How many megapixels camera do we need?

Sitting in front of a TV without moving, if you're focused on part of it you're focused on all of it. And you are always free to move your eyes and/or head if you want to concentrate on a different part of the screen.
And then there's the IMAX and other "immersive" experience. I remember seeing North of Superior in 1971 at the Cinesphere at Ontario Place in Toronto (the first permanent IMAX installation). It was awesome! One fellow sitting next to me almost got sick watching the bush-plane-flying-through-the-river-canyon scenes.

LF Examiner (The Independent Journal of the Large Format Motion Picture Industry) suggests that seating for immersive, should give the viewer a field of view between 60 degrees (minimum) and 120 degrees horizontally, and 40-80 degrees vertically.

Sticking to the 60 degrees horizontal and our 85" diagonal TV (about 74" horizontal), I'd need to sit really close -- about 65 inches away! At that viewing distance, good eyes can theoretically resolve about 105ppi. My 85" diagonal TV could have as much as 40mp!
Thanks for mentioning IMAX, helps to prove you don't need more than 10 megapixels no matter how large your display.

IMAX digital cameras record 4K video (less than 10 megapixels), but, have a large format 65mm sensor. That way they can use a smaller aperture (without diffraction), for a larger depth of field and you are there experience.

Imax pushes 3D cinema with 38-pound 4K digital camera

As has always been the case, if you truly need more resolution you need to go to a larger sensor. APS-C maximum resolution tops out at about 20 megapixels for all practical purposes. Higher pixel densities just decrease contrast in exchange for megapixels.
 
The image resolution will certainly be limited by diffraction effects as the aperture is decreased in size but this has nothing to do with the number of pixels making up the image. There is a law of diminishing returns, where if the pixels are much smaller than the airy disk size they will not improve the image resolution, but they never hurt it, except for some secondary effects from too much sensor area having to be devoted to wires.

If you are looking at an image at the pixel level, each pixel will look worse given the same lens and aperture. If you have 1 MP compared to 200 MP each of those 1 MP will look better than each of the 200 MP. If both images are printed at 8 x 10 inches the 200 MP image will have an advantage. The practical limit for an 8 x 10 is probably around 13 MP (19 MP 3:2 ratio), but you may want to print larger some day, a 16 x 20 could use up to 50 MP (75 MP 3:2 ratio).
 
You just don't need more than 10 megapixels, and you wont unless we get artificially enhanced eyes.
Good grief. Have you not been listening to the marketing departments AT ALL? Get with the program! 36 megapixels is the bare minimum for a DSLR these days. After all, there are ultra compact cameras with 1/2.3" sensors that have 20mp.

If we can't sell you on megapixels what CAN we sell you?
better dynamic range.

Also, really good ISO 100 or ISO 64. Nice ISO 1600 would be welcome too.

Other than that-nothing.
Super-ultra-sub-compact? Coloured camera bodies? Hmmm ... RETRO?

Maybe smile detection. :-)

--
John.
http://www.flickr.com/burnettjn
Tedolph
 
Last edited:
I'm aware that screen resolution still can only reach roughly 8 megapixels or something. Regardless, I still stand by the fact that one should go for a decently high megapixel count because, overall, it's pretty much the only thing out there (if you want a new camera and not a used).
the latest most expensive Nikons have only 16.2mp.
Even older cameras, both entry and pro, have pretty good megapixel counts. I'm not saying one should go get the highest megapixel count and brag about it. I'm just saying that one should just go with what they need. Just because you can display an 8 megapixel picture on a 4k monitor doesn't mean it will be a good experience to look at. A higher resolution isn't necessary, but it is a nice FEATURE.
Tedolph
 
Last edited:
You need so many pixels that even at large apertures diffraction will prevent aliasing artifacts from being created. This means many hundreds of millions of pixels for full frame sensor.

Beyong that it's just waste :)
 
Sorry, let me clarify again. My last reply might not have been the most articulated.
1080p is the rough standard for monitors. Many videos now expect a 1080p resolution (or a 720p resolution), but whether one wishes to utilize this resolution is personal preference. You really don't need uber megapixels. You really don't. I understand. 8 MP is still plenty to look at on a decent monitor.
It is also plenty for printing unless you are printing really large

If uploaded on Facebook or other social media websites, it looks perfectly fine.
Actually, on social media websites 2mp is more than enough.

Even smartphones have roughly 8 megapixels or fewer, and they still look fine in terms of resolution and detail. I haven't seen any pictures on a 4K monitor, but I know that text gets scaled down a lot.

I still stand by my idea for just a generally better experience.
Why?

Having the option to massively crop (if you really wanted to) is pretty nice if you want it to.
If you have to "massively crop" you are either working for the NSA or you didn't frame the subject properly to begin with.

Getting the most detail out of your sensor would be nice to.
But you can't. You can't print that large and digital monitors of any sort don't have enough resolution and never will for practical purposes. I would be like selling a car with 2,000 HP.

Does it justify paying more for that? Does it justify blowing off money to just increase the megapixel count? Probably not. However, the market today has cameras that just exceed 10 megapixels. Even in the used market, a LOT of cameras just exceed the "optimal" megapixel count. You don't need these megapixels, but you don't really have a choice (unless you're looking for a D40 or the first Canon 1D).
Nikon D4, 16.2mp.
So with this, nowadays, megapixels don't really matter as much, and one should look for what they need and want within their budget.
Unless you have a Phase One.
Tedolph
 
With your example you can't look at the entire image of an 85" TV from 8 feet, your field of view isn't that wide.
Your field of view is over 189 degrees horizontally. As with the real world, at that range you'd see the entire screen (plus quite a lot of the surrounding real world) but parts of it would be less highly resolved.
nobody does this. Nobody (except a 3 yr. old) is going to sit 8 feet away from on over 7' diagonal screen. Even the manufacturers of projection screens, projectors, etc. say in there literature and the sales people in the big box stores recommend a minimum viewing distance of 1.5x the screen diagonal. That is about 14 feet from a 85" screen and that is the minimum. Most rooms at most people's homes don't have 15' of clear distance from wall to wall let alone wall to projector.

So all of this talk about the need for high MP resolution is just non-sense.

--
---
Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]
Tedolph
 
Stuffing more and more pixels onto a fixed sized sensor introduces diffraction issues at larger and larger apertures. Also, higher pixel densities usually lead to a poorer signal to noise ratio.
More pixels do not introduce diffraction issues or lens aberration issues, they just allow you to see those issues more clearly.
Diffraction is not a function of lens flaws. Even a perfect lens will have diffraction. When the size of the airy disk that even a perfect lens produces, exceeds the pixel pitch of the sensor, resolution starts to become diffraction limited.
this is high school physics. Look through a screen, then finer and finer screens. The finer the screen the more diffraction. Period. This is how they make diffraction gratings.
The aperture introduces diffraction, not the sensor. The aperture is the screen in your example. A lot of small pixels just allows you to image the diffraction better it does not create it.
Diffraction affects image detail by reducing contrast. The technical term for the contrast reduction is called the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) and describes the contrast the camera delivers as a function of the spacing of lines (called the spatial frequency), or fine detail. Here the spatial frequency is expressed in terms of pixel spacing. As the f/stop increases, the diffraction spot becomes larger, and fine detail in the image becomes reduced in contrast. The red, green and blue lines show the diffraction effects for red, green and blue wavelengths of light for f/ratios 1, 2, 4, and 8.

Diffraction affects image detail by reducing contrast. The technical term for the contrast reduction is called the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) and describes the contrast the camera delivers as a function of the spacing of lines (called the spatial frequency), or fine detail. Here the spatial frequency is expressed in terms of pixel spacing. As the f/stop increases, the diffraction spot becomes larger, and fine detail in the image becomes reduced in contrast. The red, green and blue lines show the diffraction effects for red, green and blue wavelengths of light for f/ratios 1, 2, 4, and 8.

We buy lenses based on 50% MTF's, then some people want to reduce their contrast by packing more and more megapixels on a sensor. Once you reach 4 microns pixel pitch, even at f/2.8 you start to lose contrast due to diffraction.

2d400d9ad2cc43ac99af00574f981811.jpg

Eric Fossum, Inventor of the CMOS image sensor, explains it here - Photons to Bits and Beyond: The Science & Technology of Digital

The resolution is limited by the aperture and the wavelength of the light. Once the pixels become smaller than is scientifically possible for the lens to resolve, the file size just becomes larger without a corresponding increase in resolution.

The extra megapixels resolution gained by Nikon going from 16 megapixels to 24 megapixels is a fraction of the file size increase. The only way to keep the marketing people from bloating our files, is for the consumer to know what they are getting from that 'number on the box'.

--
All statements in my posts represent my interpretation of data, research opinion or viewpoints.
The opinions expressed are not representations of fact, and are subject to change without notice.
All images are used for educational purposes.
See, pixel density does effect diffraction. Just like Tedolph said.



TEdolph
 
The image resolution will certainly be limited by diffraction effects as the aperture is decreased in size but this has nothing to do with the number of pixels making up the image. There is a law of diminishing returns, where if the pixels are much smaller than the airy disk size they will not improve the image resolution, but they never hurt it, except for some secondary effects from too much sensor area having to be devoted to wires.

If you are looking at an image at the pixel level, each pixel will look worse given the same lens and aperture. If you have 1 MP compared to 200 MP each of those 1 MP will look better than each of the 200 MP. If both images are printed at 8 x 10 inches the 200 MP image will have an advantage. The practical limit for an 8 x 10 is probably around 13 MP (19 MP 3:2 ratio), but you may want to print larger some day, a 16 x 20 could use up to 50 MP (75 MP 3:2 ratio).
that as pixel density increases, diffraction effects become more and more noticeable at the same aperture. I suspect you know that too so why are you trying to confuse the OP?

TEdolph
 
The D4 has 16megapixels, which is still very high and much more than enough for many people. 16 is considered high in my standard. Furthermore, the D4 is still considered in the market. When I'm talking about low megapixel counts , I'm talking about cameras which are even rare for the used market. Often those have fewer than 10 megapixels (which is still plenty). But again, a lot of cameras nowadays just exceed how many megapixels we need.

Maybe my argument isn't coming clear. Sorry to bother your guys' times. ):
 
The D4 has 16megapixels, which is still very high and much more than enough for many people. 16 is considered high in my standard. Furthermore, the D4 is still considered in the market. When I'm talking about low megapixel counts , I'm talking about cameras which are even rare for the used market. Often those have fewer than 10 megapixels (which is still plenty). But again, a lot of cameras nowadays just exceed how many megapixels we need.

Maybe my argument isn't coming clear. Sorry to bother your guys' times. ):
is in response to your contention below that high megapixels will be required for future high definition screens:

"However, as monitor and TV resolution standards are increasing, I feel like a greater megapixel count should be considered. 1920x1080 is already quite a large resolution, with 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 coming in sometime soon. With this in mind, I still feel like a larger megapixel count such as 16 or above should be ideal for the future. The cameras you are looking at should all be at or above 16, which is a very safe (and highly common) count nowadays. I feel like I cannot stress this enough, but go with what features you need, and learn your skills from that camera."

What we are saying is that there is an effective limit to large HD screen resolution because of viewing distance (1.5x screen diagonal measurement). Once you pass a certain viewing distance, human vision can't resolve anything more than about 8mp anyway.

Basically, all these 20mp, 36mp, 40mp sensors are non-sense for amateur use. Only very specialized uses require that sort of resolution. We would be far better off focusing on dynamic range, diffraction effects for macro work, etc.

Tedolph
 
You just don't need more than 10 megapixels, and you wont unless we get artificially enhanced eyes.
Good grief. Have you not been listening to the marketing departments AT ALL? Get with the program! 36 megapixels is the bare minimum for a DSLR these days. After all, there are ultra compact cameras with 1/2.3" sensors that have 20mp.

If we can't sell you on megapixels what CAN we sell you?
better dynamic range.

Also, really good ISO 100 or ISO 64. Nice ISO 1600 would be welcome too.

Other than that-nothing.
Super-ultra-sub-compact? Coloured camera bodies? Hmmm ... RETRO?

Maybe smile detection. :-)
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top