Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              7       8       end
  

Archive 2013 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?
  
 
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Im quite curious about this. Question is rather simple.

What do you prefer? Having more mpix (imagine 36+ mpix) or per-pixel perfect photos with lower resolution (imagine 12 mpix). For sensor size, imagine FF/APS-H.

In case your choice would be per-pixel perfect, you can share how low in mpix number you would be willing to go for it.

Per-pixel perfect for me, means no visible noise, clean and excellent colors, perfectly rendered details (sure depends on lens, but consider that lens is capable enough).

If you want specific examples take D3s vs D800E. Or we can imagine something that doesnt exist yet, lets say Canon 1D Xs with 46 mpix and per-pixel quality of Canon 650D vs Canon 1D Mark III (10 mpix, APS-H).

As I said question is simple, you may write in comments what would be "no go" limits for you.



Mar 26, 2013 at 11:04 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Mescalamba wrote:
What do you prefer? Having more mpix (imagine 36+ mpix) or per-pixel perfect photos with lower resolution (imagine 12 mpix).


You can always downsample the 36+ megapixel image to 12 megapixels, and it will be at least as good as a 12 megapixel original (assuming comparable sensor technology). Hence you can have both.




Mar 26, 2013 at 11:12 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I have no need for more resolution. At least, no real need. I've been shooting 16MP cams for the past 4 years (1Ds Mark II -> GH2 -> OM-D/X-E1), and have honestly never really felt any need for more. I'm not saying I'll never buy a higher resolution body (I have a feeling we won't have much of a choice eventually), but that I don't need it. I rarely print larger than 20" wide, with 16x20 and 12x18 being my most common print sizes, with the very occasional 20x30 thrown in. 16 MP is more than enough for a quality 20" print and looks pretty darn good at 30" as well. I've done one 40" print, and that starts to push it a bit, but it's really not a big deal. I do have one 60" canvas, but I took it with an E-P1 from an 18 image stitch, so there's more than enough resolution there (102MP).

I'd frankly rather save disk space and file processing time, as I just really don't run into resolution issues.



Mar 26, 2013 at 11:19 PM
hiepphotog
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I definitely would want more since it gives me the flexibility and latitude. My lowly desktop can chew through these files at ease (not that I have tried the D800 file though), and storage is so cheap nowadays that I don't have to worry. To me, the more the merrier.


Mar 26, 2013 at 11:26 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I want both!


Mar 26, 2013 at 11:27 PM
LightShow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I want the freedom of choice, high MP for landscapes, low MP for low light.
More than that I want more dynamic range.



Mar 26, 2013 at 11:40 PM
ken.vs.ryu
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Time to buy a kodak slr/c?


Mar 27, 2013 at 02:52 AM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


unless the sensor technology is vastly different more mp is always better. it's easy to downsample to fewer perfect pixels. more pixels always seem to give me more dynamic range and better color gradations. space and processing power is cheap, plus a downsampled raw setting can always be included to for when you want those fewer perfect pixels.


Mar 27, 2013 at 03:31 AM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I want a few more pixels... to make a bigger sensor. Give me a 36x36mm square (by using 50% more pixels than an equal-density 24x36), so I can capture any aspect ratio that fits in the image circle of a 35mm lens, and even use the whole 36x36mm square on many lenses. This wouldn't work in a DSLR, since you'd need a longer mirror that would interfere with most existing 35mm-format lenses, but should be fine on a mirrorless.


Mar 27, 2013 at 04:06 AM
Mirek Elsner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I think the cameras today are reaching the point that MP count is becoming irrelevant to me. There are so many factors impacting resolution besides the sensor that having more MP would not help me much anyways.

That said, I am happy with the MP in current cameras, i.e. 24MP or so.



Mar 27, 2013 at 04:38 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



luminosity
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Neither.

More dynamic range.



Mar 27, 2013 at 04:44 AM
kwalsh
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


More MP never hurts IQ in large sensors - all specifications are improved by it. If it is high enough to eliminate the AA then it improves things significantly.

So for me, more MP to the point no AA needed.




Mar 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


luminosity wrote:
Neither.

More dynamic range.


IIRC more DR results in less contrast.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Mar 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I want better images at large sizes/crops.

You can get this via better PP quality or higher resolution. Or both, obviously. But I'd argue that the more efficient way to get this-- is via increased resolution. As long as resolution increases faster than pp image quality degrades-- as measured at some arbitrary image/resolution size-- than you win.

In reality, resolution increases over the last ten years have followed this trend: Improved image quality. In many cases resolution increases have also come with absolute pp image quality increases. Double win.

Camera makers should make those "I don't need more resolution" people happy (legit concerns: file sizes, CPU cycles) by providing a small-RAW that EMPHASIZES higher PP image quality (sharpness, noise, etc). This saves file size, CPU cycles, and gives the improvements of PP... while leaving open for those that need the resolution to get all the benefits of shooting at full resolution.

Ultimately, I side with higher resolution under the condition that it doesn't degrade image quality when downrezzed to previous high-res files sizes.



Mar 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Yakim Peled wrote:
IIRC more DR results in less contrast.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


That is one possible outcome, but not a necessary one. Larger DR results in more information captured, from dark to light. If you pass that on to the user untreated, then there will be lower contrast. However, you can tonemap it (using either the usual shadows/highlights/curve tools or something more advanced) into something more visually pleasing, without throwing away the extra information gained.



Mar 27, 2013 at 11:15 AM
kwalsh
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Yakim Peled wrote:
IIRC more DR results in less contrast.


No, that's not right.

Depending on how DR is realized (greater well depth vs. lower read noise) it can actually increase your ability to increase contrast without amplifying noise. More DR is always better - you don't have to use it in every shot.



Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM
SoulNibbler
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I'm a hardware addict:
Give me Gpix if you can and I'd be happy.
I'd be even happier though if you could give me single photo detection as a function of time and location. Then I could do all sorts neat computational tricks to correct motion blur and maybe fake some statistics.

If I were a world dictator who had decided that I would make the best and final camera sensor (after the camera is complete I'll bury all the engineers in a tomb, otherwise it would only be best for a short time), I would accept 14M of time-resolved-hyper-spectral-single-photon pixels in whatever format they could build it in. Luckily I'm not dictator so I'll keep waiting for incremental improvements. I'm pretty impressed by my A99 at iso50, its not quite like the old SD14 at iso50, but its certainly not worse.



Mar 27, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I must admit I'm not sure it was contrast but I do remember that someone once explained to me that if you have more DR it necessarily mean that you have less of something else. I think it was contrast but I'm not sure.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Mar 27, 2013 at 11:52 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Clearly more MP for me if I need to choose. I hope the next generation of sensors will be close to 50 Mp on FF. I don't care about file size, I am already set with an ultra fast PC and sufficient hard drive space. I don't need high fps either, I don't need to shoot at high ISO, a bit more DR would be good but higher resolution is more important for me. It allows better cropping. It is always easier to downsize or to compress than being limited in the first place. This is the reason why the latest 5D III is not an option for me because it uses the same old sensor as in the predecessor. D800 is the right step forward IMO.


Mar 27, 2013 at 12:48 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Yakim Peled wrote:
I must admit I'm not sure it was contrast but I do remember that someone once explained to me that if you have more DR it necessarily mean that you have less of something else. I think it was contrast but I'm not sure.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


That's true, but only in the final rendering. More DR is good in the RAW, but too much DR in the JPEG will result in a lower-contrast image. Kwalsh is entirely correct about the preference for more DR from the sensor.



Mar 27, 2013 at 01:05 PM
1
       2       3              7       8       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              7       8       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password