://www.luminous-landscape.com to support many debates. I value their insight but wanted to add another point of view. Unfortunately I can't point to the specific article. Maybe some people here have read it.

In any case this has been an intelligent and spirited debate that did not turn into a fist fight. Too bad every place on the Net isn't as decent as this site.

While the results may seem to rival 35mm, we have not reached
parity with 35mm. Just using file size as a delimiter suggests
that it must be in the 27meg range +- a few meg. I don't have the
exact number in my head. Do we need to get to that point, probably
not. Should we strive for a 12megapixel or higher, I say yes.

The problem is this now sounds like I am, and others that agree
with me, an equipment junkie. In the end I truly care about how
the photo looks and that I have the time to enjoy the hobby. For
me it is the photo and not the equipment.

There is a digital mag with a great article about this topic. I am
at work now and when I get home I will look for the article. It
may or may not be available for posting but I'll get the web site
for you.

Hi Larry,
This subject has been debated until it's truly old hat. There will
always be those who argue that six megapixel pro digital is not
equivalent to 35mm fine grain color film, and present argument
after argument about "equivalent" resolution and how many
megapixels it "takes" to equate. Math formulae are debated and
theory after theory are presented. Pixel counting does not tell the
story. That we have reached parity with 35mm color film is no
longer an issue are a question to those who have extensive
experience with both pro-digital and film. It's only those who are
still trying to make the decision to jump or stay who have issues
with this and the old guard film photographers who have a serious
need to justify their desire "not" to change for whatever their
personal reasons. The only "proof" I need are the results I get and
my customer's acceptance of the end product and agreement on
quality and aesthetics.

In late 1995 I did a thorough analysis of our business (commercial
photography) requirements on the 35mm color platform. I tested
every available 35mm color film and transparency for detail and
useability in enlargement. I did likewise with the new (at that
time) Kodak DCS-460 six megapixel digital camera. The results were
that with the exception of subjects which had patterns causing
moire and the issues of wide angle versus telephoto, the DCS-460
was the equal in every way of 35mm color film. I spend nearly
$30,000 for the camera body and used my existing Nikon lenses. The
camera paid for itself in less than an year. Presently I have about
20 digital cameras ranging from top end professional units to a
wide variety of prosumer/consumer models representing seven
different manufacturers. Professional level digicam prices have
dropped drastically and when one factors in inflation, represent an
incredible "bargain" today compared to their prices in 1995.

I am no longer interested in any arguments about film superiority
at the 35mm color platform or what appears on any website with
"facts and figures". As I said earlier, the only "proof" of any
importance are the printed results and my customer's (primarily,
discerning fine art galleries) smiling faces when they gladly pay
my fees and love the digital results. In the opinion of most of us
who use digital and do this for a living, it's a dead issue. Yes,
we embrace new technology and if more resolution becomes available
and results in further abilities to extend the 35mm frame into
medium format crop potential I will love it. But as far as
"equivalencies" to 35mm color film are concerned, we have been
their and done that already....

Best regards,

Lin

http://204.42.233.244

--
Larry Young
http://www.pbase.com/lyoung

 

[budhines]

Hi all. I thought I would chime in here again. The question of when you have to many pixels is dependent on HOW LARGE you want your prints to be and what your tolerance is for lack of resolution (sharpness). I don't care how many pixels there are in a camera, images from ccd/cmos chips can never be as sharp as film. The Foveon (vapor ware at this time) may come closer than anything else so far. For most consumers, we reached the happiness level at 2 or 3 MP cameras, all they want are 3 1/2 x 5 prints and an occasionl 'Jumbo" 8X10 for "grandma". I read somewhere that 95% of all photos are never printed larger than 3 1/2 X 5". So we have already reached the consumers MP requirements. I would also add that I rarely recommend a digital camera to casual photography friends of mine as the whole work flow of down loading , editing, printing (usually on their office printer, which produces prints which may only last a few months) and then storing these images on something other than their hard drives is way to fiddely for most users, and robs them of having photos that last for generations. Yes I know they can take their little cards in to get prints made on "real" paper, but then they just may as well take in a roll of film and skip all the computer part.I suggest you read again, if you haven't already, the site listed below. he explains how many pros and advanced (read serious) photographers use film and digital in todays world. I have an Epson 7600 on order and believe me a D60 just doesn't hack it at 24X36 in spite of what some of the early adopters and new comers may tell you about the quality of their enlargements.....Bud

http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/dig35mm.html

I have an Olympus 3040 that works quite well for most things I do
but I would like better scence definition. I have been looking at
the 5 megapixtel cameras like the Nikon 5700, Oly E20 and want to
see the Oly 5050.

I would like to consider a 6 megapixtel but cannot justify the cost
based on my use. Of course in a moment of shear madness and impulse
I guess I could and rationalize it later - LOL.

I thing the whole thing in a nut shell is what level of pictures
you need versus what you can afford and are you happy at that level.

With new cameras around the corner, I'm curious to hear whether or
not any of you have thought about the optimum # of pixels in a ccd?
I have the E10 with 4+ megapixels and the largest card I have is a
340 mb microdrive. At what point, do the number of pixels become a
liability because they not only require more flash memory, but
probably also a larger hard drive to store and process all those
shots?

I'm thinking 5-6 mp would be optimal. What do you think? I know
there are rumors of a 12 mp camera around the corner. I don't think
I want a camera that would require major memory upgrades to use.
How about you?

The 6 mp cameras seem to be taking wonderfully detailed photos.
Maybe 6 is enough for some of us?
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids