So How Many MP does the E3 REALLY need????

Eclairz · Mar 9, 2006

snowcap said:
I have read those. Rockwell is a person I rarely trust when it
comes to photographic theory. As for Phil, he usually knows what
he's talking about, but I disagree with him on this one. If you
double the MP, you double the size of the image, and thus you
double the resolution. What Phil seems to believe is that you need
to double VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL resolution in order to double the
print size, but that is, with respect, bull. Think for yourself and
use logical reasoning, then you will hopefully realize this too.

It doesn't matter how you interpret resolution, as long as you understand that 4Mp gain 8Mp gives you a greater horizontal and vertical pixels than from 8Mp to 12Mp. If you understand that, it shows you that the jump in Mp is not as significant to the dimensions of the image. Although you are right in that you get twice as much image detail in magnitude terms. You just don't get twice as much detail in horizontal or vertical directions, only in total size do you get this.

Alex P
--

Depreciation is all in the mind, its your choice if you dont appreciate this fact, that and why sell when you can give it away as a present when it still works perfectly fine. Or keep it for other uses and different environments [email protected]

snowcap · Mar 9, 2006

mrfitz said:
I did think for myself....the reason they use the mp no. is because
it sounds better than it is...they x horizontal and vertical to get
the number...it doesnt double the size when you double the mp no.

But you do agree that doubling the MP, all else (noise etc) being equal, doubles the available print size? Doubling horizontal and vertical resolution would quadruple the print size, right?

snowcap · Mar 9, 2006

Eclairz said:
It doesn't matter how you interpret resolution, as long as you
understand that 4Mp gain 8Mp gives you a greater horizontal and
vertical pixels than from 8Mp to 12Mp. If you understand that, it
shows you that the jump in Mp is not as significant to the
dimensions of the image. Although you are right in that you get
twice as much image detail in magnitude terms. You just don't get
twice as much detail in horizontal or vertical directions, only in
total size do you get this.

Being a practical photographer, I always go by print size, and sure, while going from 4MP to 8MP allows the print size to double, going from 8MP to 12MP only allows a 50% increase. But people who believe both vertical and horizontal resolutions must be doubled are clearly disinformed, because doubling those (e.g. going from 5MP to 20MP) would allow me to effectively quadruple the size of my prints (e.g. A4 to A2). Everyone would agree that an A2 print is four times the size of an A4, right?

Steven Noyes · Mar 9, 2006

That is rich. I always need a good laugh. All that guy is spin spin spin.

Steven

mrfitz said:
Facts not spin:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page25.asp

Read the part....Megapixels, some perspective

--
---
New and Updated!!!
Winter 2005:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_winter_2005

Dog Beach:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/dog_beach

Steven Noyes · Mar 9, 2006

Take out twice the resolution and you nailed it. A 10MP image WILL print at twice the size but it will only have about 50% more resolution. But that is in two direction. It does have twice the detail, however.

Steven

snowcap said:
No matter how you twist and twirl the semantics, a 10MP image IS
twice the size (and thus twice the resolution) of a 5MP one.
Therefore, a 10MP image WILL allow you to print TWICE as large as
5MP. If you can print 5MP at A3, you can print 10MP with the same
quality at A2. It's that simple, and there's no need to confuse
people by saying otherwise.

--
---
New and Updated!!!
Winter 2005:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_winter_2005

Dog Beach:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/dog_beach

GregF · Mar 9, 2006

If it is just horz x vert, than wouldn't that be just like an area calculation? Like width x length? So the MP figure is kind of like an "area" figure. So in that respect I'd say doubling the MP is twice the area. Not twice the individual horz or vert dimensions.

My take on this whole thing is I would like as many pixels as possible. If I was a pro shooting landscapes for large posters, I'd want my equipment to produce the most detail possible.

Nevenp · Mar 9, 2006

Stacey_K said:
Then why would you want huge prints if you can't look at them from
an apropriate viewing distance? 5-8MP will make a really good 11X14
print.

In the good old days of paintings, painters often made a huge picture and viewers often came close to see not only the whole picture but to enjoy details too...

The fact that you don't "need" to get closer and inspect details doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to be able to do so... so ,the market is still there.

Megapixel race IS NOT over whatever "analysts" say!

If E3 comes out within a year it'll have to be 12Mpix or it will fail!
If it comes out in about two years, it'll have to be at least 16Mpix!

My2c

--
------
Neven Prasnikar @ Art Plus
http://www.artplus.hr

Sean Davis · Mar 9, 2006

8Mp compares to 5 Mp gives a 26 % increase in image size for the same resolution. I can definately easily see the difference between E300 adn E1 prints at A4. Similarly (approximate guide only)

E300/E1 = + 26%
D200/E1 = +41%
ZD/E1 = +210% Wow wow wow
ZD / D200 = +48% wow wow

1dsM11/E1 = +78% (Yes E1 is getting old on resolution scales)

1DsM11/D2X = +15% (there is debate as to which is better image wise)

d2X/D200 = +10% (yes people are trading down to D200's from D2X)
D2x/E300 = +22% (E300 is no slouch)

D200/E300 + 12% (not worth the upgrade on (resolution alone ) considering lens costs)

So if the E3 is 10.5 MP, it would print only 6% smaller than the D2X and 19% smaller than the 1dSM11. Compared to the ZD, 31% smaller. That means if the ZD will print to 100 inches by 75 inches at a given resolutioin, then a 10.5MP will print to 69 inches by 52 inches. Smaller but such sweet numbers.

So I am happy to anticipate at 10ish MP E3 with all the nice characteristics of the the other eeee's.

Sean

Similarly

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Mar 9, 2006

I've an E1 and 1ds Mark one, both of which I use.

You cannot see the difference in small prints.

At a3 there's a BIG difference.

I think that 11 megapixels is enough for 99% of photography

Give us 11 Olympus and all will be forgiven.

Stacey_K · Mar 9, 2006

Nevenp said:
Stacey_K said:

Then why would you want huge prints if you can't look at them from
an apropriate viewing distance? 5-8MP will make a really good 11X14
print.

Click to expand...

In the good old days of paintings, painters often made a huge
picture and viewers often came close to see not only the whole
picture but to enjoy details too...

But many paintings are just a blurry mess when you get close! They are no less enjoyable and in some ways are more impressive to me than the finely detailed ones.

I guess my point was if your house is so small you can't get far enough back to see it at a normal angle of view to take the whole image in, why make a print that large? Like why hang a 16X20 print in a narrow hallway where you can't get more than 2 feet away from it?
--

Stacey

Nevenp · Mar 10, 2006

Stacey_K said:
But many paintings are just a blurry mess when you get close! They
are no less enjoyable and in some ways are more impressive to me
than the finely detailed ones.

I'm thinking about old masters like Rembrandt and paintings like Night Watch and such...

Stacey_K said:
I guess my point was if your house is so small you can't get far
enough back to see it at a normal angle of view to take the whole
image in, why make a print that large? Like why hang a 16X20 print
in a narrow hallway where you can't get more than 2 feet away from
it?

I'm not saying that everyone will need it and of course your point is correct. However, we're talking about Oly PRO camera and pros will always need more and better simply to stay competitive...

--
------
Neven Prasnikar @ Art Plus
http://www.artplus.hr

Nevenp · Mar 10, 2006

BJL said:
Maybe a nice round 3000x4000=12MP E system body will allow almost
everyone to photograph happily ever after.

Hear, hear

Though we'll see how long will that "ever after" last :-
--
------
Neven Prasnikar @ Art Plus
http://www.artplus.hr

Paul H46473 · Mar 10, 2006

Dorus said:
andy mclean said:

So, there's no great difference going from 5 to 6 Mps, or from 6 to
8, or from 8 to 10, or 10 to 12....So there's really no difference
between 5 and 12 MPs then?

Click to expand...

this reminds me of a passage from an old Dutch classic boy's novel,
where the little hero sees licorice advertised as '6 for 5 cents'.
His response:"6 for 5 cents, thus 5 for 4 cents, 4 for 3 cents, 3
for 2 cents, 2 for 1 cent and therefore 1 licorice is free". So he
takes the one without paying and walks out the store under much
protest from the hated storeowner.

if you can't find the fallacy in that story, your reasoning is
right on the mark.

So the moral of the story is that the Dutch enjoy digital photography and are inherently dishonest?

Active Hiatus · Mar 10, 2006

James A Rinner said:
Exactly!

That's why I still have my Hassys. One day I will purchase a
digital back. However I probably won't buy an E-3 unless it is at
least 10MP. The E-1 is such a fantastic camera that it would take
a major improvement for me to change.

Have to say I agree with this. My 8mp seems more than adequate for 99% of what I do but while Magazine Editors and Poster manufacturers want bigger files then there will always be a demand for larger & larger mp cameras. When Oly bring out their E-3 I suspect/hope it will be at least 8mp and preferably 10-12, just for that extra flexibility.

FWIW I had an 8mp image printed at A2 recently, it was printed at 100dpi and interpolated. It's good enough to hang on the wall but it is a little soft in appearance if you get close than 2 feet from it.

Active Hiatus · Mar 10, 2006

Stacey_K said:
Active Hiatus said:

Sorry but I'm not convinced. In a normal living space you are
often up close to pictures and you do notice the detail or lack of
it.

Click to expand...

Then why would you want huge prints if you can't look at them from
an apropriate viewing distance? 5-8MP will make a really good 11X14
print.

Who's to say what appropriate is? Go to an art gallery and observe how people look at pictures. They start off at a distance , then walk up close, peer at the picture, then step back again

The same happens in the home and in most homes you are never more than seven feet form the wall. Sharpness of image is important as is detail.

zakk9 · Mar 10, 2006

For commercial offset printing, 300dpi is needed. For a full size A4, that means 3600 pixels on the long side, and because it's 4/3, 2700 on the short. 2700 x 3600 is 9,720,000.

This is of course a very simplified calculation, but some stock agencies actually have resolution requirements very similar to this, and since the E-3 is supposed to be a pro camera, there's probably no way around it.

I guess that is also one of the reasons why we haven't seen an E-1n with 8MP. It's simply not enough for many pro users.

--
Zakk 9, the number 9 zakk

Eclairz · Mar 10, 2006

snowcap said:
Being a practical photographer, I always go by print size, and
sure, while going from 4MP to 8MP allows the print size to double,
going from 8MP to 12MP only allows a 50% increase. But people who
believe both vertical and horizontal resolutions must be doubled
are clearly disinformed, because doubling those (e.g. going from
5MP to 20MP) would allow me to effectively quadruple the size of my
prints (e.g. A4 to A2). Everyone would agree that an A2 print is
four times the size of an A4, right?

A3 print is twice the size of A4 and A2 is twice the size of A3 so in terms of surface area it is four times the size but measure the difference in vertical and horizontal length, they are only doubled. But I find that the printing resolution doesn't need to be as high for larger prints as the brain can only handle so much information.

I used to use 3Mp for A4 prints so for an A2 print I feel i don't need 12Mp(4x3), but 8-10Mp would be enough since you can use a lower resolution for these sorts of jobs.

Alex P

--

Depreciation is all in the mind, its your choice if you dont appreciate this fact, that and why sell when you can give it away as a present when it still works perfectly fine. Or keep it for other uses and different environments [email protected]

sclamb · Mar 10, 2006

The issue isn't soley reliant on the number of megapixels but the quality of them, and that is also linked to the size of the photosites. As an example, my brother has a Nikon D2HS. 4MP camera with large photosites and the LBCAST engine. Put a 12"x16" print from the E-1 and the D2HS on a wall and the detail in the D2HS image is greater, and with less noise at ISO 3200 than the E-1 at ISO 400. Nothing to do with megapixels (since the Nikon has less) but to do with the photosites and the image processing engine.

Oly doesn't need a 12MP E-x, and if they use the same sensor size with more MPs squeezed in, and so smaller photosite size, then the payback will be increased noise. They need 5-8 high quality MPs on the 4/3 sensor that will provide the quality that the f/2 lenses will require to get the best out of them.

Of course, lower MPs do provide less capability to crop and enlarge for print without losing image detail and sharpness, but not many people print over A3+ and there are interpolation engines available that can do a great job.

Simon

Lord Coe · Mar 10, 2006

Frankly, Olympus need to compete with EDITORIAL cameras, as it's never going to compete on sheer picture quality with a smaller sensor. That means the new Olympus E-Pro needs to be FAST. Like 10fps FAST, and that means a lower pixel count. Editorial photography doesn't need 10+ MP, and pushing FourThirds too high will bring scary SNR unless Olympus starts cooling the sensor or finds some new kind of read-out tech.

FourThirds can win in the pro market by being smaller, lighter and faster; not bigger, heavier and sharper.

--
Only a fool breaks the two second rule.

Lord Coe · Mar 10, 2006

Stacey_K said:
andy mclean said:

And if you are happy with the E-1, why question that
others may like to see improvements in the resolution possible in
larger prints that more MPs would afford (without spending
what....$ 30 000 or so)?

Click to expand...

$30,000? You can get a minolta autocord for $100 that will KILL any
dSLR on the planet..

What are you on about?

--
Only a fool breaks the two second rule.

So How Many MP does the E3 REALLY need????

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts