Ben Horne
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #2 · 21 megapixels too much? | |
Cableaddict wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
Cableaddict wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
Also, when a 21 megapixel image is downsized to 12MP, you will end up with a super high quality 12 MP file that will blow away the 5D.
Ben, can you explain that, technically? Perhaps you are correct (and this goes back to my last question, above) but if the human eye can't detect past a certain pixel-density, then your statement would seem to make no sense.
I'm trying hard to understand this mp issue, so as to make future purchase decisions. (loving my 5D right now)
Simple. Take one of your existing photos, and examine the quality at pixel level (1:1). Look at the way that tree leaves look, or other sorts of fine detail. Now, downsize it to about half the megapixel resolution, and look at it again at pixel level (1:1). You will find that the image is not as soft, noise is less of an issue, and the overall image quality is improved. This is not to say that it will print better ---- We're throwing away resolution, but the 1:1 quality improves.
-But that's not the point you made that I am questioning.
I'll buy Jerry & Jonathan's argument, that more pixels = more control for post processes (same as 14 bit vs 12 bit) and really that's enough of an answer. Regardless, I still question your point. We're not talking about downsizing, we're talking about going UP, past the limits of the human eye.
-And this is not an argument from people looking to defend their current 12 mp camera, as someone else wrote. Just the opposite. It's information people need to decide whether or not to upgrade. That should be obvious.
So, even with the "post processing" argument accepted as fact, one has to ask "how much is enough" for a given print size, and I have yet to see any concrete answer. Some websites suggest that a 300 ppi print at 8X10 is more than the eye can see. Maybe yes, maybe no. If so, how many mp is that? How many mp would that require in order to ALSO leave all necessary "extra resolution" for post-processing?
Someone will hopefully do such a real-world test, and soon.
Could you clarify how this does not address your question? I think it makes perfect sense. People will often complain that the 1:1 image quality of a camera is sub-par. Things are a bi soft. This is why the foveon sensors have so much potential, because they are not dealing with interpolated data from a bayer array.
When you take an image, and downsample it, you end up with a higher quality image at a 1:1 pixel level. That's why you can take identical photos with a 12 megapixel camera, and a 21 megapixel camera --- then downsample the 21 to 12 mp, and you'll have a higher quality photo at 12 MP than the native 12 mp file. It will be more clear, and look less digital.
This of course is a direct comparison between a 21 megapixel camera and a 12 megapixel camera at 12 megapixels as the question was asked. If you don't downsample, and keep them at their native resolutions --- but you print large, the 21 megapixel image will obviously also have a huge advantage.
|
XL file >= 16Mpx
)