How many mega pixels?

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Babbling Brook Photography wrote:
I have yet to make the leap to digital, but someday I suppose I'll
join the crowd. My question is how many mega pixels do I need to get
a professional quality 20" x 30" picture that is equivalent to a fine
grained film?

A fine grain 35 mm film is about the same as 50 mega pixels, but there
is no exact comparison since they are apples and oranges. Both good, but
different.

Everyone who has looked at 1Ds images finds them to be far closer to 645
than to 35mm. So on a purely subjective basis, 35mm film (in particular,
Provia 100F) is nowhere close to 11MP.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

A fine grain 35 mm film is about the same as 50 mega pixels, but
there
is no exact comparison since they are apples and oranges. Both good,
but
different.

Everyone who has looked at 1Ds images finds them to be far closer to 645
than to 35mm. So on a purely subjective basis, 35mm film (in particular,
Provia 100F) is nowhere close to 11MP.

Is the Cannon 1D also playing math tricks, or is the larger sensor actually
responsible for the 10mp?

Everyone who has looked at 1Ds images finds them to be far closer to 645
than to 35mm. So on a purely subjective basis, 35mm film (in particular,
Provia 100F) is nowhere close to 11MP.

From: "Ivan"

Is the Cannon 1D also playing math tricks, or is the larger sensor actually
responsible for the 10mp?

Canon 1D has only 4 Mpixels, I think you're mixing the models up ... the new 1D
Mark II has 8.2 Mpixels, the ancient 1Ds has 11.1 Mpixels. And yes, these are
*actual* pixels (ie the array on the 1Ds is 4,072 x 2,712).

You need to rez up the files to make bigger prints (I usually go to 6,000 x
9,000 to print 20x30" from the 1Ds) so you need to know how to do that
correctly and how to sharpen the right way, but because the files are so smooth
you can do this and get excellent 20x30" prints.

Bill

"Ivan" wrote:
A fine grain 35 mm film is about the same as 50 mega pixels, but
there
is no exact comparison since they are apples and oranges. Both good,
but
different.

Everyone who has looked at 1Ds images finds them to be far closer to 645
than to 35mm. So on a purely subjective basis, 35mm film (in particular,
Provia 100F) is nowhere close to 11MP.

Is the Cannon 1D also playing math tricks, or is the larger sensor
actually
responsible for the 10mp?

No math tricks. Canon and Nikon (and Olympus and Pentax and Sony) cameras
actually have the pixels they claim them to have. There's only one mfr that
lies.

The Canon 1D is a 4MP camera.
The Canon 1D mkII is an 8MP camera.
The Canon 1Ds is a 10.989 MP camera that most people call an 11MP camera.

These are all real pixels. Since these are correctly implemented digital
imaging systems, they all include a low-pass filter, and the actual limiting
resolution as seen on a test chart tends to be about 2/3 of the Nyquist
frequency.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Ivan wrote:

"Crownfield" wrote in message
...
Babbling Brook Photography wrote:

I have yet to make the leap to digital, but someday I suppose I'll join
the
crowd. My question is how many mega pixels do I need to get a
professional
quality 20" x 30" picture that is equivalent to a fine grained film?

5 mp will look very good in a 20x30.
12, 24, 48 will of course, look even better.

The few cameras that some posts have refered to as 10mp, are they actually
that high or are the manufacturers playing math tricks?

the SIGMA foveon supporters take the number of
horizontal pixels x vertical pixels
(in their case a very small number)
x camera strap holders
x number of controls on the camera
x number of lenses that fit the camera.

canon, nikon, everyone else
take the number of
horizontal pixels
x vertical pixels = MP.

canon has one 11 mp camera,
and kodak has one 14 mp camera.

best that sigma can offer is 3mp.

Gene Palmiter wrote:

The Fuji plays math tricks too

but it does 6 mp without tricks, 12 mp with tricks.


wrote in message
...
In message ,
"Ivan" wrote:

The few cameras that some posts have refered to as 10mp, are they
actually
that high or are the manufacturers playing math tricks?

If you're referring to the Sigma SD10 (or SD9) camera, the answer is
"math tricks". The sensors record only 3.43 million pixels (albeit in 3
colors each).
--


John P Sheehy

In article , Crownfield
wrote:

[snip]

The few cameras that some posts have refered to as 10mp, are they actually
that high or are the manufacturers playing math tricks?

the SIGMA foveon supporters take the number of
horizontal pixels x vertical pixels
(in their case a very small number)
x camera strap holders
x number of controls on the camera
x number of lenses that fit the camera.

you forgot something:

x George Preddy's multiple personality!!!


canon, nikon, everyone else
take the number of
horizontal pixels
x vertical pixels = MP.

canon has one 11 mp camera,
and kodak has one 14 mp camera.

best that sigma can offer is 3mp.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Babbling Brook Photography wrote:
I have yet to make the leap to digital, but someday I suppose I'll
join the crowd. My question is how many mega pixels do I need to get
a professional quality 20" x 30" picture that is equivalent to a fine
grained film?

A fine grain 35 mm film is about the same as 50 mega pixels, but there
is no exact comparison since they are apples and oranges. Both good, but
different.

If you take the resolving power of a film like Fuji Astia, which is the
highest resolution colour film you have a maximum resolving power of 150
lp/mm x24x36 you would get a grid of 3600x5400= 19,440,000 or roughly 19 MP
however film is an emulsion, not a sensor grid and there is more happening
to form an image. The other equation is 150 lp/mm is higher resolution than
most lenses can deliver. Most colour (type C) paper can resolve 200 lp/mm,
but I understand some of the new paper for the hybrid printers like the Agfa
D-lab are more like 300 lp/mm. Unlike digital papers the 20x30" paper is
still 200 lp/mm same as the 40" wide rolls. So if one were to take a photo
with similar cameras like the Nikon F100 and D100 under ideal conditions, up
to 12x18" it would be hard to really see much difference. As these could
still be printed on the same hybrid printer, for example the Agfa D-lab
outputs both film images and digital on the same paper. Now If I were to
make a 20x30" Ilfochrome (Ciba) from the Astia slide and made a 20x30" from
the digital file, first we have to allow that the 20x30 is really equivelent
to a 32x48" print do to the different image capture area (APS-C) of the
DSLR. I have been looking at digital images for a while now, and the the
quality of a prosumer DSLR is excellent. I still will shoot medium-format
and large-format, and I still shoot 35mm slides, because frankly digital
projectors still have a way to come to match a projected slide. Still apples
and oranges, but my best advice is, if you live in a city that has rental
equipment rent a DSLR for the weekend and see if it meets your expectations.

Darrell Larose
Ottawa, Canada

chibitul wrote:

In article , Crownfield
wrote:

[snip]

The few cameras that some posts have refered to as 10mp, are they actually
that high or are the manufacturers playing math tricks?

the SIGMA foveon supporters take the number of
horizontal pixels x vertical pixels
(in their case a very small number)
x camera strap holders
x number of controls on the camera
x number of lenses that fit the camera.

you forgot something:

x George Preddy's multiple personality!!!

my mistake.
thanks for the save.




canon, nikon, everyone else
take the number of
horizontal pixels
x vertical pixels = MP.

canon has one 11 mp camera,
and kodak has one 14 mp camera.

best that sigma can offer is 3mp.

"Darrell Larose" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Babbling Brook Photography wrote:
I have yet to make the leap to digital, but someday I suppose I'll
join the crowd. My question is how many mega pixels do I need to get
a professional quality 20" x 30" picture that is equivalent to a fine
grained film?

A fine grain 35 mm film is about the same as 50 mega pixels, but
there
is no exact comparison since they are apples and oranges. Both good,
but
different.

If you take the resolving power of a film like Fuji Astia, which is the
highest resolution colour film you have a maximum resolving power of 150
lp/mm x24x36 you would get a grid of 3600x5400= 19,440,000 or roughly 19
MP
however film is an emulsion, not a sensor grid and there is more happening
to form an image. The other equation is 150 lp/mm is higher resolution
than
most lenses can deliver. Most colour (type C) paper can resolve 200 lp/mm,
but I understand some of the new paper for the hybrid printers like the
Agfa
D-lab are more like 300 lp/mm. Unlike digital papers the 20x30" paper is
still 200 lp/mm same as the 40" wide rolls. So if one were to take a photo
with similar cameras like the Nikon F100 and D100 under ideal conditions,
up
to 12x18" it would be hard to really see much difference. As these could
still be printed on the same hybrid printer, for example the Agfa D-lab
outputs both film images and digital on the same paper. Now If I were to
make a 20x30" Ilfochrome (Ciba) from the Astia slide and made a 20x30"
from
the digital file, first we have to allow that the 20x30 is really
equivelent
to a 32x48" print do to the different image capture area (APS-C) of the
DSLR. I have been looking at digital images for a while now, and the the
quality of a prosumer DSLR is excellent. I still will shoot medium-format
and large-format, and I still shoot 35mm slides, because frankly digital
projectors still have a way to come to match a projected slide. Still
apples
and oranges, but my best advice is, if you live in a city that has rental
equipment rent a DSLR for the weekend and see if it meets your
expectations.

Darrell Larose
Ottawa, Canada


Excellant reply Darrell, THANKS!
I'm slowly wading my way through the stages of purchasing the right
equipment. In the past I just threw money around until I was satisfied.
Thanks, Ivan