How many MP are enough?

[LCD]

Take the extreme of a 640K pixel camera and printing at say A4 size. There would clearly, for most of us, be a resolution deficiency - it would look coarse. Our eyes would want more camera pixels to be satisfied with the print. Yes? So, there must be a numder of pixels at which our eyes are satisfied by the print sizes we mostly use. In the UK, A3 would be the largest size most would use and anywhere from 6x4 to A4 for most uses. There muist be a number of camera pixels beyond which our eyes fail to see any improvement - when it looks real.

Well that's the way it seems to me.

For most pro and amateur uses, how many MP are enough to satisfy?
For instance, human hearing is not as good as the hi-fi systems
which many buy - they buy more than they can hear! Our eyes too
must have a finite resolution. At what point then do we have enough
MP?

I'd hate to be on this MP treadmill forever. When we have enough,
maybe we can centre on build-quaaity, af, etc...

Setting manufacturing and optical challenges aside, why would
anybody ever think they have enough. Even if you don't want to
enlarge, greater resolution gives you more flexibility to crop.
The limits of our eyes have nothing to do with this.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

--
LCD

 

[Ron Parr]

Take the extreme of a 640K pixel camera and printing at say A4
size. There would clearly, for most of us, be a resolution
deficiency - it would look coarse. Our eyes would want more camera
pixels to be satisfied with the print. Yes? So, there must be a
numder of pixels at which our eyes are satisfied by the print sizes
we mostly use. In the UK, A3 would be the largest size most would
use and anywhere from 6x4 to A4 for most uses. There muist be a
number of camera pixels beyond which our eyes fail to see any
improvement - when it looks real.

Perhaps you misunderstood my original reply: As long as people are interested in cropping images, they will always want more resolution. The resolving power of your eye just isn't relevant to this point.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[JCDoss]

Perhaps you misunderstood my original reply: As long as people are
interested in cropping images, they will always want more
resolution. The resolving power of your eye just isn't relevant to
this point.

I agree with you Ron. I think 6MP is more than "enough" for full-frame images for the most part. That said, I'd love to have a 12MP DSLR for crops!

--
D30/BiG-ED
28-135IS, 50/1.4

 

[Ian S]

It's not just crops. You are assuming we just view or print a static image as is. But wouldn't it be nice if you could view an image and "zoom in" as much as you liked to see the extra detail. We can do that already of course, it's just a question of bandwidth and having the right viewer.

Perhaps you misunderstood my original reply: As long as people are
interested in cropping images, they will always want more
resolution. The resolving power of your eye just isn't relevant to
this point.

I agree with you Ron. I think 6MP is more than "enough" for
full-frame images for the most part. That said, I'd love to have a
12MP DSLR for crops!

--
D30/BiG-ED
28-135IS, 50/1.4

--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com/orch01.htm

 

[Lin Evans]

Good point. Since the image is 488,000 pixels, it could have
been taken even with a 1Mp camera. Hard to tell as my
(unforgiving) LCD shows a lot of JPG artifacts.

Cheers
Ian

That's just the point. How many pixels you need depends on the intended use of the image. There is absolutely no way to tell by looking at an 800x600 ppi image whether it was taken with a 12 megapixel camera or a one megapixel camera. This particular image was taken with a 1.5 megapixel camera, but had it been taken with a 16 megapixel camera and downsized to 800x600 it wouldn't look any different.

If your purpose is printing large or tight crops, the more digital resolution you have the happier you will be. On the other hand, if your only need is for web images, pixel quality is more important than pixel quantity. The camera which took this image has professional imager quality - which affects color, dynamic range and signal to noise ratios. Excellent for its pupose, but not for poster sized prints.

Lin
http://204.42.233.244

 

[Lars]

For most pro and amateur uses, how many MP are enough to satisfy?
For instance, human hearing is not as good as the hi-fi systems
which many buy - they buy more than they can hear! Our eyes too
must have a finite resolution. At what point then do we have enough
MP?

I'd hate to be on this MP treadmill forever. When we have enough,
maybe we can centre on build-quaaity, af, etc...

--

Depends on size of prints that you want.If you want the best print quality at 30x40cm (A3) without interpolation at 300dpi you will need 16,7MP.

However, with the current 6MP models there is enough resolution for very good large prints. More important will be bigger CCDs with less noise, artefacts and no focal length multiplier. But even then manufacturers will squeze more pixels in because this is better from a marketing standpoint.

My theoretical dream-chip is a 16MP, full-size foveon-like chip. Sounds like a dream ? I bet we will have something as good as that in less than 5 years.

Nevertheless, my D30 will be good enough for me for a long time.

Lars

 

[DavidP #28649]

I hope you enjoy your ISO 25 pics.

I agree with you Ron. I think 6MP is more than "enough" for
full-frame images for the most part. That said, I'd love to have a
12MP DSLR for crops!

--

 

[Bob Reim]

I believe there is another aspect to this. There is probable a limit to the resolution in the lens that is used. Forget who makes the lens there should be a resolution limit based on the radius of the lens. This applies to telescopes so I would assume it also applies to camera lens. I know my 8" scope has a resolution of .5 arcsec. This would limit the size of the pixels which would then limit the number of pixels based on a 35mm format.

For most pro and amateur uses, how many MP are enough to satisfy?
For instance, human hearing is not as good as the hi-fi systems
which many buy - they buy more than they can hear! Our eyes too
must have a finite resolution. At what point then do we have enough
MP?

I'd hate to be on this MP treadmill forever. When we have enough,
maybe we can centre on build-quaaity, af, etc...

--

Depends on size of prints that you want.If you want the best print
quality at 30x40cm (A3) without interpolation at 300dpi you will
need 16,7MP.

However, with the current 6MP models there is enough resolution for
very good large prints. More important will be bigger CCDs with
less noise, artefacts and no focal length multiplier. But even then
manufacturers will squeze more pixels in because this is better
from a marketing standpoint.

My theoretical dream-chip is a 16MP, full-size foveon-like chip.
Sounds like a dream ? I bet we will have something as good as that
in less than 5 years.

Nevertheless, my D30 will be good enough for me for a long time.

Lars

 

[LCD]

So infinite MP just for crops then? Makes no sense. But the point is how many MP are enough for most uses. Eye resolution does have a bearing on this - beyond what we cannot observe an improvement must be relevant.

LCD

 

[Ron Parr]

So infinite MP just for crops then? Makes no sense.

What part isn't making sense to you?

But the point
is how many MP are enough for most uses. Eye resolution does have a
bearing on this - beyond what we cannot observe an improvement must
be relevant.

Define "most." Aybody who crops wants all the resolution they can get, in which case there simply is no, "enough," and eye resolution just doesn't enter into it.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Jorge Alban]

For most pro and amateur uses, how many MP are enough to satisfy?

It depends on print resolution, print size, print viewing distance, subject matter, shooting and image processing technique and each persons own standards. Even then it is safe to say that...

For 8 x 12 printing that matches ISO 200 color film detail either a Canon D30 or Olympus E10 will do (Stair Interpolated to 300ppi) for about $1300 (used). Both are great, flexible and accurate SLR cameras for portraiture and general people photography, where excessive detail can be unflattering.

For 13 x 19 printing that matches ISO 100 color film detail, the Fuji S1, Canon D60 and apparently the Nikon D100 will do (Stair Interpolated to 300ppi) for about $2200. These 6 Mega Pixel cameras will do a visibly better job with images of landscapes, architecture and full lenght groups of people.

To match the resolution of 35mm fine grain Black and White film (Tmax 100, Delta 100, Agfapan 25) or 6x7 Medium format color film you will need a camera that can capture at least 12 Megapixels. We are talking medium format digital backs (USD 10.000), basic 3 lens medium format camera system (USD 7.000) and the best computer available with huge storage and blindingly fast processing (USD 3000). Does it deliver a sharper image with less noise when viewed at 200% or printed poster size? YES it does. Is the quality difference worth the hassle for journalism, wedding, catalog, portraiture or advanced amateur use?. In my humble opinion and that of thousands of pro shooters already using 6 MP (and even 3 MP digital SLR cameras like the Nikon D1h, Canon 1d or Kodak DCS 720x): NO it is not.

Jorge Alban
Costa Rica
http://images.fotki.com/v5/free/b6e7/3/34979/66627/Cubax4RED-or.jpg

 

[BillCat]

I've been printing my 4x6's at 300 dpi, which my D-30 can cover natively with a little down sampling. Since 20x30 is the largest that standard photo places print, and 300 dpi is a good number for prints, I'd take that and multiply by 1.5 to get rid of the effects of Bayer interpolation. That gives me 81 Mpixles if my math is right.

If I need something larger than 20x30 then I can upsample.

Bill

For most pro and amateur uses, how many MP are enough to satisfy?
For instance, human hearing is not as good as the hi-fi systems
which many buy - they buy more than they can hear! Our eyes too
must have a finite resolution. At what point then do we have enough
MP?

I'd hate to be on this MP treadmill forever. When we have enough,
maybe we can centre on build-quaaity, af, etc...

--
LCD

 

[DavidP #28649]

. . . 640k memory?

Remember that? LOL

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[LCD]

So infinite MP just for crops then? Makes no sense.

What part isn't making sense to you?

You said

"As long as people are interested in cropping images, they will always want more resolution"

Where does 'always want more' stop...?

But the point
is how many MP are enough for most uses. Eye resolution does have a
bearing on this - beyond what we cannot observe an improvement must
be relevant.

Define "most." Aybody who crops wants all the resolution they can
get, in which case there simply is no, "enough," and eye resolution
just doesn't enter into it.

Most uses... You have a problem understanding that? Sorry, but you generalise way too much and thus make no sense. 'wants all the resolution they can get'... 'is no enough'. Infinite MPs and still wants more to crop. Really? Eye resolution must enter into it. It is where the eye is satisfied where enough is. Why have more?

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

--
LCD

 

[LCD]

That's different. That's about capacity. Storage needs have grown and so memory requirements have too. Indeed for Net use the capacity to store images has increased enormously and especially so with digicams but the size of those images has stayed about the '6x4' size for computer screens - most view images on a pc screen not in print - and most magazies are about A4 size. For human usage images must have a finite resolution beyond which we cannot detect any improvement. It can't be infinite as Ron parr seems to think - crop forever.... Put it another way: the number of MPs which would satisfy most human uses of images as we see it today - I do not know what someone will invent and nor did the pc designers then.

. . . 640k memory?

Remember that? LOL

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--
LCD

 

[Ian S]

But see:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=2886872

We won't necessarily continue to do and see things as we do now.

. . . 640k memory?

Remember that? LOL

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--
LCD

--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com/orch01.htm

 

[DavidP #28649]

People will always want more pixels. As long as the resulting image quality is acceptable. For the reason Ron states -- cropping.

What will ultimately stop that increasing demand is lens resolution. Once you've exceeded the resolution of the lens, more pixels is meaningless.

That is, until the ability to have more pixels spurs on demand for lenses with more resolution. I'd be willing to pay several thousand for a 50/1.4 that had 10 times the resolution of the current lens, if digital cameras had the megapixels to take advantage of it (assuming they could keep a nice clean signal/noise).

That's different. That's about capacity. Storage needs have grown
and so memory requirements have too. Indeed for Net use the
capacity to store images has increased enormously and especially so
with digicams but the size of those images has stayed about the
'6x4' size for computer screens - most view images on a pc screen
not in print - and most magazies are about A4 size. For human usage
images must have a finite resolution beyond which we cannot detect
any improvement. It can't be infinite as Ron parr seems to think -
crop forever.... Put it another way: the number of MPs which would
satisfy most human uses of images as we see it today - I do not
know what someone will invent and nor did the pc designers then.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[AJSJones]

I've been printing my 4x6's at 300 dpi, which my D-30 can cover
natively with a little down sampling. Since 20x30 is the largest
that standard photo places print, and 300 dpi is a good number for
prints, I'd take that and multiply by 1.5 to get rid of the effects
of Bayer interpolation. That gives me 81 Mpixles if my math is
right.

If I need something larger than 20x30 then I can upsample.

Bill

How much is enough depends on whose definition of enough you use
Ever seen a Christopher Burkett print??

Prints look like > 100MP ( in a Foveon X3 definition of pixels - forget Bayer)
No visible grain under a loupe, at least 300 dpi apparent
Now that's photography!
Absolutely awesome!

30x40 prints from an 8x10 original transparency - never in the digital domain (except thumbs on his website http://www.christopherburkett.com/ )

 

[BillCat]

I've never seen a Burkett print, but I can assume that they are nice, though it's hard to tell from his Website thumbnails. The next time I'm in Carmel I'll try to find his gallery and check it out.

I was stating what I'd like for a 35mm digital camera; of course for larger format digital cameras I'm sure that people would want more pixels!

Bill

How much is enough depends on whose definition of enough you use
Ever seen a Christopher Burkett print??

Prints look like > 100MP ( in a Foveon X3 definition of pixels -
forget Bayer)
No visible grain under a loupe, at least 300 dpi apparent
Now that's photography!
Absolutely awesome!

30x40 prints from an 8x10 original transparency - never in the digital domain (except thumbs on his website http://www.christopherburkett.com/ )

 

[Ron Parr]

You said
"As long as people are interested in cropping images, they will
always want more resolution"

Where does 'always want more' stop...?

Why would it stop?

Most uses... You have a problem understanding that?

I asked you to define

Sorry, but you
generalise way too much and thus make no sense. 'wants all the

My comment was extremely specific, no generalization.

resolution they can get'... 'is no enough'. Infinite MPs and still
wants more to crop. Really? Eye resolution must enter into it. It
is where the eye is satisfied where enough is. Why have more?

Eye resolution has nothing to do with my comment, as I've already explained twice. You want more so that you can crop. How many times do I have to say it?

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/