How many pixels are too many?

[Lin Evans]

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.

Hi Larry,

We "try" to keep it civil, but in the past we have had some serious knock down - drag out - fights over lots of things. The issue of parity with 35mm film is one of those issues which was super hot and debated before there was a Luminous Landscape website, but Michael Reichmann ruffled some feathers when he compared the D30's printed output in a side-by-side test with Provia scanned slide transparencies and found that at 8x10 there was very little difference.

The difficulty with the pixel count arguments is that many who present them are looking at a theoretical assumption that because it takes "X" number of pixels to equate to similar calculated film resolution, that it follows that if a digital sensor doesn't have "X" number of photo sites, it's not equivalent. In the vast majority of cases, those who present these arguments are either film biased photographers, or more commonly, engineers or scientists with an interest in photography rather than professional photographers who deal with the issues on a daily basis.

One of the good things about the Luminous Landscape articles is that for the most part, the arguments and tests are conducted by photographers with an aim toward practical application rather than theoretical revelation. The photographer realizes that there is much more involved in creating a superior image than potential resolution. That film grain raises it's ugly head long before these computed resolution equivalencies are reached is a basic factor which the photographer realizes. Tonality, dynamic range and other factors are equally important and few who present these mega-pixel numbers as film "resolution" bother to consider that these numbers are so far above the ability of even the best 35mm lens to resolve, that they are meaningless in practical application.

In the old Firestone Tire analogy (probably not a good one since they now have serious problems ) it's where the "rubber meets the road" that counts. The author of the link pointed to by Beth was not Michael Reichmann, but rather Harold M. Merklinger, who, oddly enough, is a scientist with interest in photography who has published several technical articles on photography. I say this not to lend any specific weight to his observations, only to point out that he understands the resolution arguments from a scientific perspective. I too have a science background with a masters in physics and doctorate in physical anthropology. Though I find the pixel counting arguments interesting, my observations and conclusions have been made from many thousands of comparisons made over a period of seven years of using both pro-digital and 35mm color film side by side.

That there are opposite opinions from very well qualified people is certainly admitted, but when one carefully checks the backgrounds of those who hold these opinions, there is more often than not, an agenda rather than a fair and unbiased comparison. I would caution you that the vast majority of magazines devoted to either digital or film photography rely heavily on contributing editors who nearly always come from a strong film bias. Truthfully, I've found very few people knowledgeable in the digital arena writing for popular photo magazines. You may find a jewel in one or two cases, but in the majority of instances though the arguments may sound good and seem to be based on a firm foundation, they often fall apart when debated by those with lots of practical experience in pro-digital.

Best regards,

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Lin Evans]

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

Bud,

If you're going to send someone to an article about photography, at least send them to a photographer Brad Templeton? Come on....

Sorry Bud, it's obvious from checking your profile that you are not speaking from experience with pro-digital - you've been lurking in the Nikon forum and Canon forum trying to decide on digital and promoting film in the meanwhile. That's O.K., but just be aware that there are many, many with much more experience with pro-digital here on these forums who are not going to let you get away with it for too long.

You say a D60 "just doesn't hack it at 24x36) How many prints have you made at 24x36 from a properly prepared Canon D60 file and compared with the same from 35mm color? Do you even have a D60? It's O.K. to voice an opinion, we're all entiled to do that here, but regardless of your experience with film, you probably shoud couch that type statement as an opinion because it will come back to bite you in a soft spot, guaranteed....

Best regards,

Lin

http://208.56.82.71

 

[DarrenH]

You're right...it was probably more marketingspeak than an engineering guideline. It's hard to tell anymore...cheers, D

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,

You mention.

"Tonality, dynamic range and other factors are equally important and few who present these mega-pixel numbers as film "resolution" bother to consider that these numbers are so far above the ability of even the best 35mm lens to resolve, that they are meaningless in practical application." ,

as being as or more important than megapixel count. In terms of file size can one use that to equate equality? Doesn't Tonality, dynamic range and other factors contribute to file size because it adds additional data found in the file? Of course we are both looking at the same digital and 35mm photo so we can see that the noise level is minimal and not a contributing factor. I know even an iso change will affect the file size.

So if the file size of a 35mm is 25meg and the digital is 10meg does that not suggest something? I realize visually we may not see much difference. Just curious on an analytical level if would you consider file size as an indicator of data quality.

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.

Hi Larry,
We "try" to keep it civil, but in the past we have had some serious
knock down - drag out - fights over lots of things. The issue of
parity with 35mm film is one of those issues which was super hot
and debated before there was a Luminous Landscape website, but
Michael Reichmann ruffled some feathers when he compared the D30's
printed output in a side-by-side test with Provia scanned slide
transparencies and found that at 8x10 there was very little
difference.

The difficulty with the pixel count arguments is that many who
present them are looking at a theoretical assumption that because
it takes "X" number of pixels to equate to similar calculated film
resolution, that it follows that if a digital sensor doesn't have
"X" number of photo sites, it's not equivalent. In the vast
majority of cases, those who present these arguments are either
film biased photographers, or more commonly, engineers or
scientists with an interest in photography rather than professional
photographers who deal with the issues on a daily basis.

One of the good things about the Luminous Landscape articles is
that for the most part, the arguments and tests are conducted by
photographers with an aim toward practical application rather than
theoretical revelation. The photographer realizes that there is
much more involved in creating a superior image than potential
resolution. That film grain raises it's ugly head long before these
computed resolution equivalencies are reached is a basic factor
which the photographer realizes. Tonality, dynamic range and other
factors are equally important and few who present these mega-pixel
numbers as film "resolution" bother to consider that these numbers
are so far above the ability of even the best 35mm lens to resolve,
that they are meaningless in practical application.

In the old Firestone Tire analogy (probably not a good one since
they now have serious problems ) it's where the "rubber meets
the road" that counts. The author of the link pointed to by Beth
was not Michael Reichmann, but rather Harold M. Merklinger, who,
oddly enough, is a scientist with interest in photography who has
published several technical articles on photography. I say this not
to lend any specific weight to his observations, only to point out
that he understands the resolution arguments from a scientific
perspective. I too have a science background with a masters in
physics and doctorate in physical anthropology. Though I find the
pixel counting arguments interesting, my observations and
conclusions have been made from many thousands of comparisons made
over a period of seven years of using both pro-digital and 35mm
color film side by side.

That there are opposite opinions from very well qualified people is
certainly admitted, but when one carefully checks the backgrounds
of those who hold these opinions, there is more often than not, an
agenda rather than a fair and unbiased comparison. I would caution
you that the vast majority of magazines devoted to either digital
or film photography rely heavily on contributing editors who nearly
always come from a strong film bias. Truthfully, I've found very
few people knowledgeable in the digital arena writing for popular
photo magazines. You may find a jewel in one or two cases, but in
the majority of instances though the arguments may sound good and
seem to be based on a firm foundation, they often fall apart when
debated by those with lots of practical experience in pro-digital.

Best regards,

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

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

 

[Lin Evans]

Lin,

You mention.

"Tonality, dynamic range and other factors are equally important
and few who present these mega-pixel numbers as film "resolution"
bother to consider that these numbers are so far above the ability
of even the best 35mm lens to resolve, that they are meaningless in
practical application." ,

as being as or more important than megapixel count. In terms of
file size can one use that to equate equality? Doesn't Tonality,
dynamic range and other factors contribute to file size because it
adds additional data found in the file? Of course we are both
looking at the same digital and 35mm photo so we can see that the
noise level is minimal and not a contributing factor. I know even
an iso change will affect the file size.

So if the file size of a 35mm is 25meg and the digital is 10meg
does that not suggest something? I realize visually we may not see
much difference. Just curious on an analytical level if would you
consider file size as an indicator of data quality.

No, files size has little to do with image quality but is primarily a factor of either scan resolution or pixel count. The reason higher ISO files are larger is that they tend to have more noise. Noise is itself a type of "detail" even though it's detail we don't want. But these differences in file size with changes in ISO are only relevant for jpg compressed files because images with less detail can be compressed to a greater degree.

Using an uncompressed (for both scan and digitally acquired file) file size will give you a relative indication of the dimensions in terms of pixel count. But this is only relevant when printing. One could scan a transparency or negative at 2000 dpi or 4000 dpi and the file size will be greatly different. As scan resolution goes up, the amount of detail in the transparency or film increases to a level when additional scan resolution only produces additional grain because all true "detail" has been exhausted. That level on color film is somewhere around 4000 dpi depending on the film speed and relevant sharpness of the photo. So what we have is a rather larger file which can be used as-is to print a particular sized image (depending on the exact scan resolution) or down sampled (pixels removed) to print at smaller sizes.

Digital is a bit the opposite. There is a fixed capture resolution (digital resolution) and to print larger than it's native size one must create pixels. Conversely, to print smaller requires the same operation as with film scans. The reason most landscape photogaphers use expensive drum scans is to try and get the ultimate detail available from their photos.

So with film, you have a "fixed" amount of detail corresponding to a given file size at optimum scan resolution. In the 35mm color platform that allows maximum detail in prints up to around 16x20 where further enlargement gets into the grain and wrecks the aesthetics of the image. With six megapixel pro digital, you have a bit less native "resolution" and a whole lot less "noise" to deal with, so excellent prints at even poster sizes can be made of suitable subjects. Obviously, you can't invent detail which was never captured - but six megapixel pro digital is very close to the resolving capacity of the lens, so you really don't gain much by having higher resolution at this platform. To make significant gains, you use a digital back on a medium format and the results are sometimes incredible.

As with film, you can increase the available resolution by digital stitching of overlapped images, or you can take the next step and increase the sensor size or film size so that a larger area of sensor material - be it electronic or silver, is dedicated to a smaller area of geography. This effectively "increases" resolution.

The bottom line is that with suitable subject material (subjects without incredibly fine detail) you can make excellent digial prints at far greater sizes than with 35mm color film. Both do incredibly well at around 11x14 - both are loosing some detail at 16x20 beyond where 35mm color film begins a rapid downhill spiral, while six megapixel digital continues to work well with amenable subjects and not well with super fine detail requiring medium format film or digital back.

Best regards,

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[rosie b]

As with film, you can increase the available resolution by digital
stitching of overlapped images, or you can take the next step and
increase the sensor size or film size so that a larger area of
sensor material - be it electronic or silver, is dedicated to a
smaller area of geography. This effectively "increases" resolution.

I can't afford 6 MP and will probably go for a 4 MP- Minolta F100 or possibly Canon G2 but I want to be able to take high resolution photos of my paintings. How feasible is it to take them in several sections and 'stitch' them?
Rosie

 

[Lin Evans]

As with film, you can increase the available resolution by digital
stitching of overlapped images, or you can take the next step and
increase the sensor size or film size so that a larger area of
sensor material - be it electronic or silver, is dedicated to a
smaller area of geography. This effectively "increases" resolution.

I can't afford 6 MP and will probably go for a 4 MP- Minolta F100
or possibly Canon G2 but I want to be able to take high resolution
photos of my paintings. How feasible is it to take them in several
sections and 'stitch' them?
Rosie

As long as they are not behind glass, you should be able to make several overlapping images from a tripod and easily combine them into a high resolution file. The only down side it that when viewed close-up you will be able to not only see every brush stroke, but blips on the canvas and any imperfections as well which would normally not be an issue at single shot resolution with a G2.

There is no reason why it wouldn't be possible to make full size prints - if that is your intent. Capturing a 1:1 with stitching is quite easy for this type application.

Best regards,

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[rosie b]

As long as they are not behind glass, you should be able to make
several overlapping images from a tripod and easily combine them
into a high resolution file. The only down side it that when viewed
close-up you will be able to not only see every brush stroke, but
blips on the canvas and any imperfections as well which would
normally not be an issue at single shot resolution with a G2.

There is no reason why it wouldn't be possible to make full size
prints - if that is your intent. Capturing a 1:1 with stitching is
quite easy for this type application.

Best regards,

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

Brilliant! Just what I wanted to hear. Reading your posts I get the impression that you really do know what you are talking about and this information means I can get the best of both worlds: high resolution images of my work and a take-anywhere affordable camera.

You mention the G2 rather than the F100. Do you think it is significantly better? It is right at the top of my price range and bulkier than I would have wished, and so many people seem to be concerned about its autofocus and dead pixels and cracks, whereas almost all F100 owners seem delighted, and it is so portable. but it is very important to have really good images of my work.
Many Thanks

--
Rosie

 

[budhines]

Lin, what do you think the joke is? Why isn't Templeton just as qualified to discuss photography as you are with your degrees in physics and physical anthropology? Exactly what is it he has stated that threatens you? Perhaps you could point out his errors to those of us not as smart as you.

You say, after checking my profile, I am not speaking with pro-digital knowledge. How do you know this? Is it because I haven't purchased every digital camera on the market as you apparently have?

I haven't been lurking, I post when I have something to say, just not as often as you perhaps.

I still say a D60 won't make a detailed sharp print at 24X36. By the way, exactly what is a "decently prepared Canon D60 file" Do you have some secret PS methods we don't know about (I have only been using PS for 7 or so years, maybe I missed something)

Yes I have made 12X18 crops from D60 files sized to 24X36. That's why I have a 7600 ordered. I have also made hundreds of darkroom prints at that size. How about you?

No, I don't have a D60 ( I didn't feel it met any of my photographic needs)

I notice you proclaim to be a pro-digital photographer, I'm just a plain old photographer using film or digital or whatever suits the purpose.

I admit some of my statements may come back to bite me in a soft spot, but it's not likely going to be by you.

Best Regards.....Bud

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

Bud,

If you're going to send someone to an article about photography, at
least send them to a photographer Brad Templeton? Come on....

Sorry Bud, it's obvious from checking your profile that you are not
speaking from experience with pro-digital - you've been lurking in
the Nikon forum and Canon forum trying to decide on digital and
promoting film in the meanwhile. That's O.K., but just be aware
that there are many, many with much more experience with
pro-digital here on these forums who are not going to let you get
away with it for too long.

You say a D60 "just doesn't hack it at 24x36) How many prints have
you made at 24x36 from a properly prepared Canon D60 file and
compared with the same from 35mm color? Do you even have a D60?
It's O.K. to voice an opinion, we're all entiled to do that here,
but regardless of your experience with film, you probably shoud
couch that type statement as an opinion because it will come back
to bite you in a soft spot, guaranteed....

Best regards,

Lin

http://208.56.82.71

 

[Lin Evans]

Lin, what do you think the joke is? Why isn't Templeton just as
qualified to discuss photography as you are with your degrees in
physics and physical anthropology? Exactly what is it he has stated
that threatens you? Perhaps you could point out his errors to those
of us not as smart as you.

Smart has nothing to do with it, Bud - but experience does, and according to Templeton's web site he has a rather old, low resolution digicam and a Canon Rebel, has made his living with dot.com companies, and does photography as a hobby. Here's a quote from his article which says it was written in "April 2000" and updated "February 2002" :

"The best digicams have about 5 million at the time of this writing, and 1.3 and 2 are more common."

The first few paragraphs of his site indicates that he is not aware that six megapixel digital has been around since 1995. That's when I bought my first one and that gives me enough experience with it in the profession to have some well grounded opinions which I've just expressed. Even in April of 2000 there were digicams far exceeding six megapixels - a person who doesn't know this either has no experience or is writing about consumer cameras and doesn't bother to say so.... Read his "Fancy Body Features" section again and you will have to conclude that he doesn't know Kodak's pro line exists! He apparently thinks that the features of high shutter speed, flash sync etc., are something new:

"The new crop of digital SLRs from Canon, Nikon, Fuji etc. have these fancy body features."

Well, these features were around for three five years before he wrote the article in April of 2000.

I don't think this needs any more explanation....... Let the readers who know the history read the post for themselves. His experience is with consumer cameras and that's the way he writes. Not an article by someone who understands professional digital capabilities and limitations.......

You say, after checking my profile, I am not speaking with
pro-digital knowledge. How do you know this? Is it because I
haven't purchased every digital camera on the market as you
apparently have?

It appears you have made my case for me here - it's tough to get practical experience when you don't have the equipment. Reading about professional level digital and using it are different animals.

I haven't been lurking, I post when I have something to say, just
not as often as you perhaps.

I still say a D60 won't make a detailed sharp print at 24X36. By
the way, exactly what is a "decently prepared Canon D60 file" Do
you have some secret PS methods we don't know about (I have only
been using PS for 7 or so years, maybe I missed something)

Saying it doesn't make it so and there are plenty of photographers "with" the experience in this area who disagree with your conclusions, including me. If you don't know what it takes to prepare a digicam file for enlargement to poster size, then how can you expect to get good results? PhotoShop is only one of a number of tools which can properly prepare a file, and if you don't understand how to do it, then maybe you need to spend more time learning how and less time expressing your opinion that it can't be done.... Somehow I don't see that happening, because when a person's mind is made up and they have as strong bias as you express, it's unlikely that much "learning" is going to happen.

Yes I have made 12X18 crops from D60 files sized to 24X36. That's
why I have a 7600 ordered. I have also made hundreds of darkroom
prints at that size. How about you?

In the last 40 years that I've been earning a living at this trade, I suspect I've spent at least as much time in the darkroom as you - and about seven years of it in the digital darkroom with professional level digital. Does that mean I know it all? Of course not. But I do know what works and I'm speaking from sufficient practical experience to recognize a film bias from someone who's history of posting demonstrates that they are seeking answers and would like things to be different than they actually are.

No, I don't have a D60 ( I didn't feel it met any of my
photographic needs)

But you choose to spend time on a digital photo forum promoting film? That's strange - but not unusual.

I notice you proclaim to be a pro-digital photographer, I'm just a
plain old photographer using film or digital or whatever suits the
purpose.

That's interesting, where did you "notice" that? I use pro-digital, prosumer and consumer digital, film in multiple platforms and what ever it takes to satisfy my customers. This discussion concerns digital and 35mm color film parity.

I admit some of my statements may come back to bite me in a soft
spot, but it's not likely going to be by you.

Best Regards.....Bud

Perhaps not, when you are as hard headed as you appear to be, you probably won't even feel it when it happens ;-)

There's little to be gained from continuing this discussion because it's pretty obvious that we set on opposite sides of the fence. I suspect your pro film bias would be appreciated more on a film forum than on a digital forum, but it makes an interesting diversion.....

Best regards,

Lin
http://208.56.82.71

 

[budhines]

I agree, you seem to be as hard headed and biased about digital as you think I am about film and to carry this conversation any further would be a waste of time for both of us. One day perhaps we'll meet somewhere in the middle. I also have over 40 years in photography.... Where did the time go?

Regards...Bud

Lin, what do you think the joke is? Why isn't Templeton just as
qualified to discuss photography as you are with your degrees in
physics and physical anthropology? Exactly what is it he has stated
that threatens you? Perhaps you could point out his errors to those
of us not as smart as you.

Smart has nothing to do with it, Bud - but experience does, and
according to Templeton's web site he has a rather old, low
resolution digicam and a Canon Rebel, has made his living with
dot.com companies, and does photography as a hobby. Here's a quote
from his article which says it was written in "April 2000" and
updated "February 2002" :

"The best digicams have about 5 million at the time of this
writing, and 1.3 and 2 are more common."

The first few paragraphs of his site indicates that he is not aware
that six megapixel digital has been around since 1995. That's when
I bought my first one and that gives me enough experience with it
in the profession to have some well grounded opinions which I've
just expressed. Even in April of 2000 there were digicams far
exceeding six megapixels - a person who doesn't know this either
has no experience or is writing about consumer cameras and doesn't
bother to say so.... Read his "Fancy Body Features" section again
and you will have to conclude that he doesn't know Kodak's pro line
exists! He apparently thinks that the features of high shutter
speed, flash sync etc., are something new:

"The new crop of digital SLRs from Canon, Nikon, Fuji etc. have
these fancy body features."

Well, these features were around for three five years before he
wrote the article in April of 2000.

I don't think this needs any more explanation....... Let the
readers who know the history read the post for themselves. His
experience is with consumer cameras and that's the way he writes.
Not an article by someone who understands professional digital
capabilities and limitations.......

You say, after checking my profile, I am not speaking with
pro-digital knowledge. How do you know this? Is it because I
haven't purchased every digital camera on the market as you
apparently have?

It appears you have made my case for me here - it's tough to get
practical experience when you don't have the equipment. Reading
about professional level digital and using it are different animals.

I haven't been lurking, I post when I have something to say, just
not as often as you perhaps.

I still say a D60 won't make a detailed sharp print at 24X36. By
the way, exactly what is a "decently prepared Canon D60 file" Do
you have some secret PS methods we don't know about (I have only
been using PS for 7 or so years, maybe I missed something)

Saying it doesn't make it so and there are plenty of photographers
"with" the experience in this area who disagree with your
conclusions, including me. If you don't know what it takes to
prepare a digicam file for enlargement to poster size, then how can
you expect to get good results? PhotoShop is only one of a number
of tools which can properly prepare a file, and if you don't
understand how to do it, then maybe you need to spend more time
learning how and less time expressing your opinion that it can't be
done.... Somehow I don't see that happening, because when a
person's mind is made up and they have as strong bias as you
express, it's unlikely that much "learning" is going to happen.

Yes I have made 12X18 crops from D60 files sized to 24X36. That's
why I have a 7600 ordered. I have also made hundreds of darkroom
prints at that size. How about you?

In the last 40 years that I've been earning a living at this trade,
I suspect I've spent at least as much time in the darkroom as you -
and about seven years of it in the digital darkroom with
professional level digital. Does that mean I know it all? Of course
not. But I do know what works and I'm speaking from sufficient
practical experience to recognize a film bias from someone who's
history of posting demonstrates that they are seeking answers and
would like things to be different than they actually are.

No, I don't have a D60 ( I didn't feel it met any of my
photographic needs)

But you choose to spend time on a digital photo forum promoting
film? That's strange - but not unusual.

I notice you proclaim to be a pro-digital photographer, I'm just a
plain old photographer using film or digital or whatever suits the
purpose.

That's interesting, where did you "notice" that? I use pro-digital,
prosumer and consumer digital, film in multiple platforms and what
ever it takes to satisfy my customers. This discussion concerns
digital and 35mm color film parity.

I admit some of my statements may come back to bite me in a soft
spot, but it's not likely going to be by you.

Best Regards.....Bud

Perhaps not, when you are as hard headed as you appear to be, you
probably won't even feel it when it happens ;-)

There's little to be gained from continuing this discussion because
it's pretty obvious that we set on opposite sides of the fence. I
suspect your pro film bias would be appreciated more on a film
forum than on a digital forum, but it makes an interesting
diversion.....

Best regards,

Lin
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Lin Evans]

I agree, you seem to be as hard headed and biased about digital as
you think I am about film and to carry this conversation any
further would be a waste of time for both of us. One day perhaps
we'll meet somewhere in the middle. I also have over 40 years in
photography.... Where did the time go?

Regards...Bud

I know you're right - I'm the first one to admit it (digital bias and hard headed to the nth degree - it takes one to know one ), but it came from discovering the myriad benefits (and also the pitfalls) of using digital after many, many, years of choking on chemicals and wishing there were easier ways of getting the results. And the time does fly - but hopefully with a little more time Foveon will produce a product which works for you and get that "sharpness" which you miss in the digital arena.

Best regards,

Lin

http://208.56.82.71

 

[budhines]

Thanks Lin, stay healthy and enjoy life......I'm sure we'll talk again about something else....Bud

I agree, you seem to be as hard headed and biased about digital as
you think I am about film and to carry this conversation any
further would be a waste of time for both of us. One day perhaps
we'll meet somewhere in the middle. I also have over 40 years in
photography.... Where did the time go?

Regards...Bud

I know you're right - I'm the first one to admit it (digital bias
and hard headed to the nth degree - it takes one to know one ),
but it came from discovering the myriad benefits (and also the
pitfalls) of using digital after many, many, years of choking on
chemicals and wishing there were easier ways of getting the
results. And the time does fly - but hopefully with a little more
time Foveon will produce a product which works for you and get that
"sharpness" which you miss in the digital arena.

Best regards,

Lin

http://208.56.82.71

 

[big_film_nerd]

Resolution, or the number of pixels, is only half the problem with digital imaging. What it needs is greater DEPTH of color information per pixel.

Current imaging usually uses 24-bit color. What does this mean? It means for each of the Red, Green, Blue channels can have 8-bits, 256 levels. This needs probably needs to be doubled to truly match film's infinite depth.

Photoshop allows users the option to use 48-bit color (16-bits per RGB channel). How many digital cameras currently capture an image using 48-bits? None I think.

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

 

[KenEis]

One more reply to an old thread....

Bring on the pixels. More is always better. Your concern about file space is really not a problem because you don't have to go there. Just picture yourself with a camera that takes 4-5 MP images and you can create files of about 1 MB each. You save 500 of them on a 20 cent CDR. Now your out facing a truely once in a lifetime image and you dial in 20 MPixel resolution for that one photo. I'm sure you would want it. So highest resolution is not necessarily your standard operating setting. No one is concerned about a wider range of ISO settings. Better noise figure is always better too but you sometimes elect to go to higher ISO for action etc. The point is it allows flexibility in your photography. The only real issue is cost. As has already been mentioned Moore's Law will drop the cost of 6 or 10 or 20 MP cameras .... eventually.

One other thing you have overlooked in your storage analysis is compression algorithm improvements. Your logic is based on jpeg compression. The new jp2000 algorithms, based on wavelet theory promise to give you better compression and better picture quality without as many artifacts as current methods. You may be taking about a 20MP image being stored in a 2MP file with hardly any lose in quality.

Remember that Moore's Law applies to the entire process including camera resolution, recording media, and computer CPU speeds. In 5 years you will be able to store and manipulate that 10 MB image as easily as you do today with a 500K image.. at a lower cost.

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

--
Ken Eis

 

[KenEis]

Yes, but remember to double the 8 bit depth you only have to go to 9 bit. Current DSLR are at 12 bit with is 2 to the 4 power or 16 times the depth of 8 bit. The limit here is the dynamic range of the CCD or CMOS chip, not the analog to digital conversion. Most software capable of 12 bit can handle a full 16 bit byte. A 16 bit depth would give you 256 x 256 levels for each color!

Current imaging usually uses 24-bit color. What does this mean? It
means for each of the Red, Green, Blue channels can have 8-bits,
256 levels. This needs probably needs to be doubled to truly match
film's infinite depth.

Photoshop allows users the option to use 48-bit color (16-bits per
RGB channel). How many digital cameras currently capture an image
using 48-bits? None I think.

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

--
Ken Eis

 

[big_film_nerd]

Yes, current DSLRs sample at 12 bit or maybe higher, but how much of this extra info makes it to the actual printout. You'd have to have a "RAW" read into your computer, make sure you maintain 16-bits/channel throughout editing in Photoshop, and even then do most prosumer printers know how to deal with an image in greater that 24-bit/8 per channel form? My epson doesn't.

My point is to address the complaint by many that digital does not have subtlety in the shadows or highlights, which I think is a result of not having enough information to start with. Most of those 8-bits per channel or dedicated to the midtones; whereas a the contrast S-curve of film seems to provide more detail, at the extremes. For digital to duplicate the "S-curve" of film, I think it would need those extra bits of information.

Current imaging usually uses 24-bit color. What does this mean? It
means for each of the Red, Green, Blue channels can have 8-bits,
256 levels. This needs probably needs to be doubled to truly match
film's infinite depth.

Photoshop allows users the option to use 48-bit color (16-bits per
RGB channel). How many digital cameras currently capture an image
using 48-bits? None I think.

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

--
Ken Eis

 

[Lin Evans]

Resolution, or the number of pixels, is only half the problem with
digital imaging. What it needs is greater DEPTH of color
information per pixel.

Current imaging usually uses 24-bit color. What does this mean? It
means for each of the Red, Green, Blue channels can have 8-bits,
256 levels. This needs probably needs to be doubled to truly match
film's infinite depth.

Photoshop allows users the option to use 48-bit color (16-bits per
RGB channel). How many digital cameras currently capture an image
using 48-bits? None I think.

Sure they do Phase One LightPhase, for example announced a 48bit digital back which captures in 48 bit (16 bis per channel) back in late 99. Even my EOS-1D and DCS-760 capture in 36 bit.

Lin

http://208.56.82.71

 

[Herbert2002]

When I bought a camara a few months back, I had to decide between a Mega Megapixel brick of a camara that takes brillant billboard-size prints; or a smallish camara with just enough pixels for a decent 8"x10". I opted for the "smaller" one (Canon S40) and I only had one ocassion when I really need even more megapixels for a big shot, but I've had far too many ocassions when I simply need a camara with me. As a matter of fact, I really could have done with an even smaller camara at 2mp just so I can keep it around at all times, and for 90% of the pictures I've taken the 2mp difference would not have mattered. Not to say there isn't a proper use for a billbboard-size print, but for the majority who needs a camara just to take everyday snapshots, I think 3 or 4mps are plenty. And it won't overwhelm your harddrive space.

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

 

[frank gowarty]

Totally , agree with Herbert.
I have a Dimage 7. Way too much over head for candids and quick takes

I am looking at the Dimage X as a supplement camera for parties, vacations and all around usage, portabilty and convenience.

I am needing the 5mega pixel image less and less as I learn to shoot and print.