[Don Schaeffer]

I am convinced that a 3.2 megapixel image is just perfect for an amateur photographer who limits prints to 8X10. I own a 4 megapixel camera and find that even this small size increase takes significantly more storage space. A 3.2 meg camera with agood zoom lens (4x or higher) or good auxillary lenses would be muchmore serviceable for me than a 5 megapixel camera. Argue with me!

--Don

[Rufus]

You are wrong.

[Petographer]

Storage shouldn't be an issue with the new dual layer DVDs that are available. At $140.00 for a burner, that's pretty cheap. I know not all of us can afford these things, I know as I haven't got one yet either but I'm shooting 6 MP's and still burn to CD. I haven't found storage a problem with a 60 gig HD. I don't burn my images too often . But I do when I have enough for 2-3 disks. Mind you, I still shoot jpg and haven't made the jump to Raw. It is the workflow that makes me lazy. So with that said, I'd be more than happy to have as many megapixels as I could get.
Just my opinion so sorry, no argument.

[guerito]

Well then, if you want to argue... I think that the glass is the most important part of the camera, yes. But on the other hand, if you have a good lens, what's the problem with more pixels? Storage on the card is comparatively cheap and reusable. Disk storage is comparatively cheap too. But, more pixels give you more options to crop. Like this:



This is a crop from 3008x2000:



There are probably more arguments for higher pixel numbers, but this is the most important for me.

[Rufus]

I disagree.

[slejhamer]

My opinion is 3mp is great up to 4x6 and good to 5x7. With interpolation I've gotten 8x10s, so it can definitely be done and the results are acceptable.

And now that I've gotten my 16x20 and 20x30 prints back, I'll say 6mp is very good up to the former and good to the latter.

I'd also argue that my interpolated 20x30 prints equal or even beat the same size prints from 35mm film.

[Don Schaeffer]

You know we are presenting our images in a compressed format anyway, no more than 640 X 480. These images come out perfectly well on our screens. Most of the time I am putting images on the internet or in forums. Even my recorded media are for computer use. The Video CD has a very limited resolution to be presented on TV.

I agree, the higher pixel count is useful for extreme cropping.

I get 60 images on a 64 meg card. I think the tradeoff is worth it.

--Don
These are taken with my 3.2 meg camera. Reduced to 640 X 480. The crop is considerable with little artifact.

[Don Schaeffer]

Another example

[EnglishBob]

I wouldn't go back to anything less than I have now, while 3.2mp may be adeqaute for small prints and anything online, but as others have said, when printing at 8*10 or more, you need the extra detail if it is to hold up.

[Petographer]

My opinion is 3mp is great up to 4x6 and good to 5x7. With interpolation I've gotten 8x10s, so it can definitely be done and the results are acceptable.

And now that I've gotten my 16x20 and 20x30 prints back, I'll say 6mp is very good up to the former and good to the latter.

I'd also argue that my interpolated 20x30 prints equal or even beat the same size prints from 35mm film.

Can you tell us what software you are using for interpolation? I'd be very interrested to see what kind of results I can get from the Drebel.

[Don Schaeffer]

I have made excellent 8 x 10 prints. I don't have the capacity for anything larger anyway.

[slejhamer]

Can you tell us what software you are using for interpolation? I'd be very interrested to see what kind of results I can get from the Drebel.

The big prints were upsized to 200% in Capture One during raw conversion. But I've seen comparisons of Capture One's uprezzing and Photoshop's bicubic method, and the results are pretty similar as far as I can see. The 3mp images (G1) done to 8x10 were in PS.

THIS PDF gives an overview of the "bicubic smoother" option in PS-CS.

[StudioJ]

I'm rather partial to the interpolation via C1. I'd rather do as much in there as I can before it goes to PS, the editing time does take a bit longer on bigger files (my most common size to work on is A3 (12 x 16" ish, 3500 x 5000px) and the prints from that come up very clean providing the source image is good to begin with.

I recently had to give it a bit more of a kick to print 2 shots that are going into a trade stand at ***** next month so I used the Stairstep script (no idea who makes this variant) to bump up the size to 24 x 36" (7200 x 10800px) which is close to 300% of an enlargement. They were printed at a quality lab (Auswide) and I was very happy with the results, coming from the lab it showed less digital artefacts and more softness like a true enlargement from film and it was quite pleasant viewed from around three feet away.

[Rufus]

*****


*****???


James!!!! What will your better half say? :o


...............

And, may I add; you are wrong too.

[Rufus]

I've just checked it out

SHOCKING!!! :o

James, shame on you!!! :o

[adam]

I think that ***** is for naughty people! hehe! *doesnt click the link*

[shuttertalk]

Geez, how did we ever get on this topic?

Sorry, I've had to remove the references and links to the inappropriate material. J, love your work, but please keep things above board.

[Rufus]

Aaaargh!!

I've been censored!!! Still, sensors are vital here, so maybe a bit aof sense when using sensors may avert the appearance of the censor.

[Rufus]

James!! Haha!! You are censored too!!!

[adam]

Now everyone who missed it must be wondering what super five letter word can fit into that

Could it be NIKON?

[Rufus]

It could be, couldnt it?

[shuttertalk]

I recently had to give it a bit more of a kick to print 2 shots that are going into a trade stand at ***** next month so I used the Stairstep script (no idea who makes this variant) to bump up the size to 24 x 36" (7200 x 10800px) which is close to 300% of an enlargement. They were printed at a quality lab (Auswide) and I was very happy with the results, coming from the lab it showed less digital artefacts and more softness like a true enlargement from film and it was quite pleasant viewed from around three feet away.

Back on topic -- just wondering -- perhaps the lab's printing process requires less pixels for a better image? Just speculating here, but I know dye subs have larger "droplets" and so need less resolution compared to inkjets.

Hm... then again, I might be wrong.

[Don Schaeffer]

So much depends on the photo. If the photo is really excellent, the eye tolerates more artifacts. Think of the old tri-x days. Grain came to be considered a symbol of authenticity if the photo was important.

[Kombisaurus]

oooo.. now I think I understand why Rufus was running around calling Jamie a pornographer last night.
But the link has been removed so I can only imagine where it led.

hehe.
<sarcastic kids voice to Jamie> Rufus dobbed on you to dad!
yooooou got in trouuuble.. ner ner ner ner

ps: On a serious note - the more pixels the better. Apart from better cropping, resampling down reduces noise and the "guesswork" effects of the bayer pattern, so a 6mp or 8mp image resampled down to 3.2 will almost always look better than a native 3.2mp image. Storage (Hard drives, blank CD's and DVD's) are dirt cheap. Why limit yourself?
And as mentioned previously, the flexibility in cropping is perhaps the best advantage. Here's a crop from a shot I took today.

[angelphotographer]

i too use my megapixels to crop

but why just a few megapixels why not a gigapxl or two