Where are the BEST Point and Shoot Photos ?

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:52:55 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
In practice, on an
A4-sized print (297 x 210mm), 3.3MP is good, but substantially more pixels
(e.g. 6MP) will look a little sharper.

That's 8.3" x 11.7", roughly the same as 8x10, for which the normal
viewing distance is 19" and the needed PPI is 181, or about 3.1 MP.
Given the limits of human vision, more (6) MP would only be sharper at
closer viewing distance and/or under ideal viewing conditions.

Remember, that with anything that is as subjective as photography, each
person will have their own criteria as to what is "good enough". Around
here, we have heard from those who would see an 8x10 print of a scenery shot
of a small town taken from a mountain side and want to be able to use a
magnifying glass to read the headline on a newspaper being read by a man on
his front porch at the far side of town (right?). For those, a 100 gigapixel
image would be barely acceptable. For others a photo of grandpa and the
grand kids playing at the park hanging on the livingroom wall is good if you
can recognize the people in the picture from 8' away. For these a 1 to 1.5
mp image will do fine. With such subjective differences it is very difficult
to put hard numbers to anything that will satisfy everyone. Even if we limit
discussion to a specific set of circumstances such as print size, viewing
distance, etc there will be those who will be very happy with 1mp image, and
others who will say 6mp doesn't present enough sharpness.

Then if you add the problem of subject, things get even more confusing. As
one person mentioned, some "modern art" images could be very easily captured
with 30 to 40 mp, while some highly detailed images are pressing the imaging
limits with 10-12mp.

This is why I (for one) advocate the right tool for the right job. If you
are intending to shoot something that is more of a memory enhancer (such as
the Grandpa and kids photo) you can use a lower resolution camera that fits
in a pocket easily and is so easy to use that you can almost "think" the
photo onto the memory. When you are intending to shoot something for showing
off, a higher res camera with many manual settings is the right tool. And if
your intent is to publish or document some scene where you now or someday in
the future may want to examine almost invisible fine details, the very best
equipment available is the way to go. Each of these uses is a totally valid
use and will somewhat define what is "good enough". There is no "best
camera" or "best resolution", or "best technique" that will cover absolutely
every need and desire.

JMHO

Randy

acl wrote:
On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas wrote:

An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...

Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
the above statement.

I was rather startled to discover some years ago that I couldn't see
any failures in sharpness or detail on A4 prints from my 3MP digital
camera when viewed at a distance of two feet. I hadn't expected them
to be as good as that. I could easily see the failures of detail
etc. at six inches, however. Extrapolating from that result I would
expect 6MP to be good enough for A3 prints at two foot viewing
distance, and 12MP for A2. The "A" paper sizes go up in size
increments of the square root of 2, so every doubling of image pixels
should get you up one A4 size. Like apertures and shutter speeds.

In a week or two I will have discovered what 10MP can look like at A2
on a wall at two feet :-)

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:52:55 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
[]
Only if you're dot peeping the print. Print quality is subject to
viewing conditions and viewing distance. An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only
156 PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

I make it just 2.3MP. However, I find that holding a print in my hand to
view, I have more like 15 inches away than 22 inches, so something nearer
to 5MP would be required (using the same criteria).

14" is indeed considered inspection distance, but not normal viewing
distance for anything bigger than 4x6. If you are going to view such
prints at less than normal viewing distance, then you will of course
need proportionally more pixels.

In practice, on an
A4-sized print (297 x 210mm), 3.3MP is good, but substantially more pixels
(e.g. 6MP) will look a little sharper.

That's 8.3" x 11.7", roughly the same as 8x10, for which the normal
viewing distance is 19" and the needed PPI is 181, or about 3.1 MP.

I wonder if that calculation lay behind the oddly specific 3.1MP of my
Canon Powershot A300? I certainly couldn't spot any failures of detail
or sharpness in A4 prints from that at two feet. At one foot, however,
I could discern the digitisation, and at six inches it was annoyingly
obstrusive.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

So how is it that images on my 13 x 10.5 inch display, with all of 1.3MP,
appear perfectly sharp when viewed at 21 inches? Something to do with the
pixels being sharp?

G

David

On Nov 22, 1:53 pm, Chris Malcolm wrote:
acl wrote:
On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas wrote:
An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...
Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
the above statement.

I was rather startled to discover some years ago that I couldn't see
any failures in sharpness or detail on A4 prints from my 3MP digital
camera when viewed at a distance of two feet. I hadn't expected them
to be as good as that. I could easily see the failures of detail
etc. at six inches, however. Extrapolating from that result I would
expect 6MP to be good enough for A3 prints at two foot viewing
distance, and 12MP for A2. The "A" paper sizes go up in size
increments of the square root of 2, so every doubling of image pixels
should get you up one A4 size. Like apertures and shutter speeds.

In a week or two I will have discovered what 10MP can look like at A2
on a wall at two feet :-)


Well I certainly don't disagree that, if you look from far enough, 3mp
is enough for A4. I, however, certainly don't look at my A4 prints
from 60cm. And I do like as much detail as possible in my prints (but
then again, I am clearly a lousy photographer trying to justify my
equipment).

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:58:17 -0800 (PST), acl
wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:53 pm, Chris Malcolm wrote:
acl wrote:
On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas wrote:
An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...
Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
the above statement.

I was rather startled to discover some years ago that I couldn't see
any failures in sharpness or detail on A4 prints from my 3MP digital
camera when viewed at a distance of two feet. I hadn't expected them
to be as good as that. I could easily see the failures of detail
etc. at six inches, however. Extrapolating from that result I would
expect 6MP to be good enough for A3 prints at two foot viewing
distance, and 12MP for A2. The "A" paper sizes go up in size
increments of the square root of 2, so every doubling of image pixels
should get you up one A4 size. Like apertures and shutter speeds.

In a week or two I will have discovered what 10MP can look like at A2
on a wall at two feet :-)


Well I certainly don't disagree that, if you look from far enough, 3mp
is enough for A4. I, however, certainly don't look at my A4 prints
from 60cm. And I do like as much detail as possible in my prints (but
then again, I am clearly a lousy photographer trying to justify my
equipment).


You're finally starting to figure it out. I know you thought you were being
cutely and cleverly sarcastic, but you're not. Failing on both counts, neither
cute nor clever. You're looking at the details so much because your photography
as a whole isn't worth your attention, probably nobody else's attention either.
That's the main reason, often the only reason, that most people are as hung up
on the details as you are. You sit there thinking, "If ONLY I had more
resolution, more clarity, more pixels, THEN someone will be able to see my
photography for how great it is! And then so will I!"

If you can't find the quality that you need in the subject and composition then
no amount of pixels in the universe will ever save you.

"All art is knowing when to stop." - Toni Morrison

It would be interesting to test the "least needed" limit as to what others might
find as admirable photography. Can it be done with just 2 pixels of the right
hues? Just one? I daresay I might need at least 180x120 to pull it off. I'm not
that confident. Then again, some icons I've designed in the past with dimensions
of less than 20 pixels per side were fairly attractive.

Resolution means nothing without it being able to convey something of
interminable value.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:22:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

So how is it that images on my 13 x 10.5 inch display, with all of 1.3MP,
appear perfectly sharp when viewed at 21 inches? Something to do with the
pixels being sharp?

G

David


The quality of the lens being able to accurately divide the image details into
individual pixels is a great asset to needing less print resolution.

One of my early Fuji Finepix cameras qualifies for this, as well as having
taught me that. Its 1.2 MP images easily print to 10x8 prints. I've even printed
some from it to 14x11s with no problem. (given some minor post processing,
up-sample + Focus Magic)

If each pixel matters in the original image, then you have more leeway with them
when printed out.

This too shows much about people wanting more out of their printers and the
final print resolution than is necessary. It can mean only a couple things:
their photography isn't good enough to be carried in lower resolution (meaning
people would rather look for defects in their image than appreciate what the
photo is trying to convey), or their camera isn't capturing enough detail and
they're trying to make up for that in print. All in all it would reveal that
they make poor choices in general, in their equipment as well as their
photography subjects.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:58:17 -0800 (PST), acl
wrote in
:

On Nov 22, 1:53 pm, Chris Malcolm wrote:
acl wrote:

I was rather startled to discover some years ago that I couldn't see
any failures in sharpness or detail on A4 prints from my 3MP digital
camera when viewed at a distance of two feet. I hadn't expected them
to be as good as that. I could easily see the failures of detail
etc. at six inches, however. Extrapolating from that result I would
expect 6MP to be good enough for A3 prints at two foot viewing
distance, and 12MP for A2. The "A" paper sizes go up in size
increments of the square root of 2, so every doubling of image pixels
should get you up one A4 size. Like apertures and shutter speeds.

In a week or two I will have discovered what 10MP can look like at A2
on a wall at two feet :-)

Well I certainly don't disagree that, if you look from far enough, 3mp
is enough for A4. I, however, certainly don't look at my A4 prints
from 60cm. And I do like as much detail as possible in my prints (but
then again, I am clearly a lousy photographer trying to justify my
equipment).

Chris has rediscovered a truth that rocked the photo world years ago
when Luminous Landscape demonstrated that digital 8x10 prints from the
3.1 MP Canon D30 were actually better than the best high-resolution
scans of 35 mm film, proving in the process that 3.1 MP is all that's
needed for great 8x10 prints.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:19:10 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:52:55 GMT, "David J Taylor"
[]
In practice, on an
A4-sized print (297 x 210mm), 3.3MP is good, but substantially more
pixels (e.g. 6MP) will look a little sharper.

That's 8.3" x 11.7", roughly the same as 8x10, for which the normal
viewing distance is 19" and the needed PPI is 181, or about 3.1 MP.
Given the limits of human vision, more (6) MP would only be sharper at
closer viewing distance and/or under ideal viewing conditions.

Agreed.

If you scale the viewing distance to the print size, it's expected that
the resolution requirement remains the same at, from what you've said, at
about 3MP. However, with bigger prints, people do tend to look at them
relatively closer than for small prints (e.g. holding each at arm's
length), and therefore expect a greater resolution - 6MP or better.

Luminous Landscape rocked the photo world years ago when it demonstrated
that digital 8x10 prints from the 3.1 MP Canon D30 were actually better
than prints from high-resolution scans of the best 35 mm film, proving
in the process that 3.1 MP is all that's needed for great 8x10 prints.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:22:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

So how is it that images on my 13 x 10.5 inch display, with all of 1.3MP,
appear perfectly sharp when viewed at 21 inches? Something to do with the
pixels being sharp?

Backlit display pixels, depending on the type and quality of display,
are of course quite a bit different than reflective print dots, and can
indeed look sharp even when they are actually relatively coarse.

Compare (say) a 640x480 image at 1:1 on a typical display against the
same image printed at the same size on a good printer and the difference
is quite obvious.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)