A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

3, 4, 5, 8 MP 8x10 printout comparison - Long



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 26th 04, 02:38 AM
Alan Meyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 3, 4, 5, 8 MP 8x10 printout comparison - Long

Curious about just how many megapixels you need to get a
good 8x10 print, I did a test. I went to
http://www.steves-digicams.com and downloaded a similar
image from his samples for four different cameras. The
cameras we

3mp Canon S30
4mp Minolta Dimage Z2
5mp Canon S60
8mp Nikon 8700

The images were pictures of a shelf in Steve's house
containing some photography magazines, an M&M candy
statue, a barometer, an orangutan poster, and some other
things. The photos were not identical, but are very
similar.

I loaded up each image in IrfanView and printed each at 8x10
size on a Xerox Phaser 7700. The Xerox is an office printer
that is definitely _not_ photo quality, but it still gives a
useful color print.

I examined the photos on a CRT screen, on the paper
printouts, and on the printouts with magnifying lenses. For
whatever they're worth, here are my impressions:

3 mp.
I own a 3 mp camera and had always been satisfied with
the 8x10's I printed from it. Looking at the printouts
from two feet away, they looked fine. It was only when
I looked at the other printouts that I realized how much
the 3 mp was missing.

Specifically:
The larger object in the image that has little or
no fine detail (the M&M statue) looks very good,
probably about as good as with the other cameras.

However the fine print seen on the Ozium can and the
Digital Camera magazine spines is readable, but not
sharp and clear. Was the Ozium can not in perfect
focus? My guess is that the focus may not have been
perfect, but the low pixel count was contributing to
the lack of sharpness.

The finest print on the barometer is not readable
either on screen or on the printout.

4 mp.
To me, this looked better than than the 3 mp image, but
there was still room for improvement.

The fine print on the Ozium can was definitely
sharper than on the 3 mp image. The spines of the
magazines were slightly sharper, but still not
perfect.

The fine print on the barometer was still not
readable, either on screen or on paper.

Even from 2 feet away, the image looked clearer than
on the 3 mp camera, though only in the fine detail
areas.

5 mp.
To my eye, the 5 mp image printout looked very good.

The can and the magazines were sharp and clear. I
thought the difference was noticeable in comparison
to the 4 mp.

The image of the digital barometer was clearer on
screen than the others. The barometer part of the
printout also looked better, but only slightly
better than for the smaller pixel count cameras.

From two feet away, the image didn't look much
better than the 4 mp. If I looked at the details
closeup and noted the differences between the
images, I could then detect those differences from
two feet away. At a casual glance, I did not notice
the differences.

8 mp.
To me, the 8 mp printout looked only very slightly
better than the 5 mp printout.

The Ozium can and the magazine images were both very
sharp and clear, but I had to look very closely to
see any difference between it and the 5 mp image.

The characters on the barometer looked slightly
contrastier and better defined than on the 5 mp, but
only slightly so.

From 2 feet away, it was hard for me to say that the
8 mp image was better than the 5.

On screen, the 8 mp image was much better than all
the others. This tells me that there is detail in
the 8 mp image that is lost when printed at "only"
8x10. An 11x14 or 16x20 image would probably show a
significant difference as compared to the 5 mp
image.

Conclusions:

3 mp:
To my eye, the 3 mp camera is more than adequate for 4x6
and 5x7 printouts. It is adequate for 8x10s, and
possibly even 11x14s, but only for images in which fine
detail is not crucial for a good view of the subject.
For example, portraits and landscapes, especially when
mounted to be seen from more than two feet away, would
look quite acceptable to me.

If what I want is fine detail, for example to read the
signs in the shop windows of that street scene one
shoots on an Italian vacation, 3 mp is not enough.

4 mp:
4 mp looks better at fine detail. For me, I believe
it's probably worth the extra money to buy.

5 mp:
5 mp looks better still. If I could find a reasonably
priced camera that had 5 mp plus all of the other
features I wanted (like a long zoom), I'd be willing to
pay more for the 5 mp over a 4 mp camera. If I found a
4 mp camera that had all the features I wanted but
couldn't find a 5 mp with comparable features without
paying a much higher price, I'd be tempted to go with
the 4 mp, or maybe to wait for prices on 5 mp cameras to
come down.

8 mp:
For my purposes, looking at images on screen and
printing at up to 8x10, 8 mp seems to be overkill.
Extra money paid for the camera wouldn't return
noticeably better prints at 8x10 or smaller. If I
wanted bigger prints or wanted to be able to crop an
image, 8 mp would be worthwhile. But if I don't need
that, I don't need 8 mp.

Of course if 8 mp didn't cost any more ..., but it does.

Finally, I should note that I am not a professional
photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At
one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur
photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel
and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may
not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always
say, your mileage may vary.

Alan


  #2  
Old August 26th 04, 03:40 AM
BenOne©
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Meyer wrote:

Curious about just how many megapixels you need to get a
good 8x10 print, I did a test. I went to
http://www.steves-digicams.com and downloaded a similar
image from his samples for four different cameras. The
cameras we

SNIP
Finally, I should note that I am not a professional
photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At
one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur
photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel
and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may
not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always
say, your mileage may vary.


Very interesting reading Alan.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

  #3  
Old August 26th 04, 04:52 AM
John Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A very useful contribution. Thanks very much for sharing your conclusions.

- JW


"Alan Meyer" wrote
Curious about just how many megapixels you need to get a
good 8x10 print, I did a test. I went to
http://www.steves-digicams.com and downloaded a similar
image from his samples for four different cameras.
... [rest snipped]





  #5  
Old August 26th 04, 07:40 AM
Jem Raid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Very good indeed, if this was a forum then this should be a 'sticky' always
at the top.

So many of us are drawn in by advertising and the claims of the
manufacturers, when the truth is, not much difference until you get to twice
the number of pixels e.g. 4 mp is twice 2 mp, but from 4mp a significant
improvement would have to be 16 mp. So by that reckoning a 50% improvement
should be apparent from 4 mp to 8mp which does seem to be the case.

Jem


"bob" wrote in message
...
"Alan Meyer" wrote in news:CMOdnekMGKZPo7DcRVn-
:

Finally, I should note that I am not a professional
photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At
one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur
photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel
and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may
not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always
say, your mileage may vary.


Good disclaimer.

I have a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (5mp), and I've been very happy with the
results at 8x10. They easily exceede any color prints I ever got from
35mm film (blame the processor, I suppose, if you're a color film bigot).

I don't think that an 8mp camera would provide better results at 8x10
than 5mp under most circumstances.

If you want to crop, then more pixels is always better.

If there are large areas with subtle color variations, then more pixels
is better. A printer like the Fuji Frontier is going to handle subtle
variations better than the Phaser.

Until Fuji puts printers with 14" paper into Wal-Mart, I don't think I
need to upgrade my Coolpix.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply



  #6  
Old August 26th 04, 07:40 AM
Jem Raid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Very good indeed, if this was a forum then this should be a 'sticky' always
at the top.

So many of us are drawn in by advertising and the claims of the
manufacturers, when the truth is, not much difference until you get to twice
the number of pixels e.g. 4 mp is twice 2 mp, but from 4mp a significant
improvement would have to be 16 mp. So by that reckoning a 50% improvement
should be apparent from 4 mp to 8mp which does seem to be the case.

Jem


"bob" wrote in message
...
"Alan Meyer" wrote in news:CMOdnekMGKZPo7DcRVn-
:

Finally, I should note that I am not a professional
photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At
one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur
photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel
and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may
not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always
say, your mileage may vary.


Good disclaimer.

I have a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (5mp), and I've been very happy with the
results at 8x10. They easily exceede any color prints I ever got from
35mm film (blame the processor, I suppose, if you're a color film bigot).

I don't think that an 8mp camera would provide better results at 8x10
than 5mp under most circumstances.

If you want to crop, then more pixels is always better.

If there are large areas with subtle color variations, then more pixels
is better. A printer like the Fuji Frontier is going to handle subtle
variations better than the Phaser.

Until Fuji puts printers with 14" paper into Wal-Mart, I don't think I
need to upgrade my Coolpix.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply



  #7  
Old August 26th 04, 09:37 AM
Carrigman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have a 5MP Canon G5. I use it mainly for uploading images to various
photographic websites. I haven't printed that much stuff on my home printer
(not a top of the line photographic printer) but those that I did I was
happy enough with. I had assumed that the optimum print size I could get was
8x6.

However.....

Just this last week I decided to get some test prints done in a photographic
lab that uses the Fuji Image Service.

I submitted images on a CD-ROM that had been tweaked (levels, curves,
sharpening etc) in Photoshop. I used a resolution of 300 dpi and requested
8x6 prints.

I was astounded at the clarity, sharpness and colour saturation. They were
brilliant!

I then got a few enlarged to 12x8 using a resolution of 200 dpi and could
see no fall off in quality.

Quite frankly, they are as good as ( if not better than) similar size
Ilfrochrome prints from 35mm Velvia slides. I know that they shouldn't be
....but they are!

I certainly intend to get a lot more such prints done (they are printed on
Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper).

It may well be that with a top of the line home printer similar results
could be achieved. Personally, I am happy to stick to the lab service.

Regards

John





  #8  
Old August 26th 04, 10:24 AM
mark_digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Alan Meyer" wrote in message =
...
snip

Finally, I should note that I am not a professional
photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At
one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur
photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel
and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may
not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always
say, your mileage may vary.

Alan
-------------------
-------------------
-------------------
I own a 8Mp camera and I feel my own comparisons which happen
to differ from yours aren't bias because it can be set to shoot at less
than full potential.
Looking at strickly just numbers, if you fed a Noritsu printer an image
that has an image resolution the same as the printer's capacity, you
couldn't do any better than that.
People are fickle, prone to pooh poohing what they earlier wished for.
They see the pixel count they asked for but now the price makes it
undesirable. Tests, just like yours, using non-photographic paper with
a laser printer to boot because it's cheaper, using images downloaded
from a websight for which you had no control over it's creation, says
more about you than what you thought you were trying to accomplish.

We used to see many paper longevity posts here (acceleration tests).
Some involved putting prints on a dashboard of a car in 150 degree
heat for 3 days. Now that 4x6 prints can be had much cheaper from
a local CVS than from home I don't see anymore testimonials. See?
It's the money, or lack of, that drives the desire for more or less and
how we rationalize why we can or can't.

mark_


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ilford FP+ 8x10 sheetfilm in PMK Pyro rotary - help! Chase Martin In The Darkroom 5 August 20th 04 08:18 PM
How long does unused fixer stay usable? Richard Knoppow In The Darkroom 2 March 30th 04 11:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.