Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on November 28, 2014, 01:32:14 am
-
Hi,
Many feel that there is an insane megapixel race, and that we have more pixels than ever needed. These two articles by Ctein present a different view:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html
The other side of the coin is that Ctein now days shoots an 4/3 camera with 16MP and says it is good enough for A2-size prints.
Ctein is foremost known as a great printer, mostly die transfer, but he is also a photographic artist.
Best regards
Erik
-
The megapixel race is certainly not insane - certainly not if you shoot detailed landscapes or print large.
It may be insane for sports, action and wedding photographers, who don't need great detail or large print and whose voices tend to dominate forums, but the huge success of the D800 and A7r and the continued interest in medium format show that there are plenty of photographers out there who need and want resolution.
Canon appears to have dropped out of the race (possibly due to technical deficiencies) but it seems that Sony/Nikon is pushing ahead regardless. Which I'm very glad of.
-
Really old articles. (I was surprised the one was from 2009, I remember reading it, hard to believe that was 5 years ago).
But it does seem the megapixel “race” is over, as we’ve seen very little movement for several years now. That doesn’t mean we have enough, just means that most seem to be happy with what they have so there’s not much incentive for makers to invest. Canon still hasn’t responded with an answer to Nikon’s 36mp, and it hasn’t had much impact on them.
So the race may be over, but some of us would like to see some movement. I print larger than A2 for test prints.
-
Many feel that there is an insane megapixel race, and that we have more pixels than ever needed.
Hi Erik,
It's horses for courses, as usual.
For most uses (probably internet publishing) we have plenty of megapixels. But for some uses, e.g. product/architecture/nature photography where realism (surface texture, tactile quality) is needed (which is not always the case), and especially when larger output is needed, the more the better. Output size and technology is the driving force that determines the requirements, and let's not forget the intended viewing distance.
There is also a development towards smaller photosensitive elements which get combined into output pixels. That allows to extract higher quality from given lenses, and dynamic range expansion of the tiny elements may also be achieved if the technology is applied well. But that's not necessarily the same as a megapixel race, it's more a capture technology.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Many feel that there is an insane megapixel race, and that we have more pixels than ever needed.
More pixels are needed for proper sampling (https://aberration43mm.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/diffraction-etc/). At the moment we either have to accept aliasing even in it's most hideous forms, or a needlessly thick optical stack (https://aberration43mm.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/anti-aliasing-filter-and-rangefinder-lenses/)on top of the image sensor because of the low pass filter. As the world is slowly moving towards mirrorless cameras where wide angle and normal lenses may have exit pupil close to the image sensor, it would be advantageous to have as little material on top of the sensor as possible, at least if one is interested in using lenses not specifically designed for anti alias filter of certain thickness (e.g.Leica M lenses).
-
Horses for courses. (How often have I said that on this chatroom?).
I would love to have 48, 60 or 120 megapixels available.
My reason? Certainly not because I print large. I rarely print larger than A3+ (although sometimes from a small portion of the file).
No, it is because my view of creative photography is that digital photo-processing is essentially data-processing pure and simple - and the more data I have available, the more creative I can be with it.
I certainly find that 36Mp gives me hugely more creative scope than 12 ever did. (Although I happily concede that there was little discernible difference in print quality in an A3+ print from the full image of a 12Mp file and that from the full image of a 36Mp file, all other things being equal - which, of course, they never are).
-
Morning!
I think it's the same as all races, you either enter or you sit back with a beer watching people getting sweaty, suffering from joggers nipple and getting out of breath!
For me, I don't think about more megapixels because I don't have them, I concentrate on doing what I can with what I have, bigger and "better" only becomes an issue when there is technology available to complement the work I do that has more of whatever it is that is the latest thing, megapixels, dr, ISO, whatever it is. At the moment there isn't anything that does more than I have for what I shoot so I concentrate on the shot.
We all want different things and manufacturers want to make money so there will always be something new around the corner, it's just the nature of things.
Mat
-
Just personally: I no longer care much about printing. I still do it occasionally but it's not the focus of what I do. I am interested in making photos with 4k display in mind, though, and particularly in taking control of the R, G & B sub-pixels of each full-color display element. A nice thing about this interest is that it imposes some hard limits. A 4096x2160 image, if you provide non-interpolated RGB data for each display pixel, requires a Bayer sensor with 8192x4320 photosites (an R, G & B for each display pixel, with the two Bayer Gs averaged in some manner). That's 35.4mp. Other color-creating strategies and/or technologies, such as Foveon, may have different requirements. The apparently upcoming Sony 35mm-format sensor(s) will have the necessary photosite count. Then will come the need for appropriate processing software.
[Edit: fixed math flaw.]
-Dave-
-
I hope that someday all sensors are using 2 micron photosites so all lenses at all apertures are diffraction limited (sensors out resolve the best lenses)
no moire and you always get the best out of your lens
Marc
-
I hope that someday all sensors are using 2 micron photosites so all lenses at all apertures are diffraction limited (sensors out resolve the best lenses)
no moire and you always get the best out of your lens
Marc
A worthy objective, but 2 um pitch is too coarse to achieve it, thanks to the Bayer CFA.
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5920
Jim
-
Back about the time Nikon introduced the D1 I stated to a buddy that at 6MP digital would replace film. Check. Anyone remember Genuine Fractals? My buddy laughed and said no way. Reminded me of a co-worker that said his college professor made them use a slide rule because "calculators were just a fad!"
At 12 MP, we basically duplicated the resolution provided by 35mm film.
At 24MP cameras like the D7100, D610 and D750 we blew past anything we were getting before.
I now have a D810 and 36MP works for me. I actually popped the money for this camera because it was the 1st DSLR I wouldn't mind getting stuck with long term. In most ways the sensor is 'good enough' and while there might be upgrades, I suspect they will be minimal. Where this camera will get upgraded in a significant way will be with better signal processing and data throughput opening up additional functionality.
We have to be careful when talking resolution about the camera systems we include. 35mm was smaller, lighter and cheaper than Medium and Large format. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Samsung, Olympus, etc. still are looking at a mass market product and probably won't ever replace larger digital systems. I don't know the technical limitation in resolution at 36x24mm sensor size, but I believe you will see roughly 24MP as the new standard and 36-48MP as the specialty cameras. With that, you will capture about 90% of users. Then there will be high dollar larger systems for 'extreme' users. Anyone want to bet Nikon's next flagship camera (D5) will be higher than 24MP? At best, there might be 3 versions. The base camera, a high resolution (and slower speed) variant and a maybe a high speed action variant (maybe with less resolution).
I will add that we have hit diminishing returns and the incremental increases will come at ever increasing cost. Like computers went through a 2 decades where each new model provided increased performance and now computers are commodities. It's all about the funtionality, features and package. I've been building my own computers for 20 years (My house has 2 home built desktops, a Home Theater PC and a 9TB Server, in addition to 4 laptops, an iPad, an Android Tablet, 4 Smartphones) and the next one I build will be just marginally better than the i7 I built a 1.5 years ago.
-
Hi,
Nikon and Sony both have 24 MP APS-C, right now. That would scale to 54 MP. I am a bit surprised that we don't see 54 MP on FF 135 right now.
The major advantage of reducing pixel size is better sampling, ideally the lens should not resolve significantly better than the sensor. But that also means that the resulting image will not be really sharp at actual pixels. Larger image size obviously needs more processing power.
What I would also say is that a 54 MP image properly sharpened and reduced to 24 MP using a decent downscaling algorithm will always be better than an image coming from the same platform using a 24 MP sensor.
Now, some will say that even smaller pixels are needed, and that may indeed be the case, especially with very good lenses using optimal apertures.
Best regards
Erik
Nikon, Canon, Sony, Samsung, Olympus, etc. still are looking at a mass market product and probably won't ever replace larger digital systems. I don't know the technical limitation in resolution at 36x24mm sensor size, but I believe you will see roughly 24MP as the new standard and 36-48MP as the specialty cameras. With that, you will capture about 90% of users. Then there will be high dollar larger systems for 'extreme' users. Anyone want to bet Nikon's next flagship camera (D5) will be higher than 24MP? At best, there might be 3 versions. The base camera, a high resolution (and slower speed) variant and a maybe a high speed action variant (maybe with less resolution).
-
The major advantage of reducing pixel size is better sampling, ideally the lens should not resolve significantly better than the sensor. But that also means that the resulting image will not be really sharp at actual pixels.
But does that matter ? It may well be an advantage - you'll get a soft 100% and a file that resolves the optical system (almost) to the full, with no digital artefacts. With the improved sharpening and the new frequency-based clarity controls (Topaz etc) you're able to fine-tune and control apparent sharpness, depending on target output, in post. If you're going to print at anything over 250 ppi then 'pixel level detail' becomes rather mute.
I can see why this may not appeal to landscapers, but for portrait-ists it seems preferable to the current trend of uber-clinical rendition of some modern asph-lenses.
This reminds me of the Leica v Zeiss debate from the analog days, where Leica were generally considered to have the higher resolving lenses whilst Zeiss were of higher accutance (contrast). B&W photographers generally preferred the softer Leica rendition because you couldn't increase resolution but you you could control and increase the contrast in the print stage.
-
Hi,
Personally I find this kind of softness positive, as it allows for proper rendition. But the image will look bad on screen, at least until proper sharpening is applied and this may cause people rejecting the sensor.
The point Ctein makes it that it takes a lot of pixels for proper rendition of a small detail. Those pixels can be quite soft. Larger pixels will show higher microcontrast but less proper rendition.
My take is that optimal sampling combined with optimal sharpening, correctly downsampled, will yield a better image than coarse sampling.
Best regards
Erik
But does that matter ? It may well be an advantage - you'll get a soft 100% and a file that resolves the optical system (almost) to the full, with no digital artefacts. With the improved sharpening and the new frequency-based clarity controls (Topaz etc) you're able to fine-tune and control apparent sharpness, depending on target output, in post. If you're going to print at anything over 250 ppi then 'pixel level detail' becomes rather mute.
I can see why this may not appeal to landscapers, but for portrait-ists it seems preferable to the current trend of uber-clinical rendition of some modern asph-lenses.
This reminds me of the Leica v Zeiss debate from the analog days, where Leica were generally considered to have the higher resolving lenses whilst Zeiss were of higher accutance (contrast). B&W photographers generally preferred the softer Leica rendition because you couldn't increase resolution but you you could control and increase the contrast in the print stage.
-
A worthy objective, but 2 um pitch is too coarse to achieve it, thanks to the Bayer CFA.
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5920
Jim
my thinking is that if the real resolution you want is 36 mpx with 4.8 micron photosites then 130 mpx 2.4 micron photosites would guaranty you 36 mpx resolution w/o artifacts and maximum use of your lens. Since point and shoots are at this pixel density why not?
-
Hi,
My take on the issue, too.
What I see in my experiments is that it takes about f/16 to get rid of aliasing on 6.8 microns, using elderly lenses. Going to 2.4 microns would eliminate most of aliasing at f/5.6 and giving a healthy win in resolution.
It could be discussed if it is better to rely on small pixels or somewhat larger pixels in combination with a properly designed OLP filter. Going from say 4.8 micron pixels to 2.4 micron pixels will loose 1 EV in DR (at SNR = 1) but will not really affect "photographic DR" (at SNR = 10) that much.
Personally, I would say that 3.8 microns, that is what we have on 24 MP APS-C would be OK or at least preferable to 4.8 and 6 microns that we have on 36 and 24 MP full frame right now. That is I don't say 2.4 microns would not be good, just that I would see 3.8 microns as a good step forward.
The way I see it, we have some great lenses coming our way both from Sigma and Zeiss. Hopefully both firms also will sell smaller lenses with smaller maximum apertures. It is an interesting time to live in!
Best regards
Erik
my thinking is that if the real resolution you want is 36 mpx with 4.8 micron photosites then 130 mpx 2.4 micron photosites would guaranty you 36 mpx resolution w/o artifacts and maximum use of your lens. Since point and shoots are at this pixel density why not?
-
Oversampling is common with other areas using digital signal.
With 36MP I can still only make a 24.53 x 16.37" print at 300ppi without interpolating pixels
We have had 39MP digital backs since 2007, then everyone said "omg who really needs that much" and they have since marched on to 80MP
I do think we will see a further divergance of product lines with companies increasingly offering lower MP cameras and higher MP cameras concurrently.
-
Oversampling is common with other areas using digital signal.
With 36MP I can still only make a 24.53 x 16.37" print at 300ppi without interpolating pixels
We have had 39MP digital backs since 2007, then everyone said "omg who really needs that much" and they have since marched on to 80MP
I do think we will see a further divergance of product lines with companies increasingly offering lower MP cameras and higher MP cameras concurrently.
People often mistakenly believe that 36MP is 3 times the resolution of a 12 MP camera, when in fact it is less than 2x. Because of the 2 dimensions of an image, 48MP is double 12 MP. I personally think that 48MP will be the top end of the 36mm x 24mm sensor MP count. But, of course, the popular acceptance of the D8x0 cameras might change that. I would love to see the sales projections versus actual sales for the D800/D800e.
-
People often mistakenly believe that 36MP is 3 times the resolution of a 12 MP camera, when in fact it is less than 2x. Because of the 2 dimensions of an image, 48MP is double 12 MP. I personally think that 48MP will be the top end of the 36mm x 24mm sensor MP count. But, of course, the popular acceptance of the D8x0 cameras might change that. I would love to see the sales projections versus actual sales for the D800/D800e.
Well... people who think 36MP is 3 times the resolution (3 times the amount of pixels to be exact) of 12MP are correct, no argument around it.
-
The megapixel race is certainly not insane - certainly not if you shoot detailed landscapes or print large.
I am not so sure about the not-insanity of the Mpx race when shooting landscapes. This is commonly a large DOF application, so unless you use some large DOF technique to avoid the need of using close apertures (focus stacking, stitching, lens tilting), I wonder how useful can be having tons of Mpx if f/16 on a FF sensor will ruin sharpness on any very high resolution sensor because of diffraction?.
With a highly dense sensor you are not capturing real detail in large DOF applications, just blurred redundant pixels.
This is how diffraction affects a Nikon D800 (36 Mpx) at f/16:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/diffraction.png)
A FF sensor at f/16 becomes diffraction limited (i.e. it begins to loose sharpness because of diffraction) from 12 Mpx:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/diffraction2.png)
Diffraction calculator at Cambridge in Colour (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm).
Regards
-
With a highly dense sensor you are not capturing real detail in large DOF applications, just blurred redundant pixels.
Hi Guillermo,
Yes, but oversampling the diffraction blur will allow to restore a large part of it with deconvolution sharpening.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, do you think the use and good performance of deconvolution techniques will become of general use for this kind of applications? or users will rather be happy with tons of blurred Mpx thinking they are gaining something over lower pixel count sensors?
-
Well... people who think 36MP is 3 times the resolution (3 times the amount of pixels to be exact) of 12MP are correct, no argument around it.
Pixel count is NOT a resolution, but a proxy developed to simplify for various aspect ratios of images. A 36 MP camera of the same aspect ratio as a 12 MP camera will not generate an image that is twice as large even though it is composed of 24 million more pixels.
Assuming a 3x2 aspect ratio of specific dimension:
Nikon D300, 12.3MP, 4,288 x 2,848
Nikon D810, 36.3MP, 7,360 x 4,912 (Not twice 4288 x 2,848)
8576 x 5696 (48.8MP) is twice 4,288 x 2,848 (12.3MP). This is why discussing the difference between 12MP and 16MP is rather pointless because they are basically the same thing.
-
I consider myself a technical minded person and I love to make this kind of analysis and calculations, but there is one thing that we can't argue with: the reality.
As a commercial printer specialized on art I print for many artists (photographers among them) and I see a lot of files from a lot of cameras, so I can tel you this by personal experience:
Pick a good sharp photo properly taken with a 12MP FF camera.
Pick another good sharp photo properly taken with a 36MP FF camera.
Now print both photos 36x54" and see the difference. The 36MP image will print way better
There is no real argument after you do this. Honestly.
We can speculate about greater MP count, but at the current level the superiority of the 36MP is brutal even with diffraction and other optical constrains.
-
Pixel count is NOT a resolution, but a proxy developed to simplify for various aspect ratios of images. A 36 MP camera of the same aspect ratio as a 12 MP camera will not generate an image that is twice as large even though it is composed of 24 million more pixels.
Assuming a 3x2 aspect ratio of specific dimension:
Nikon D300, 12.3MP, 4,288 x 2,848
Nikon D810, 36.3MP, 7,360 x 4,912 (Not twice 4288 x 2,848)
8576 x 5696 (48.8MP) is twice 4,288 x 2,848 (12.3MP). This is why discussing the difference between 12MP and 16MP is rather pointless because they are basically the same thing.
Nothing to do with aspect ratios at all.
Basically, pixel counts increase as a square of linear resolution. To double the linear resolution of a 12MP file, you need 48MP. To double the linear resolution of 9MP, you need 36MP. Going from 22 to 36MP represents a not-insignificant 30% or so increase in linear resolution.
This is because doubling the size in both length and width means you need four times as many pixels. And that's why high pixel count is more relevant than ever - 80MP may sound like a huge pixel count, but only represents double the linear resolution of a 20MP image. If you want high-quality prints at a large size, you can always use the resolution.
-
Hi,
I think so, too.
May I ask two questions?
When I went from 12 MP to 24 MP I could see some advantage to 24 MP in A2-size prints. I see very little advantage going from 24 MP to 39 MP at A2 (16x23"). So I feel that 12 MP are pretty much OK for 16x23" and 16MP or so may be really good for that print size. What is your take on that?
Reason for asking: It is about the size of prints desktop printers can make, and it is about 16MP 4/3 cameras can produce. Ctein said in an interview on LuLa that 16 MP from APS-C is good enough for A2.
The other question is, do you see benefits going to higher resolution on full frame (24x36)?
Reason for asking: Some guys (like Jim Kasson, myself and others) have done some research and came to the conclusion that small pixels will give better reproduction. It would be interesting to hear your view. Is the Nikon D810 the summit, or just a plateau on the way to a summit far away?
Best regards
Erik
I consider myself a technical minded person and I love to make this kind of analysis and calculations, but there is one thing that we can't argue with: the reality.
As a commercial printer specialized on art I print for many artists (photographers among them) and I see a lot of files from a lot of cameras, so I can tel you this by personal experience:
Pick a good sharp photo properly taken with a 12MP FF camera.
Pick another good sharp photo properly taken with a 36MP FF camera.
Now print both photos 36x54" and see the difference. The 36MP image will print way better
There is no real argument after you do this. Honestly.
We can speculate about greater MP count, but at the current level the superiority of the 36MP is brutal even with diffraction and other optical constrains.
-
Hi,
My take is that having a blurred image that is properly sharpened and downsized to say half of the resolution would yield a superior rendition compared with an image having half of the resolution to start with.
I have a nifty pair of images showing it, but would I post it would cause immediate retaliation from the self appointed forum cop, I want to avoid it.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/78-aliasing-and-supersampling-why-small-pixels-are-good
Another point is that I don't think we shoot f/16 for landscape photography. Personally I mostly shoot f/8 stopping down when needed. On the Hasselblad my standard aperture is f/11. I also asked what aperture folks use on MFD and it seems that most users would shoot f/11, but technical camera users were often using f/5.6 (using technical lenses on technical cameras).
It seems that good decent restoration is possible from f/16 images. Clearly, that needs deconvolution, but we have deconvolution in Lightroom and there is FocusMagic that is easy to use and gives good results.
Best regards
Erik
Bart, do you think the use and good performance of deconvolution techniques will become of general use for this kind of applications? or users will rather be happy with tons of blurred Mpx thinking they are gaining something over lower pixel count sensors?
-
so I can tel you this by personal experience:
Pick a good sharp photo properly taken with a 12MP FF camera.
Pick another good sharp photo properly taken with a 36MP FF camera.
Now print both photos 36x54" and see the difference. The 36MP image will print way better
NO great surprise here.
The 36MP image will print 54" ( long end) at 136 ppi - native (7300x4900)
The 12MP image will print 54" at 74 ppi - native (4000x3000)
ppi figures before interpolation.
-
Bart, do you think the use and good performance of deconvolution techniques will become of general use for this kind of applications? or users will rather be happy with tons of blurred Mpx thinking they are gaining something over lower pixel count sensors?
Guillermo, I see several Raw converters already having (limited) deconvolution capabilities. Not all are implemented as good as what is possible, but that's also a bit a chicken and egg situation. If we had hugely oversampling sensor designs, it would probably be implemented in a camera ASIC and firmware.
RawTherapee, and Iridient Raw Developer have Richardson-Lucy deconvolution built-in as one of the sharpening options. Adobe's ARC and Lightroom do some sort of deconvolution when the Detail slider control is pushed towards 100, and Photoshop has SmartSharpening which is deconvolution based in Advanced mode.
There are dedicated deconvolution solutions from FocusMagic, Topaz Infocus, Piccure+, and various Astrophotography oriented image processors. There is lots of ongoing research which shows the tremendous capabilities of this approach if implemented well, some even based on a simple single planoconvex lens element (http://www.cs.ubc.ca/labs/imager/tr/2013/SimpleLensImaging/) (also discussed here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=82704.0)).
Whether lens blur or oversampling blur, both can be restored to the original input signal to a large extent.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Nothing to do with aspect ratios at all.
Resolution no, but pixel count yes. The only way a MP figure makes any sense at all is when the aspect is known. Marketing guys can use it because they are comparing 2 things with the same or very similar aspect ratios. Within brand it is useful because even with different sized sensors, they have the same aspect.
Interestingly, my 1st exposure to MP came with my 1st digital printing experience of a film scan. The printer asked the MP count of the image. Of course, he knew the printing resolution and the aspect ratio of the output (and believe he assumed same aspect of the input file) so all he needed was MP count to make a general statement concerning the potential quality of the output.
-
NO great surprise here.
The 36MP image will print 54" ( long end) at 136 ppi - native (7300x4900)
The 12MP image will print 54" at 74 ppi - native (4000x3000)
ppi figures before interpolation.
Sure no great surprise to you or to me, but I was directing my thought to the argument about diffraction limiting a f16 36MP image to 12MP level of detail.
I am sure diffraction and other optical problems do play an important role, but not enough to invalidate the gains of a higher MP sensor. Not at the current level at least.
-
It's worth remembering that linear resolution and pixel count are both useful ways to measure (commonsense) resolution. Going from 12MP to 24MP allows one to print twice the area at the same quality. That is a useful measure for some purposes.
Eric Fossum thinks that the bayer sensor will top out around 200MP on full-frame. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good thing, and one can always decide later how much the total information available they want or need.
Beyond that though is (we hope) Fossum's QIS (Quantum Image Sensor) with its single-photon photosites and temporal processing. It helps to remember the increasing role that temporal integration will play in the future. All of this of course happens at the sub-diffraction level. Nothing wrong with that either. There is plenty of /information/ at that level, that can be exploited.
In the end, we must remember that as the technology progresses, the assumptions do not stay fixed, and there is a significant qualitative and conceptual shift to be expected.
-
May I ask two questions?
When I went from 12 MP to 24 MP I could see some advantage to 24 MP in A2-size prints. I see very little advantage going from 24 MP to 39 MP at A2 (16x23"). So I feel that 12 MP are pretty much OK for 16x23" and 16MP or so may be really good for that print size. What is your take on that?
Reason for asking: It is about the size of prints desktop printers can make, and it is about 16MP 4/3 cameras can produce. Ctein said in an interview on LuLa that 16 MP from APS-C is good enough for A2.
The other question is, do you see benefits going to higher resolution on full frame (24x36)?
Reason for asking: Some guys (like Jim Kasson, myself and others) have done some research and came to the conclusion that small pixels will give better reproduction. It would be interesting to hear your view. Is the Nikon D810 the summit, or just a plateau on the way to a summit far away?
Hello Erik,
I do agree with everything you said, we just have to remember that "good enough" does not mean "best possible". I am sure that we would be able to see improvements on an A2 print from a 36MP file on a side by side comparison against another from a 16MP file... if we print both on a smooth glossy paper and look closely. On a matte textured paper the differences would be less noticeable or negligible. Without the side by side comparison I definitely agree the 16MP would be more than good enough.
About going to higher resolutions on FF (24x36mm), I can only guess, but I think we will see benefits. First because I tend to believe that we can still extract more "juice" of our current lenses. Surely optical problems can make our 36MP camera capture only a level of detail equivalent to, lets say, 24MP. But that same lens on an hypothetical 72MP camera may be able to render, lets say, 48MP level of detail. I think the limitations are not like a brick wall but more like a gear problem that makes you car loose a percentage of the power.
Besides, as you said, there is the software side of the coin that may be able to extract more detail from a larger amount of data (even if apparently redundant). I am still a bit skeptical about using deconvolution sharpening for other forms recovery that are not related to motion, I believe that it does not work consistently varying from image to image. But, admittedly, I have not tested it properly.
At this moment, as I print large images for living, I want more resolution for sure... until the day I could not see a difference on a 44x66" print! ;D
BTW, last week I received some files from an IQ180. Studio shots, portraits, properly lighted, camera on a tripod, Schneider glass... The client ordered some A1 prints but I gave him a free 44x58" just because I wanted to see that file printed on that size. It was surely the best print on that size (from a single click) that I ever saw, but honestly I saw some room for improvement.
Regards.
-
As far as the old "nature of resolution" argument goes it always seemed a bit pointless to me simply because most people are likely to have the same feelings for input AND output. That is someone who thinks 24 MP is double 12 MP is resolution thinks doubling the print output means doubling the area.
I would argue the latter is in the realms of most peoples likely use as well, you start doubling the dimensions of each side of the print and you very quickly get to sizes beyond those printed by even many professional landscape shooters.
-
As far as the old "nature of resolution" argument goes it always seemed a bit pointless to me simply because most people are likely to have the same feelings for input AND output. That is someone who thinks 24 MP is double 12 MP is resolution thinks doubling the print output means doubling the area.
I would argue the latter is in the realms of most peoples likely use as well, you start doubling the dimensions of each side of the print and you very quickly get to sizes beyond those printed by even many professional landscape shooters.
When was the last time anyone ever came up to you and said "I just took the most spectacular image and I'm having it printed at 187 SQIN to hang in my living room!"
The fact of the matter is that an image has a set aspect ratio and therefore as one dimension changes, so does the other. I know for certain that 16x20 is double 8x10 while the actual printed area is 4 times as large! In addition, real world objects are represented in 2 dimensions in an image. If I print an 8x10 where an object is reproduced at 1/2 life size, then to get to life size, I have to double the size of the print...16 x 20.
It is not that MP count and knowing that double the MP means a doubling of the print area is useless, but it can be misleading. 95% of people that own cameras believe they can make a print twice as large from a camera with double the megapixels and they aren't thinking I can print twice the area. Monitor and TV people got around this by specifying an aspect and diagonal length.
-
When was the last time anyone ever came up to you and said "I just took the most spectacular image and I'm having it printed at 187 SQIN to hang in my living room!"
The fact of the matter is that an image has a set aspect ratio and therefore as one dimension changes, so does the other. I know for certain that 16x20 is double 8x10 while the actual printed area is 4 times as large! In addition, real world objects are represented in 2 dimensions in an image. If I print an 8x10 where an object is reproduced at 1/2 life size, then to get to life size, I have to double the size of the print...16 x 20.
It is not that MP count and knowing that double the MP means a doubling of the print area is useless, but it can be misleading. 95% of people that own cameras believe they can make a print twice as large from a camera with double the megapixels and they aren't thinking I can print twice the area. Monitor and TV people got around this by specifying an aspect and diagonal length.
It is all perspective. The double of 20 sq inches is 40 sq inches. But, the double of 4" x 5" (aka, 20sq inches) is an 8" x 10" (aka, 80sq inches). I for one never saw pixels as the same thing as print size, but rather the count of individual pixels in a given area. So yes, 16 MegaPixels is twice as much as 8 MegaPixels, as the unit in question is the individual pixels, not the pixel dimensions.
As for the plateau, as someone who uses a 36MP camera phone, let me tell you, I am a fan of oversampling. We have not hit it yet, and there is more to come. But, we will need faster electronics and larger storage to make it a feasible endeavor. I would think that a sensor will have hit it's max when it can out resolve the best glass at it's best settings. Once we hit that point, although we will not have a technological plateau, we will have a plateau in the in the optimal mixture of sensor resolution vs lens.
-
A /lot/ of people, especially those with printers having 17" platens decide between printing 8x10, or 11x17, two popular paper sizes at reasonable prices. It's a meaningful difference, and (within 1.0 smidgen), a doubling in print area. A 16x20 is a splurge.
-
Geraldo,
Thanks a lot for your observations!
Best regards
Erik
-
A /lot/ of people, especially those with printers having 17" platens decide between printing 8x10, or 11x17, two popular paper sizes at reasonable prices. It's a meaningful difference, and (within 1.0 smidgen), a doubling in print area. A 16x20 is a splurge.
Extreme money saving tip. If your are deciding between 8x10 or 11x17, get a printer with a 13" platen and save a couple grand! It will even print 13x19 in borderless mode. As someone with a Epson printer with a 13" platen, I fantasize about ways to sneak a printer with a 17" wide platen into my home office without the SuperWife suspecting precisely because I want to print 16 x 20 and larger multi-shot (not really panoramic) images!
-
Extreme money saving tip. If your are deciding between 8x10 or 11x17, get a printer with a 13" platen and save a couple grand! It will even print 13x19 in borderless mode. As someone with a Epson printer with a 13" platen, I fantasize about ways to sneak a printer with a 17" wide platen into my home office without the SuperWife suspecting precisely because I want to print 16 x 20 and larger multi-shot (not really panoramic) images!
In the case of every printer I've ever owned, I've spent far more money on ink than on the printer itself. Larger printers tend to have bigger ink carts and lower cost per ml of ink. So, the smaller printer isn't always a bargain.
Jim
-
Jim,
My experience, too. Just to mention, the ink include with the printer represents significant value. An Epson SP3880 comes with nine cartridges containing 720 ml of ink.
Best regards
Erik
In the case of every printer I've ever owned, I've spent far more money on ink than on the printer itself. Larger printers tend to have bigger ink carts and lower cost per ml of ink. So, the smaller printer isn't always a bargain.
Jim
-
In the case of every printer I've ever owned, I've spent far more money on ink than on the printer itself. Larger printers tend to have bigger ink carts and lower cost per ml of ink. So, the smaller printer isn't always a bargain.
Jim
And considering that about $600 of the $1299 cost of say the Epson R3888 is ink, the difference isn't all that much. But there is a difference between startup cost and production costs. And someone thinking of printing at 8x10 instead of 16x20 because it is a splurge isn't likely to be buying a $1300 or $2000 printer. Of course, there is the size and weight of the bigger printer to consider as well which is not insignificant either.
-
In the case of every printer I've ever owned, I've spent far more money on ink than on the printer itself. Larger printers tend to have bigger ink carts and lower cost per ml of ink. So, the smaller printer isn't always a bargain.
Jim
Not only that. The larger printer, such as my Epson 7600, uses 30 meter rolls of paper. Divide the total area of a 30m roll which is 600mm wide, by the area of any of the single sheet size of A4, A3, A2 etc, and you'll find that the cost of the same type of paper used in the larger printer is vastly cheaper, per unit area, than the packets of single sheets.
The significant savings in both ink and paper were a main motivation for me to buy a large professional printer.
Another point which I think is lacking in this thread, is the effect that increased pixel count has on 'effective' lens quality.
Let's say we've been using a 12mp D700 or D3 with the rather average-performing Nikkor 24-120 zoom. When comparing the results with a good prime of the same focal length, whether 24mm or 35mm or 85mm, and so on, we should find that the primes deliver sharper results, but that might produces a conflict if we're concerned about both sharpness and 'getting the shot', because zooms are so much more convenient to use and can avoid this constant necessity to change lenses.
Let's say that the technical results from the primes, used with a 12mp camera, are satisfactory for our needs, but we're a bit pissed off at having to change lenses and carry the extra weight of a number of primes instead of a single zoom, whenever we go out shooting.
Solution? Get a 36mp camera. The Nikkor 24-120 zoom, used with a D800E, will provide at most focal lengths a similar degree of sharpness as a good quality prime used on a 12mp camera. Voila! ;D
-
Just for completeness and accuracy, I will say that there are mediocre primes and sharp zooms.
As a general shooting amateur, I shoot everything from studio still life and portraits to landscapes, nightscapes, and sports. I wanted the D810, because I wanted a camera that worked well at everything. My D7100 (24MP DX) is a great camera, especially at the $896 price you can get it for at Amazon right now (Nikon D7100 Amazon Prime) (http://smile.amazon.com/Nikon-D7100-24-1-DX-Format-Digital/dp/B00BI9X7UC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417530127&sr=8-1&keywords=d7100). Personally, I find this one of the best deals in DSLRs ever. Since I can shoot sports w/o super high frame rates, I can take advantage of the D7100 better sensor and lack of OLPF than what is available on much more expensive APS-C bodies.
However, the D810 gives me everything I need in a single body. This is not insignificant for an amateur that does not get to work with his camera day in day out. I can learn the D810 operation inside and out and not be 'surprised' or frustrated when out in the field. I can shoot 15.3MP DX mode if I so choose or crop the 36MP when shooting sports. I can see where if you require shooting 50 frames at 10 fps to get the one you want, the larger files size could be an impediment, but since I don't have that problem, it's a non issue.
Not only that. The larger printer, such as my Epson 7600, uses 30 meter rolls of paper. Divide the total area of a 30m roll which is 600mm wide, by the area of any of the single sheet size of A4, A3, A2 etc, and you'll find that the cost of the same type of paper used in the larger printer is vastly cheaper, per unit area, than the packets of single sheets.
The significant savings in both ink and paper were a main motivation for me to buy a large professional printer.
Another point which I think is lacking in this thread, is the effect that increased pixel count has on 'effective' lens quality.
Let's say we've been using a 12mp D700 or D3 with the rather average-performing Nikkor 24-120 zoom. When comparing the results with a good prime of the same focal length, whether 24mm or 35mm or 85mm, and so on, we should find that the primes deliver sharper results, but that might produces a conflict if we're concerned about both sharpness and 'getting the shot', because zooms are so much more convenient to use and can avoid this constant necessity to change lenses.
Let's say that the technical results from the primes, used with a 12mp camera, are satisfactory for our needs, but we're a bit pissed off at having to change lenses and carry the extra weight of a number of primes instead of a single zoom, whenever we go out shooting.
Solution? Get a 36mp camera. The Nikkor 24-120 zoom, used with a D800E, will provide at most focal lengths a similar degree of sharpness as a good quality prime used on a 12mp camera. Voila! ;D
-
Just for completeness and accuracy, I will say that there are mediocre primes and sharp zooms.
As a general shooting amateur, I shoot everything from studio still life and portraits to landscapes, nightscapes, and sports. I wanted the D810, because I wanted a camera that worked well at everything. My D7100 (24MP DX) is a great camera, especially at the $896 price you can get it for at Amazon right now (Nikon D7100 Amazon Prime) (http://smile.amazon.com/Nikon-D7100-24-1-DX-Format-Digital/dp/B00BI9X7UC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417530127&sr=8-1&keywords=d7100). Personally, I find this one of the best deals in DSLRs ever. Since I can shoot sports w/o super high frame rates, I can take advantage of the D7100 better sensor and lack of OLPF than what is available on much more expensive APS-C bodies.
However, the D810 gives me everything I need in a single body. This is not insignificant for an amateur that does not get to work with his camera day in day out. I can learn the D810 operation inside and out and not be 'surprised' or frustrated when out in the field. I can shoot 15.3MP DX mode if I so choose or crop the 36MP when shooting sports. I can see where if you require shooting 50 frames at 10 fps to get the one you want, the larger files size could be an impediment, but since I don't have that problem, it's a non issue.
Absolutely! I was referring to a situation where a photographer with a 12mp camera, which he'd perhaps bought with a walk-around zoom, had become a little dissatisfied with the lack of tack-sharpness of the zoom, and had invested in some best-quality primes which did produce satisfying results,
Along comes the D800 or D810 with 36mp and the photographer thinks, "I don't need 36mp because I never make prints larger than A3+", perhaps not realizing that those apparently superfluous megapixels have the effect of converting his average quality zoom into a series of high quality primes, according to his standard of 12mp used with high quality primes. DXO illustrate this point with their P-Mpx ratings.
If the photographer's zoom is already adequately sharp and almost as good as the best primes at most focal lengths, such as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 or 24-70/2.8, then the high-megapixel camera still offers the advantage of allowing one to shoot in DX mode to produce a 15.3mp file, as you mentioned in your post, which should still be of sufficient quality for anyone who's anchored to a 12mp standard, and which also has the effect of extending the reach of whatever lens one is using, whilst maintaining that 12mp standard. On the other hand, a 12mp FF image cropped to a DX size is a mere 5.3mp which might not be satisfactory
However, we should not overlook the fact that the prime lens might still have the advantage of a wider maximum aperture. If the reason a photographer uses primes, in preference to a zoom, is because he specializes in shallow DoF, then he'd still need to use the primes with the 36mp camera, even though 12mp is sufficient for his print sizes. The wider aperture might also have the advantage of allowing one to use a lower ISO for lower noise, according to the lighting conditions and shutter speed requirements.
-
Hi,
My best images were shot with 12 MP digital. Now, I have progressed to 24 Mp and even 39MP on MFD…
I would say, that going on travel and joining workshops may be a far better way than investing in megapixels.
On the other hand, I also feel the need to reshoot the old images with better equipment, but those opportunities never come back.
Best regards
Erik
Absolutely! I was referring to a situation where a photographer with a 12mp camera, which he'd perhaps bought with a walk-around zoom, had become a little dissatisfied with the lack of tack-sharpness of the zoom, and had invested in some best-quality primes which did produce satisfying results,
Along comes the D800 or D810 with 36mp and the photographer thinks, "I don't need 36mp because I never make prints larger than A3+", perhaps not realizing that those apparently superfluous megapixels have the effect of converting his average quality zoom into a series of high quality primes, according to his standard of 12mp used with high quality primes. DXO illustrate this point with their P-Mpx ratings.
If the photographer's zoom is already adequately sharp and almost as good as the best primes at most focal lengths, such as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 or 24-70/2.8, then the high-megapixel camera still offers the advantage of allowing one to shoot in DX mode to produce a 15.3mp file, as you mentioned in your post, which should still be of sufficient quality for anyone who's anchored to a 12mp standard, and which also has the effect of extending the reach of whatever lens one is using, whilst maintaining that 12mp standard. On the other hand, a 12mp FF image cropped to a DX size is a mere 5.3mp which might not be satisfactory
However, we should not overlook the fact that the prime lens might still have the advantage of a wider maximum aperture. If the reason a photographer uses primes, in preference to a zoom, is because he specializes in shallow DoF, then he'd still need to use the primes with the 36mp camera, even though 12mp is sufficient for his print sizes. The wider aperture might also have the advantage of allowing one to use a lower ISO for lower noise, according to the lighting conditions and shutter speed requirements.
-
I would say, that going on travel and joining workshops may be a far better way than investing in megapixels.
That's a separate issue, Erik. If one feels one needs to attend workshops in order to increase one's photographic skills, then that's what one should do regardless of the equipment one owns.
However, I would hope that such workshops would include advice on the benefits of a high-megapixel camera, along the lines that I've described in this thread. ;)
-
My best images were shot with 12 MP digital. Now, I have progressed to 24 Mp and even 39MP on MFD…
A famiar situation. My best images were taken with 8MP - now I've got a 24MP, but the events that allowed me to capture the moment will never come back :(
Well, at least I can always get more pixels - geeking with them is fun too!
-
That's a separate issue, Erik. If one feels one needs to attend workshops in order to increase one's photographic skills, then that's what one should do regardless of the equipment one owns.
However, I would hope that such workshops would include advice on the benefits of a high-megapixel camera, along the lines that I've described in this thread. ;)
In my workshops I never advice on the benefits of a higher MP camera. Never. Because I often got guys with very low end and outdated gear who did better photos than the guys with MF or whatever luxury devices. My constatation is that a lot of MF shooters are not even ready to shoot even a D200 and lack some basic understanding of lighting and photography in general, wasting time and energy on 1k$ tripods to produce files who do not worth it. In + it slow down considerably the course of the workshop when you have a limited time to climb a mountain or another circuit. For my Scotland workshop I almost warn ppl to not bring something heavier than a D700/800 + 70-200. Even that is heavy when you walk around 6 to 10 hours in a day.
Meanwhile, the guys with light gear and few MP snap all around, having fun, having time to discuss life and enjoying the wonderful landscapes. Often, the "best pictures" come out from a snapper with inexpensive gear while the MF guy is in his room trying to PP his huge files on his MBP.
MP are ok today. We need lighter MF gear ASAP, digital mamyia 7 for example ... This will bring the workshop world to a new era.
-
Extreme money saving tip. If your are deciding between 8x10 or 11x17, get a printer with a 13" platen and save a couple grand! It will even print 13x19 in borderless mode. As someone with a Epson printer with a 13" platen, I fantasize about ways to sneak a printer with a 17" wide platen into my home office without the SuperWife suspecting precisely because I want to print 16 x 20 and larger multi-shot (not really panoramic) images!
Those initial savings in price are usually misleading. You typically get more ink with your 17" printer and the ongoing ink costs are less...so that initial price difference is not really there.
-
In my workshops I never advice on the benefits of a higher MP camera. Never. Because I often got guys with very low end and outdated gear who did better photos than the guys with MF or whatever luxury devices. My constatation is that a lot of MF shooters are not even ready to shoot even a D200 and lack some basic understanding of lighting and photography in general, wasting time and energy on 1k$ tripods to produce files who do not worth it. In + it slow down considerably the course of the workshop when you have a limited time to climb a mountain or another circuit. For my Scotland workshop I almost warn ppl to not bring something heavier than a D700/800 + 70-200. Even that is heavy when you walk around 6 to 10 hours in a day.
Meanwhile, the guys with light gear and few MP snap all around, having fun, having time to discuss life and enjoying the wonderful landscapes. Often, the "best pictures" come out from a snapper with inexpensive gear while the MF guy is in his room trying to PP his huge files on his MBP.
MP are ok today. We need lighter MF gear ASAP, digital mamyia 7 for example ... This will bring the workshop world to a new era.
That does seem to be a serious omission, Hulyss. ;D Although, to be fair, I do understand that some people can get very emotionally attached to their equipment. If a tutor at a workshop were to start implying that certain individuals had inappropriate, or less-than-ideal equipment for the task at hand, such people might get offended and not attend any future workshops.
One of the first things that should be learned in photography is the fundamental principle of 'the best tool for the job'. That's universal and applies to all crafts and arts.
One should not be seduced by a high megapixel camera if the consequence is a lack of usability for the type of photos one hopes to capture. In fact, this was always one of the main drawbacks to the MFDB system, for me.
Despite my already owning a Mamiya 6"x7" film camera with a couple of Mamiya lenses, and despite my great attraction towards high megapixels, it never made sense to me to splash out the money for a 40mp digital back. I could see that such a system was not only ridiculously expensive, but heavy and cumbersome, and generally lacking in flexibility, with relatively poor high-ISO performance and a greater need for the use of a heavy tripod in order to extract the benefits of the higher pixel count.
Such a system might be fine for studio shots, or for shots of landscapes that can be accessed by an SUV carrying all that heavy equipment and accessories, but clearly wasn't suited for my type of peripatetic photography.
My first cropped-format DSLR was the 6mp Canon D60. My latest cropped-format DSLR is the 24mp Nikon D7100. There's absolutely nothing that I could have shot more easily with that 6mp D60. In fact, the reverse is true. The D60 body is even slightly heavier than the D7100.
If I were to claim that my best images were shot with the D60, (which I don't claim, I hasten to add), then that would indicate that either my photographic skills had deteriorated over time, or that I just happened to have been at some interesting locations with my D60, which had presented lots of photographic opportunities and which I'd never revisited with my D7100.
-
Ray,
That was a big one :-)
Now, I would say there are a few different issues discussed here.
- It is good to have resolution high enough to make perfect prints, if you print, that is.
- There is a lot to the principle of a small camera with small pixels and a lens system optimised for that pixel size. That is the reason 4/3 works for many people.
- Small pixels are needed for correct rendition of detail.
- Portability of systems and efficiency of work also matters. The workshops that Hulyss mentions are an example of that.
If we look at the above, small pixels are actually good.
Within reasonable limits small pixel sizes don't really have disadvantages. If the resolution is not needed, the image can be downsampled to a more practical size. Very clearly, small pixels don't play well with symmetrical lenses typically designed for range finder cameras, but the situation is different once the lenses are built to match the sensor.
Finally, bigger is better. Ask any astronomer. Just keep in mind that astronomers care little about depth of field.
As a side point, a large sensor camera doesn't need to be big and heavy. Technical cameras can be really small, especially now that the new Sony 44x33 mm sensors offer well working live view.
Best regards
Erik
Despite my already owning a Mamiya 6"x7" film camera with a couple of Mamiya lenses, and despite my great attraction towards high megapixels, it never made sense to me to splash out the money for a 40mp digital back.
-
Ray,
That was a big one :-)
Now, I would say there are a few different issues discussed here.
- It is good to have resolution high enough to make perfect prints, if you print, that is.
- There is a lot to the principle of a small camera with small pixels and a lens system optimised for that pixel size. That is the reason 4/3 works for many people.
- Small pixels are needed for correct rendition of detail.
- Portability of systems and efficiency of work also matters. The workshops that Hulyss mentions are an example of that.
If we look at the above, small pixels are actually good.
Within reasonable limits small pixel sizes don't really have disadvantages. If the resolution is not needed, the image can be downsampled to a more practical size. Very clearly, small pixels don't play well with symmetrical lenses typically designed for range finder cameras, but the situation is different once the lenses are built to match the sensor.
That's more an issue with the angle of incidence of light relative to the sensor, hence UWAs are typically affected more than other lenses. A retrofocus lens design solves this and also improves vignetting, but also makes the lens larger and more complex.
Finally, bigger is better. Ask any astronomer. Just keep in mind that astronomers care little about depth of field.
Most telescopes don't have a very wide aperture, though, due to the long focal lengths involved. For photographing celestial objects which subtend a wider angle of view (e.g. large, but dim nebulae) wide-aperture lenses usually do it better anyway.
As a side point, a large sensor camera doesn't need to be big and heavy. Technical cameras can be really small, especially now that the new Sony 44x33 mm sensors offer well working live view.
I would love a 24x72mm panoramic body, similar in concept to the film X-pan, with lenses to match.
-
The disagreement over what constitutes a doubling in size is a bit of a semantic debate, I feel. Maybe where you come from influences the thinking a bit.
Here in the UK, we've long moved to the Euro A sizes of paper (it's been a long time since I printed on foolscap!). Now, for me, if you go up one A size (double the area), you are printing twice the size (because if you put two A4 pieces of paper together, you have A3, so A3 must be twice the size of A4). Seems obvious. However, from reading forums, it seems that Americans in particular seem to think of "twice the size" as meaning twice both linear dimensions.
I'd recommend thinking of twice the area as twice the size is convenient photographically in europe because it means that when you get a camera with twice the pixels you can print on the next size up printer at the same quality!
Personally, the concept of "twice the size" really being 4x the size is something I struggle with intuitively - if someone hands me two pieces of chocolate rather than 4 I might be tempted to say "hey, that's not twice as much as 1 piece" but I'd not really believe it...
I'm sure it all just boils down to what you are used to.
When was the last time anyone ever came up to you and said "I just took the most spectacular image and I'm having it printed at 187 SQIN to hang in my living room!"
The fact of the matter is that an image has a set aspect ratio and therefore as one dimension changes, so does the other. I know for certain that 16x20 is double 8x10 while the actual printed area is 4 times as large! In addition, real world objects are represented in 2 dimensions in an image. If I print an 8x10 where an object is reproduced at 1/2 life size, then to get to life size, I have to double the size of the print...16 x 20.
It is not that MP count and knowing that double the MP means a doubling of the print area is useless, but it can be misleading. 95% of people that own cameras believe they can make a print twice as large from a camera with double the megapixels and they aren't thinking I can print twice the area. Monitor and TV people got around this by specifying an aspect and diagonal length.
-
The disagreement over what constitutes a doubling in size is a bit of a semantic debate, I feel. Maybe where you come from influences the thinking a bit.
Here in the UK, we've long moved to the Euro A sizes of paper (it's been a long time since I printed on foolscap!). Now, for me, if you go up one A size (double the area), you are printing twice the size (because if you put two A4 pieces of paper together, you have A3, so A3 must be twice the size of A4). Seems obvious. However, from reading forums, it seems that Americans in particular seem to think of "twice the size" as meaning twice both linear dimensions.
I'd recommend thinking of twice the area as twice the size is convenient photographically in europe because it means that when you get a camera with twice the pixels you can print on the next size up printer at the same quality!
Personally, the concept of "twice the size" really being 4x the size is something I struggle with intuitively - if someone hands me two pieces of chocolate rather than 4 I might be tempted to say "hey, that's not twice as much as 1 piece" but I'd not really believe it...
I'm sure it all just boils down to what you are used to.
That is precisely what the paper size specifications where designed to do. It has the area computation built into the sizes to provide 2 times the area. Even here in the US, I know that a Tabloid sheet 11 x 17 is 2X the area of an 8.5x11 sheet. I agree for a lot of purposes, it is in fact correct to think in terms of area. Say how much ink is needed.
But to a customer, that is a failing sales pitch. If you put a 5x5 (25sqin) square image up and then a 7x7 (49sqin) next to it, no customer in the world will believe that is twice the size. That is because we are representing a 3D scene in 2 dimensions and both those dimension count. I certainly don't look at a 11 x 14 and think 16 x 20 is double the size.
My original point, was not to confuse the issues, but to merely point out it takes 4x the MP to produce a double size print at the same resolution. Therefore, a small MP difference between cameras is, in general, not significant. My is Nikon D7100 is 24MP while the Canon 7DmkII is 20MP. While i'm happy for those 4MP extra, it really isn't all that significant. Now, my 36MP D810 is a significant difference. Those 12 MP extra are big.
-
Not only that. The larger printer, such as my Epson 7600, uses 30 meter rolls of paper. Divide the total area of a 30m roll which is 600mm wide, by the area of any of the single sheet size of A4, A3, A2 etc, and you'll find that the cost of the same type of paper used in the larger printer is vastly cheaper, per unit area, than the packets of single sheets
Ray - I'm not sure that is correct. I remember a couple of years ago working out the costs of roll paper compared to A4 and A3 sheets. I use roll paper extensively (24") but I also use quite a lot of A4 and A3 paper. I considered cutting down roll paper into sheets - until I realised it did not actually work out cheaper. If I could be bothered I would redo the calculation - but I can't! I am comparing to buying boxes of 50 sheets or so of cut paper.
Jim
-
Ray - I'm not sure that is correct. I remember a couple of years ago working out the costs of roll paper compared to A4 and A3 sheets. I use roll paper extensively (24") but I also use quite a lot of A4 and A3 paper. I considered cutting down roll paper into sheets - until I realised it did not actually work out cheaper. If I could be bothered I would redo the calculation - but I can't! I am comparing to buying boxes of 50 sheets or so of cut paper.
Jim
It really depends on the sizes and aspect ratios you are printing. In general, for standard sizes, the cut sheets are almost always cheaper than trying to get them out of rolls. This is especially true if the paper type has sizes exactly or very near what you printing. There is a difference printing 11 x 14 from 13x19 stock or from 11.7" x 16.5" stock. On the other hand, if you are printing specialty sizes where there is a lot of waste from the standard size sheets, then yes, you might be able to save some money at the cost of hassle of dealing with cutting your own.
-
250 MP in APS-H. We are getting closer to that 400 figure Ctein came up with.
http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep07e.html
-
250 MP in APS-H. We are getting closer to that 400 figure Ctein came up with.
http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep07e.html
That after the ISO 4 million surveillance camera a few days back, Canon marketing is having a busy summer! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard