Who only 16k for a camera sensor

I have the G7 camera which has a 16k pixel sensor and I noticed the Panasonic produced other cameras that have a 16k pixel sensor, so I'm wondering why not move to higher pixel sensors like other manufactures have.
The only advantage of a 16k sensor was when I was only holiday I could take a lot of photos without fulling up the media card.

Brian

I think you mean 16MP ie Megapixel . Panasonic has moved on, starting with the GX8 then GH5, GH9, GX9 and G90 all have 20MP sensors.

Cyvan wrote:

I think you mean 16MP ie Megapixel . Panasonic has moved on, starting with the GX8 then GH5, GH9, GX9 and G90 all have 20MP sensors.

Good to know. It was a while since I last checked.

Brian

Note that, depending on how you use your images, 16 MP is not necessarily that limiting.

If displaying on a full HD screen without any cropping for instance, you only need 1980x1020 pixels meaning a mere 2MP. A 4K screen at 4086x2304 pixels is about 10MP.

Printing large size posters is another matter of course...

Didier

Brisn5757 wrote:

I have the G7 camera which has a 16k pixel sensor and I noticed the Panasonic produced other cameras that have a 16k pixel sensor, so I'm wondering why not move to higher pixel sensors like other manufactures have.
The only advantage of a 16k sensor was when I was only holiday I could take a lot of photos without fulling up the media card.

I don't need the extra pixels. I'm quite happy with 16Mpix.

I've compared the output of a 16Mpix sensor (in my GX850), against a 20MPix sensor (in my GX9). The 16Mpix is less noisy, even when you downrez to the same size for comparison. The 20MPix makes marginally sharper images (when you downrez to the same size of comparison).

Asla wrote:

Brisn5757 wrote:

I have the G7 camera which has a 16k pixel sensor and I noticed the Panasonic produced other cameras that have a 16k pixel sensor, so I'm wondering why not move to higher pixel sensors like other manufactures have.
The only advantage of a 16k sensor was when I was only holiday I could take a lot of photos without fulling up the media card.

Brian

Hi!

How big are you printing? 30x40cm photos are great from both sensors. And if you are printing way larger, 4mp might not do that big difference, as one might expect.

Other thing is of course newer technology: newer sensor may produce little less noise at higher iso's.

Someone already suugested buying more cards. I think that is a good advice.

A s l a

I've got very nice A2 (594x420mm) prints from 16MP but when I had an exhibition last summer the feedback was: fewer and bigger! So what do I do now? As my images are mainly of rocks and walls I could get a hi res model or learn hand held super resolution or do panoramas. Or go 40MP FF. Or accept the lack of sharpness from up close.

rurikw wrote:

Asla wrote:

Brisn5757 wrote:

I have the G7 camera which has a 16k pixel sensor and I noticed the Panasonic produced other cameras that have a 16k pixel sensor, so I'm wondering why not move to higher pixel sensors like other manufactures have.
The only advantage of a 16k sensor was when I was only holiday I could take a lot of photos without fulling up the media card.

Brian

Hi!

How big are you printing? 30x40cm photos are great from both sensors. And if you are printing way larger, 4mp might not do that big difference, as one might expect.

Other thing is of course newer technology: newer sensor may produce little less noise at higher iso's.

Someone already suugested buying more cards. I think that is a good advice.

A s l a

I've got very nice A2 (594x420mm) prints from 16MP but when I had an exhibition last summer the feedback was: fewer and bigger! So what do I do now? As my images are mainly of rocks and walls I could get a hi res model or learn hand held super resolution or do panoramas. Or go 40MP FF. Or accept the lack of sharpness from up close.

A discussion at https://www.markuswaeger.com/2019/02/12/aufloesung-und-druckformat/ argues (in German) for the latter, essentially stating that the larger the print the farther away from it you will actually stand to watch it, hence the lower dpi are required so that the required number of MP is lower than you could think.

From two key tables in there;

If you retain 300 dpi whatever the print size:

18MP => 297mm × 420mm

24MP => 340mm × 500mm

36MP => 400mm × 600mm

50MP => 500mm × 750mm

If however you factor in some reasonable viewing distance depending on the size of the print:

A2 print at 1m: use 90ppi≈ 2,2MP

A1 print at 2m: use 60ppi≈ 2,8MP

A0 print at 3m: use 45ppi≈ 3,2MP

Poster 252cm × 356cm at 5m: use 30ppi≈ 12,5MP

Perhaps worth a try, see if that works for you?

Didier

DidierDCH wrote:

rurikw wrote:

Asla wrote:

Brisn5757 wrote:

I have the G7 camera which has a 16k pixel sensor and I noticed the Panasonic produced other cameras that have a 16k pixel sensor, so I'm wondering why not move to higher pixel sensors like other manufactures have.
The only advantage of a 16k sensor was when I was only holiday I could take a lot of photos without fulling up the media card.

Brian

Hi!

How big are you printing? 30x40cm photos are great from both sensors. And if you are printing way larger, 4mp might not do that big difference, as one might expect.

Other thing is of course newer technology: newer sensor may produce little less noise at higher iso's.

Someone already suugested buying more cards. I think that is a good advice.

A s l a

I've got very nice A2 (594x420mm) prints from 16MP but when I had an exhibition last summer the feedback was: fewer and bigger! So what do I do now? As my images are mainly of rocks and walls I could get a hi res model or learn hand held super resolution or do panoramas. Or go 40MP FF. Or accept the lack of sharpness from up close.

A discussion at https://www.markuswaeger.com/2019/02/12/aufloesung-und-druckformat/ argues (in German) for the latter, essentially stating that the larger the print the farther away from it you will actually stand to watch it, hence the lower dpi are required so that the required number of MP is lower than you could think.

From two key tables in there;

If you retain 300 dpi whatever the print size:

18MP => 297mm × 420mm

24MP => 340mm × 500mm

36MP => 400mm × 600mm

50MP => 500mm × 750mm

If however you factor in some reasonable viewing distance depending on the size of the print:

A2 print at 1m: use 90ppi≈ 2,2MP

A1 print at 2m: use 60ppi≈ 2,8MP

A0 print at 3m: use 45ppi≈ 3,2MP

Poster 252cm × 356cm at 5m: use 30ppi≈ 12,5MP

Perhaps worth a try, see if that works for you?

Didier

Comforting figures. I will obviously have to do that with the old pics. It's just that I don't think I can prevent people from going closer. I wasn't very happy with some 5MP files at A2. But i'm a bit of a pixel peeper.

They could make a 64MP bayer-pattern sensor, with rgb or even rgbw pattern, and then combine every square of 2x2 pixels to form a 16MP image that still does not take up more space on the memory card but that would be free from moiré artifacts and that would have more or less the same low noise (because binning pixels reduces noise).

But everyone would be screaming for access to all 64MP for their images...

Brisn5757 wrote:

I have the G7 camera which has a 16k pixel sensor and I noticed the Panasonic produced other cameras that have a 16k pixel sensor, so I'm wondering why not move to higher pixel sensors like other manufactures have.
The only advantage of a 16k sensor was when I was only holiday I could take a lot of photos without fulling up the media card.

Brian

16MP is good enough for most consumers. I rarely print bigger than 5x7, some at 8x10. I had a few prints made for me at 20x16. I was happy with the results. It's on a wall behind the sofa. I think that m4/3rds should concentrate resources on an AI/Deep Learning based image upscaler. Everyone is using engineering to do colour from a black and white CMOS sensor,..

Asla wrote:

Brisn5757 wrote:

I have the G7 camera which has a 16k pixel sensor and I noticed the Panasonic produced other cameras that have a 16k pixel sensor, so I'm wondering why not move to higher pixel sensors like other manufactures have.
The only advantage of a 16k sensor was when I was only holiday I could take a lot of photos without fulling up the media card.

Brian

Hi!

How big are you printing? 30x40cm photos are great from both sensors. And if you are printing way larger, 4mp might not do that big difference, as one might expect.

Other thing is of course newer technology: newer sensor may produce little less noise at higher iso's.

Someone already suugested buying more cards. I think that is a good advice.

A s l a

The largest I'm able to print is A5 size but I tend to crop my photos so a 16 MP sensor limits how much I can crop the photo. Lens quality is another limiting factor.

DidierDCH wrote:

rurikw wrote:

Asla wrote:

Brisn5757 wrote:

I have the G7 camera which has a 16k pixel sensor and I noticed the Panasonic produced other cameras that have a 16k pixel sensor, so I'm wondering why not move to higher pixel sensors like other manufactures have.
The only advantage of a 16k sensor was when I was only holiday I could take a lot of photos without fulling up the media card.

Brian

Hi!

How big are you printing? 30x40cm photos are great from both sensors. And if you are printing way larger, 4mp might not do that big difference, as one might expect.

Other thing is of course newer technology: newer sensor may produce little less noise at higher iso's.

Someone already suugested buying more cards. I think that is a good advice.

A s l a

I've got very nice A2 (594x420mm) prints from 16MP but when I had an exhibition last summer the feedback was: fewer and bigger! So what do I do now? As my images are mainly of rocks and walls I could get a hi res model or learn hand held super resolution or do panoramas. Or go 40MP FF. Or accept the lack of sharpness from up close.

A discussion at https://www.markuswaeger.com/2019/02/12/aufloesung-und-druckformat/ argues (in German) for the latter, essentially stating that the larger the print the farther away from it you will actually stand to watch it, hence the lower dpi are required so that the required number of MP is lower than you could think.

From two key tables in there;

If you retain 300 dpi whatever the print size:

18MP => 297mm × 420mm

24MP => 340mm × 500mm

36MP => 400mm × 600mm

50MP => 500mm × 750mm

If however you factor in some reasonable viewing distance depending on the size of the print:

A2 print at 1m: use 90ppi≈ 2,2MP

A1 print at 2m: use 60ppi≈ 2,8MP

A0 print at 3m: use 45ppi≈ 3,2MP

Poster 252cm × 356cm at 5m: use 30ppi≈ 12,5MP

Perhaps worth a try, see if that works for you?

Didier

Usually I print at 6x4 inch and the largest I can print is A4, but I tend to chop some of my photos.

PS: for anyone reading this this the first word in the title should have been 'Why' and not 'Who'

Brian

Brian

I like to print big(ish) from my 16 mp sensor in my EM5i, I'm experimenting with up scaling in Photoshop using "preserve details 2.0".  So far I'm pretty impressed.

Kristoff_EM5 wrote:

I like to print big(ish) from my 16 mp sensor in my EM5i, I'm experimenting with up scaling in Photoshop using "preserve details 2.0". So far I'm pretty impressed.

The way things are going with software advantages it would not surprise me that you can sharpen a burred photo by having the software repainting parts of the photo. Removing noise from a photo without softening the photo is another thing that might improve.

Brian

Brisn5757 wrote:

Kristoff_EM5 wrote:

I like to print big(ish) from my 16 mp sensor in my EM5i, I'm experimenting with up scaling in Photoshop using "preserve details 2.0". So far I'm pretty impressed.

The way things are going with software advantages it would not surprise me that you can sharpen a burred photo by having the software repainting parts of the photo. Removing noise from a photo without softening the photo is another thing that might improve.

Brian

Yes we have bayer interpolation why not have HiRes Interpolation. Do it on a PC with CUDA/nVidia GPUs. I have already seen images in deep learning already being cleaned up without the blurring of normal NR and ray traced images upped to look like they have more light sources as part of the original rendering....It's the way to go do it in the Oly viewer software on a PC/Laptop....