PDA

View Full Version : Megapixel



Shenook
03-30-2005, 08:21 AM
I know megapixel isn't everything but to print out very large prints, digital's can't keep up yet. 16megapixel is not up to par. It needs to reach 30mp to print out large pics.

When will the next generation of DSLR cameras be out and when will they hit 20+ MP?

My other question is when they say the CANON DSLR cameras are Full-Frame, are they truly Full Frame?

Anybody's opinions and input are appreciated.

GlennD
03-30-2005, 08:40 AM
Their are out there already if you want to pay the price. Midsize camera backs have been available for some time but they are very very expensive and used mostly for advertising. They are made by Kodak, Phase One and several other companies.

I regularly make 13x19 prints from my little Canon 10D with good results. I have even made that size with 1 1/8 size processors with very little noise and good resolution.

"Full size processors" are full frame 35mm (35.8 x 23.8mm).

Glenn

D70FAN
03-30-2005, 09:29 AM
I know megapixel isn't everything but to print out very large prints, digital's can't keep up yet. 16megapixel is not up to par. It needs to reach 30mp to print out large pics.

When will the next generation of DSLR cameras be out and when will they hit 20+ MP?

My other question is when they say the CANON DSLR cameras are Full-Frame, are they truly Full Frame?

Anybody's opinions and input are appreciated.

I'm not sure on what you based your statement, but 8Mp is supposed to be equivalent to normal ISO 100 film grain, and pro film is supposed to be around 16MP. As Glenn has stated, 22MP digital backs seem to be good enought for professional, medium format, studio work (including, large, store poster size), and they seem to be selling like hotcakes as a good supply of used medium-format film cameras and backs are out there for sale (relatively cheap). Digital backs run about $25,000+ depending on pixel density.

As for full-frame? Yes, they are true 35mm image size (24mm x 36mm).

There are only 4 full-frame 35mm cameras on the market (that I know of). The 11MP & 16MP Canon 1Ds/1Ds Mark II (~$8000) and the Kodak 14MP Pro SLR and 14n series (~$5000).

The Canon 1D and 1D Mark II are "tweeners" with a 28.7 x 19.1mm sensor and a 1.3X crop (~$6000).

The rest are APS-C sized (23.7 x 15.6mm 1.5X crop or Canons 22.7 x 15.1mm 1.6X crop)

An exception is the 4/3rds sensors from Kodak but used by Olympus (around 17.3mm x 13mm) in the E-300. The Oly E-1 uses a 22.3mm (diagonal) 4/3rds sensor. Interstingly people always assume that these cameras share the 22.3mm sensor when in fact the 8MP E-300 is the smaller of the two.

Anyway, that's probably more than you wanted to know, but now you know. ;)

eagle17
03-30-2005, 11:24 AM
Shenook I do not quite know what it is you are talking about. Did someone tell you that the current Digital cameras are not good enough for large prints or is this based off of a point and shoot (which even if it does have 8megapixal it does not give great photos)?

I see that glenn makes some large prints from his canon 10D and I know george has mentioned similar size prints from his nikon D70. Personally I have made 20x30in prints from my 20D and I have had 3 pros tell me that I used a medium format film back (thanks to el-color printing). So I would say what ever you are basing this topic on is flawed and you should check with any number of old pros now shooting with DSLR cameras to see what they think.

Also I have seen so serious blowups from a sinar back mf. and all I can say is WOW.

Shenook
03-30-2005, 01:35 PM
Shenook I do not quite know what it is you are talking about. Did someone tell you that the current Digital cameras are not good enough for large prints or is this based off of a point and shoot (which even if it does have 8megapixal it does not give great photos)?

I see that glenn makes some large prints from his canon 10D and I know george has mentioned similar size prints from his nikon D70. Personally I have made 20x30in prints from my 20D and I have had 3 pros tell me that I used a medium format film back (thanks to el-color printing). So I would say what ever you are basing this topic on is flawed and you should check with any number of old pros now shooting with DSLR cameras to see what they think.

Also I have seen so serious blowups from a sinar back mf. and all I can say is WOW.


Let me find the link I was sent and post it up. Tell me what you think. I assure you I have very little knowledge of photography so I'm easily influenced. Let me see if I can find the link.

Shenook
03-30-2005, 01:46 PM
I can't see this link from work but here it is.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Someone told me to shoot everything in JPEG. I think this is the article that claims 16mb isn't enough I just can't get to the link from work right now so i don't know if it's correct.

What do you think of the info presented? I appreciate your time.(s)

shevbo
03-30-2005, 02:30 PM
Dunno about the next DSLR hitting 20Mp but you can get digital backs for medium format cameras that are 20-35Mp if not more.

D70FAN
03-30-2005, 06:22 PM
Dunno about the next DSLR hitting 20Mp but you can get digital backs for medium format cameras that are 20-35Mp if not more.

Current Canon 1Ds Mark II is 16MP. I think 22MP is about the biggest digital back at this point. Who is making 35MP?

D70FAN
03-30-2005, 06:30 PM
I can't see this link from work but here it is.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Someone told me to shoot everything in JPEG. I think this is the article that claims 16mb isn't enough I just can't get to the link from work right now so i don't know if it's correct.

What do you think of the info presented? I appreciate your time.(s)

Yeah. For as much as I like Kens style, he sometimes goes off the deep end, and there are work-arounds for larger prints, from 6-8 MegaPixel images.

Most of us may use a little extra interpolation in Photoshop to fill in the gaps, but we rarely print to 20 x 30. Most of my larger print requests are for 11 x 14 or 13 x 19 which turn out beautiful on the Epson 2000P. These images are from a 6.1MP Nikon D70.

While it's true that Arizona Highways Magazine accepts only film, I suspect it's really more because they don't have the systems in place to handle the workflow, or that the current investment in drum scanners has not been amortized. I'm sure that this is about to change, and they are one of very few magazines not accepting/using digital.

TheObiJuan
03-30-2005, 06:33 PM
when it comes to resolving, the 1DSMKII beats pro film, as tested by Pop Photo & Imaging, but color accuracy, dynamic range, and other factors, film still takes the lead.
Really though, who cares? I will never print larger than 19" on the big end, so it doesn't matter.

D70FAN
03-30-2005, 06:37 PM
when it comes to resolving, the 1DSMKII beats pro film, as tested by Pop Photo & Imaging, but color accuracy, dynamic range, and other factors, film still takes the lead.
Really though, who cares? I will never print larger than 19" on the big end, so it doesn't matter.

Never is a long, long, long-long...time. :D

Shenook
03-30-2005, 09:44 PM
Thanks for the input. I'll stick with my superzoom until the MarkIII comes out :) I'm sure they're workin on it.

TheObiJuan
03-30-2005, 09:52 PM
Never is a long, long, long-long...time. :D

good point. I told my self after I got my last digicam that I would never need a DSLR...
3 months later, no less! Its not a D70, but eh... ;)

eagle17
03-31-2005, 06:28 AM
Its not a D70, but eh... ;) Ouch!

I really wouldn't worry to much about making large prints as it and as far as using jpg's verses RAW well that all depends on your personal workflow...

I used to shoot raw+JPG(large) and then i discovered that my raw pictures were better after I processed them. this led me to shoot raw+JPG(small) this way I can still see my photos without having to open a big editor like PS or DPP.

Shenook
03-31-2005, 01:18 PM
I think you got the right idea. As soon as I'm comfortable taking good pics I'll move up. I want 20+ mp because I have a habit of cropping. I know there's software to interpolate and such but it would be nice to have.

One day I'll get into the raw arena. Just wish I knew how to use my photoshop CS. I just got it and don't know how to use it. I'm on a PC not a mac and the good books I looked at were all mac based. I know there's not much of a difference but I'm picky. You guys have any suggestions?

D70FAN
03-31-2005, 03:22 PM
I think you got the right idea. As soon as I'm comfortable taking good pics I'll move up. I want 20+ mp because I have a habit of cropping. I know there's software to interpolate and such but it would be nice to have.

One day I'll get into the raw arena. Just wish I knew how to use my photoshop CS. I just got it and don't know how to use it. I'm on a PC not a mac and the good books I looked at were all mac based. I know there's not much of a difference but I'm picky. You guys have any suggestions?

How about this one?

http://www.shortcourses.com/bookstore/photoshop/book_pscs.htm

Should work. ;)

ReF
04-01-2005, 12:13 AM
I stopped reading that link to kenrockwell's site after a few minutes cuz i thought it a load of crap.

"I get the look I need with JPGs and prefer to spend my time making more photos. "

there is also such a thing as getting the most out of the really excellent photos that you already have by processing RAW files to their full potential. also, i would like to get a show of hands for all those who always have the time to perfectly set their camera's settings in every situation. the sames settings don't always work best for every situation. i came back from vacation with photos that i thought were already very good, but after i processed the RAW files and compared the old ones, the processed files were WAY better. RAW files also make it easier to recover shadow and highlight details, and with MUCH better results that trying to do the same with JPEGs. have any of you ever tried to fix the white balance of a JPEG that you goofed on and was way off? yeah, the results are pretty sad. you know what, i haven't enough time to give all the reasons why i don't agree with this Kenwhatever; just look at how much popularity the RAW format has gained since it's introduction, especially with pros and serious amateurs - i'm sure there are plenty of good reasons why this time consuming process is widely accepted and favored.

GlennD
04-02-2005, 05:45 AM
RAW file processing for me is more fun than actually taking the pictures. I've spent more years than I care to remember, standing in smelly darkrooms, processing photos, so when digital cameras and computers became affordable I was delighted.

Jpeg images are fun to tinker with but lose data with each new compression. RAW, on the other hand, is never changed and remains the same since the day it was first captured. It's like a film negative except it's a digital positive.

As my skills and software tools improve, I find I can go back over older RAW images and improve what I though was very good when first processed. I recently reprocessed about 2,000 RAW images from a earlier vacation trip and enjoyed every minute and many images looked better the second time around.

RAW processing might not be for everyone as it's time consuming and some people might not think the improved results are worth the effort. Since I'm retired, I have plenty of time and sure enjoy sitting at the computer processing rather than busy with "Honey Do's".

Glenn

Shenook
04-04-2005, 12:11 AM
I think I'll get into that boat when I learn to even use photoshop. I learned a few basic tools but need to play around a lot.

What do you think jpeg2000 will offer? I hear it's a lossless compression?

Would like to know your opinion.