Whither high resolution Digital Images?

About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?
Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will
it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel
spacing of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on
the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.

Comments.......Bob Williams

"bobwilliams" wrote in message
...
About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed on
a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?
Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will
it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel spacing
of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on the
market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.


All you say is correct.

People buy high res cameras for several reasons;

1. Because bigger is better and gives you more bragging rights.

2. Because they want a feature that is in a new model and it comes with
higher resolution (I bought the 5D2 for it's high ISO abilities) - and you
may set the camera to lower resolution (a).

3. Because, like me, they want to print some A2 photographs on their
excellent Epson 3880 printer.

(a) If you do this you can't then offer your image for a photographic
exhibition that wants larger prints - such as the one my local camera club
is preparing.

Conclusion - whatever camera you have use the full resolution and then
reduce it to suit your purpose. Even if you are intending your snaps for web
use don't take low res pictures because someone might just ask to buy a nice
big print from you.

John

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0700, bobwilliams
wrote:

About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

Because when I shoot the pic I don't really know what the final use
will be. So why not shoot at high-res so you can print, display, crop,
etc?


2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?
Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will
it stop?

Nobody would buy a camera designed for such a narrow usage. Many ofus
display on the web and print and make calendars, and photo books, etc.
Are we going to buy two cameras: one for web and one for print? Nope.

A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel
spacing of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on
the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.

Again, if that's ALL you'll ever do with your images, use a cell
phone. I print, in addition to web display. I won't buy a low-res cam
just for that; makes no sense at all.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:

About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG. I asked
something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"? E-Mail to friends
and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience. Archive to look at later on your computer. Make 4x6 prints
to send to friends and family without computers. Make 8x10 or larger
prints for physical archiving. Much to my surprise, of those who
responded, only a small percentage made any prints at all. And only
about 10% or responders commonly made 8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints. Most people
have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP. 4x6 prints made
at 288 ppi require only 2 MP. If these are the most commonly used
options, for displaying digital images, even among pretty sophisticated
photographers, (such as those in this NG), Why on earth don't camera
makers cater to this crowd with a high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor
P/S camera, instead of offering 10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or
i/2.5" sensors? Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP
as the main criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but....
OMG! When will it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns. By
comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel spacing
of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on
the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints. Emails could
be sent without resizing.

Comments.......Bob Williams

People are sheep. Most will get the 'in' thing. Some of us actually
consider what we do, what we are likely to do, what we may do. The
majority of my photos don't get printed - but by using available
resources and routinely shooting in raw, I can do what I want with any of
them. More recently, I've had occasion to print out several photos for my
mother in law. She is a recognized artist now in 'assisted living'. If I
can give her something to work with, I'm happy to do that.

bobwilliams wrote:
About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?
Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will
it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel
spacing of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on
the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.

Comments.......Bob Williams

People make their purchases based on needs, availability and cost. The
fact that they settle on a final choice doesn't necessarily mean every
feature offered was optimum for them. I purchased a small p&s because I
just don't take that many pics anymore and something pocketable and
cheap were the deciding factors. It takes pretty good pics and I don't
find the higher than necessary pixel count to be much of a downside.
If I were younger with a family my choice would have been quite a
different one. If I were doing this for money it would be different again.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:

About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG. I asked
something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"? E-Mail to friends
and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience. Archive to look at later on your computer. Make 4x6 prints
to send to friends and family without computers. Make 8x10 or larger
prints for physical archiving. Much to my surprise, of those who
responded, only a small percentage made any prints at all. And only
about 10% or responders commonly made 8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints. Most people
have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP. 4x6 prints made
at 288 ppi require only 2 MP. If these are the most commonly used
options, for displaying digital images, even among pretty sophisticated
photographers, (such as those in this NG), Why on earth don't camera
makers cater to this crowd with a high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor
P/S camera,

Because a 2 MP camera would only have 0.5 MP red pixels, 0.5 MP blue
pixels, and 1 MP green pixels. If you want a sensor which has at least 2
MP for every component, you'll need 8 MP. And that's a _minimum_
requirement, so the 10-14MP range of current compacts isn't that weird at
all.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On 03/08/2010 17:21, Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:

About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG. I asked
something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"? E-Mail to friends
and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience. Archive to look at later on your computer. Make 4x6 prints
to send to friends and family without computers. Make 8x10 or larger

As 5x7 prints are the same price at our local shop I go for them for
proofs. I only print the good stuff and I always shoot at maximum
resolution highest quality. You never know when the image might be
needed. I don't see much point in having a sensor with a resolution that
goes beyond the capabilities of the glass in front of it. That threshold
is starting to be crossed in some P&S cameras.

prints for physical archiving. Much to my surprise, of those who
responded, only a small percentage made any prints at all. And only
about 10% or responders commonly made 8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

Printing up to A3+ myself and wanting source material that will stand
enlargement to 30x40" without too much visible pixelation.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints. Most people
have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP. 4x6 prints made
at 288 ppi require only 2 MP. If these are the most commonly used
options, for displaying digital images, even among pretty sophisticated
photographers, (such as those in this NG), Why on earth don't camera
makers cater to this crowd with a high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor
P/S camera,

Because a 2 MP camera would only have 0.5 MP red pixels, 0.5 MP blue
pixels, and 1 MP green pixels. If you want a sensor which has at least 2
MP for every component, you'll need 8 MP. And that's a _minimum_
requirement, so the 10-14MP range of current compacts isn't that weird at
all.

That is an artificial requirement to have at least 2Mpixel of each
channel. On a good quality dyesub print it is quite difficult to spot
images printed at 150dpi from those printed at 300dpi. This is for real
images with typical mix of content and not resolution testcards.

In other words on a top of the range printer you can just about get away
with a 10x8" print from a 1600x1200 source image. It will not stand
close inspection by someone who knows what to look for but most of the
public cannot see the difference unless it is pointed out.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Robert Spanjaard" wrote
bel.net...

................................................. ..
Because a 2 MP camera would only have 0.5 MP red pixels, 0.5 MP blue
pixels, and 1 MP green pixels. If you want a sensor which has at least 2
MP for every component, you'll need 8 MP. And that's a _minimum_
requirement, so the 10-14MP range of current compacts isn't that weird at
all.
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com


An "X megapixel" camera has X megapixels as output from the processing done
on the charge read from the sensor's PHOTOSITES, filtered for R G and B and
Bayer composited. The photosites are in such numbers so to produce the
quoted full color megapixels. The actual photosite RGB matrix is
proprietary., as is the percentage of neighboring pixel usage.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0700, bobwilliams
wrote:

About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?

That's a damned good question actually. On a monitor, there's
no visible difference (at least not to me) between an image in RAW
format (or TIFF), and one in JPG (or JPEG) format.
RAW is only necessary if you want to print images. Still,
there are situations where a DSLR will get you a far better photo even
in JPEG than any P & S camera will.

I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?

Let's just say for the sake of argument that for a large
screen monitor, you want at least a 3 MP image.
Then it would seem like if you made a good 3 MP camera much
cheaper than others could produce their 10 or more megapixel cameras,
you'd sell a ton, right?
Wrong. It isn't about what's true or real; it's about what
people PERCIEVE things to be. That's a matter of marketing, and I'm
sure that with a few focus groups, I could prove to you a number of
ways that a 3 MP camera would die on the shelves.
Now, IF (and it's a big IF) you could truly produce it
cheaply, or even for the same price but give consumers options at that
same price that the others could not match without going up radically,
you might find a niche in the market of people willing to buy your
product.
Probably not however.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that at 150 - 200
dollars, you manage to build a very nice little 3 MP camera that comes
with things like an external flash, (more powerful than the built in
one), and some attachable lenses for a variety of types of
photography, most likely plastic ones, but with a good hard coating so
they could last a while.
You might have something quite useful, but the very next thing
that would happen is this; one of the big companies would produce a
lens system for their's that would allow attaching different ones
(then it's no longer an advantage for your company), and they'd be
charging as much as an entry level DSLR.
Some very practical people would still buy yours', but a lot
of potential customers would be afraid that their peers would look
down on them and not buy yours.
The VW bug had some adherents in the US in the '70s, but how
many of them were people whose friends all drove sports cars?
It's a marketing matter, not a matter of practicality.
If you put together a good campaign though and attached the
idea of practicality to what a lot of people don't like about big,
over-priced systems though, you'd have a chance to at least make some
profit in the short term.
If you decide to go for it, let me know and I'll help design
the campaign... for a percentage of what money the company makes.

Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will
it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel
spacing of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on
the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.

Comments.......Bob Williams

"eatmorepies" wrote:

snip

2. Because they want a feature that is in a new model and it comes
with
higher resolution (I bought the 5D2 for it's high ISO abilities) - and
you
may set the camera to lower resolution (a).

Agreed. I recently bought an ixus 200is for it's 24mm lens and low light
performance. The ridiculous amount of pixels included was overkill. I
really only needed 2-3MP max for my intended purpose.

snip