# Extra Megapixels Useless?



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 18, 2011)

According to DxOMark, the best lenses for DSLRs have a resolution of 66-67 lp/mm - which equals to about a maximum circle of confusion of about 15 µm. Using the Diffraction Limit Calculator of http://www.cambridgeincolour.com. The maximum pixels a full frame sensor should have is 24 megapixels and crop sensor should have about 10 megapixels, why do lots of crop sensors have 16-18 megapixels?


----------



## mangtarn (Nov 18, 2011)

cameras with higher megapixels produce images that produce better results when cropped.

also marketing. 'bigger is better'


----------



## shootermcgavin (Nov 18, 2011)

I'm interested in this too, I was told by one camera guy at the store that over 10 is basically useless also and that an old 10mp full frame camera would be a great way to save money.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 18, 2011)

mangtarn said:


> cameras with higher megapixels produce images that produce better results when cropped.
> 
> also marketing. 'bigger is better'



IMO, no. Once passed the lens diffraction/circle of confusion limit, extra megapixels looks the same as the one without the extra megapixels bicubic enlarged.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Nov 18, 2011)

if a camera has 10 megapixel a new one with 12 has to be better no matter what.   look at any store camera ad. about the only thing they tell you is the name of the camera and how many megapixels it is.  people come up to you and ask you how many megapixels your camera has.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 18, 2011)

> why do lots of crop sensors have 16-18 megapixels?


Because numbers sell cameras.  As mentioned, when you see a typical electronics store advertisement...they tell you the name of the camera and how many megapixels it has.  Thus we had the 'megapixel race', where camera makers pushed to new limits with every new model.  

Photographers who have a good understanding of the issue, were grumbling that they didn't want more megapixels, they wanted lower noise at higher ISO, they wanted better dynamic range etc.  I once heard a rumor that engineers at Canon even admitted that they could have produced cameras with better image quality, but the marketing dept. forced the issue of higher MP, so that's what they made.

The race has slowed down in recent months/years...and it may be coming to an end.  Canon's new flagship camera, the 1Dx (due out next year) has a lower MP count than it's previous flagship camera, the 1Ds mkIII.  

Another issue, as mentioned, is the resolving power of the lenses.  


> he best lenses for DSLRs have a resolution of 66-67 lp/mm


OK...but what about lesser quality lenses?  They will just compound the problem.

That why, when people are considering buying a high MP APS-C camera, like Canon's 60D or 7D etc., they should also consider that they will need very high quality lenses to take advantage of their camera's sensor.  This is also the reason why the camera companies are re-enginneering their lenses.  Canon's 70-200mm F2.8 IS is a good example.  They recently released a new 'II' version, which is supposed to have better resolving power than the older version.  It's also $800 more than the older version.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 18, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> I'm interested in this too, I was told by one camera guy at the store that over 10 is basically useless also and that an old 10mp full frame camera would be a great way to save money.



That, or something close to it, is also what I was told. A while back. Has newer technology made this different? Maybe. But tbh I'm not enough of a geek to be able to answer that.

All I know, is that my Hasselblad which has a sensor 3 times as big as a FF camera (or is it 4 times?) does not have 3 times as much mpixels as the newest FFs. So it sure doesn't have 4 times as much. Let's leave the snob factor aside here and look at this rationally. If Hasselblad (or any other medium format maker) could do so much better than they can today by just adding to the mp number, why don't they?

Maybe because they are dealing mostly with people who actually pay close attention to the IQ and will not pay more $ for no more IQ.

As I was reminded not too long ago when asking about digital backs for 4x5s and 8x10s, there are physical limitations to the sensors available today. There are none in the formats I was asking about. Does that mean someone could not claim to make one? Yes, sure, except people willing to carry around a view camera are few and far between today and they are probably more discerning and better informed than the average DSLR buyer.

Let's not forget that the average DSLR buyer is probably first and foremost buying a name. Just look at the number of threads about Nikon vs. Canon as if those were the only cameras out there...

Second, they are buying mpixels and the brands are giving them what they want whether or not it makes any difference :er:


----------



## KmH (Nov 18, 2011)

There is a reason Nikon offers 2 versions of the D3 - the D3s and the D3x. The D3s is designed (optimized) for shooting action sports, and the D3x is designed (optimized) for studio work.

The $5200 D3s has *12.1 MP*, can shoot 9 fps, and has a max base ISO of 12,800. The $8000 D3x has *24.5 MP*, can shoot 5 fps, and has a max base ISO of 1600.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side


----------



## unpopular (Nov 18, 2011)

While the math might be sound here, actual evidence does differ.

Canon EOS 1000D / Rebel XS Review: 33. Compared to (Resolution): Digital Photography Review
Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i Review: 18. Resolution: Digital Photography Review

While the two images were processed differently, I don't think this can account for a 1000 line/inch difference. I suspect that what you're looking at is that while the absolute resolution limit might be a 10um circle, the extinction point - where no measurable detail can be recovered, is much higher resolution. So while a lens won't perform as nearly well as the sensor, detail still can be recovered from a higher resolution sensor than compared to a lower resolution sensor.

I also have other suspicions concerning enlargement and print resolution as well, though I need to research these ideas bore I can comment.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 18, 2011)

According to wikipedia:



> Unfortunately, the count of pixels isn't a real measure of the resolution of digital camera images, because color image sensors are typically set up to alternate color filter types  over the light sensitive individual pixel sensors. Digital images  ultimately require a red, green, and blue value for each pixel to be  displayed or printed, but one individual pixel in the image sensor will  only supply one of those three pieces of information. The image has to  be interpolated or demosaiced to produce all three colors for each output pixel.



Image resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, the number of pixels contained in the interpolated output of the RAW processor is not the same as the number of effective pixels of the sensor. My processor permits what it called "Half" which takes the RGBG data from the raw file and superimposes the data, similar to color co-sampling, resulting in a file about half as large as the two other interpolation modes, "VCMDF" and "AHDMF". Uninterpolated "Half" mode does seem to produce sharper results, however, with a 14mp camera, I can only get a 7mp image using this mode. One reason I would like to get a 24mp camera is to utilize this mode.

It seems to me that digital cameras are doing all sorts of things to my images on my behalf that I would not normally approve of. Unfortunately, most processors do this completely behind out backs.

If the listed resolution is the effective pixels without interpolation, rather than the number of sensing sites on the chip then these kinds of calculations would be valid. However if the listed resolution is the total number of physical sensing sites on the chip, each pixel would be considerably larger, this because each effective pixel actually consists of four physical sensing sites occupying space. I suspect that this is the case, otherwise my camera would be listed as a 7mp camera and not a 14mp camera, according to tests using RPP's "Half" mode.

This is a result of the problem with "pixel" meaning different things depending on where you're looking.

If the "Half" mode of Raw Photo Processor is truly doing what it claims, and the image is totally interpolated, a 24mp APS-C sensor would only slightly surpass the theoretical limits of the glass we put on it, as it produces a 12mp file.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_mask
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 19, 2011)

To be honest, I don't really care how many MP a camera has, I have produced great images from 4mp cameras and I have produced great images from 8mp cameras, so does any of this mean that I could produce better images with a 20mp camera, nope, not at all............it's still the brain behind the camera.

People are being suckered into upgrading all the time, better cell phones, I can still make a call and text on my  3 year old phone, yep, do I need one that tells me what the weather is like on the other side of the world as well, nope.

I'll leave all that to the population of geeks that are more interested in talking about what they have, instead of knowing how to use it.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2011)

The extra megapixels are really handy on the freeway, when you need to pass another shooter quickly, safely, and efficiently. There's often some dufus in the left hand lane, plodding along at 8.2 megapixels, driving his beat up, piece of chit Rebel or 20D,and holding everybody behind him back. Now,  if you have a 12,14,16, or 17 megapixel camera, you can just mash down on the shutter release button and watch as the CF card starts to fill up, and you blow by that plodding eight mega-pixeler, as he pretends not to see the dirty look you shoot him as you pull even, and then leave him in your buffer...these newer, higher megapixel cameras also tend to shoot faster (Canon guys tend to shoot fast), while the newer Nikon ones have buffers that tend to last longer in sequential mode (Nikon guys want to be in the game looooonger, not faster!).

Or, if there are, like, some hot women hanging around the watercooler area, and you're taking your spiffy new Canon 7D out to the front of the building to do some happy snaps on your lunch break, when the cute woman who works in payroll asks you, "So, how many megapixels are you packing?" you can proudly tell her, "Eighteen...yep, eighteen rock-hard,toned, Canon megapickles, all right 'cheer..." confident that she doesn't know that you're rounding UP...but then she catches you and giggles at you and says, "Don't you mean 17.8 mega-PIXELS?", and then, caught in a lie, you slink away and just head outside and see if the Pentax guys will have some sympathy for you getting shot down while lying to a woman about your Canon...


----------



## unpopular (Nov 19, 2011)

Oh boy! The old "megapixels don't matter" line. I suppose if you don't mind printing everything at 4x6 that would be true.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 19, 2011)

Geez, I don't know, I've seen some of my 4mp images cover the full side of a truck and look pretty good. I've seen 100asa prints look like ****, and I've seen 1600asa prints look great, starts with with a great image, correct exposure, you know the things that come with understandng how to shoot well, and not just talk.

I won't get into a bigger is better chat, I know the difference, I understand the difference.  All I know is that I have produced wall size images from a 1D years ago that looked great.


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 19, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> Geez, I don't know, I've seen some of my 4mp images cover the full side of a truck and look pretty good. I've seen 100asa prints look like ****, and I've seen 1600asa prints look great, starts with with a great image, correct exposure, you know the things that come with understandng how to shoot well, and not just talk.
> 
> I won't get into a bigger is better chat, I know the difference, I understand the difference.  All I know is that I have produced wall size images from a 1D years ago that looked great.



I agree if your into prints for advertising on the side of trucks mp isnt that big of deal.  Super high mp only really helps if u crop heavily or print to a very high resolution, like for large gallery prints.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 19, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, and if  you're having to crop too much, you're shooting too loose in the first place.  I do alot of  newspaper, magazine work, and having a 20mp file is pointless for these applications.


----------



## Garbz (Nov 19, 2011)

unpopular said:


> Oh boy! The old "megapixels don't matter" line. I suppose if you don't mind printing everything at 4x6 that would be true.



There's a practical limit to your quote. Megapixels do matter. If your camera is 5 years old. These days megapixels DON'T matter. My cell phone has a 8mpxl camera. My point and shoot has a 10, the new one 12, the point of this thread is that cropped sensors are 16. 

Petty much every camera (in the point and shoot market, phone market, and select midrange DSLRs) you buy these days have optics that are unable to resolve the full resolution of their sensors. So the number really doesn't matter.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 19, 2011)

^^ I am just not sure I really believe this. Real-world tests indicate otherwise. Time after time people say this, but don't take into account the fact that your camera's pixels aren't what you think they are - and I really don't know how much an effect this would have.

While the individual light sensing unit of your camera might be too small to resolve a given lens, there are four light sensing components per image pixel. Because these components occupy unique space over two dimensions, they can be thought of as one larger, average pixel. So a 24mp camera is not really 24mp at all, but rather 12mp.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 19, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is NO difference. If you plan to crop, you could always upsize using Perfect Resize to get 1000% size without quality loss. If you want more natural results, a bicubic resizing will look exactly like what a higher MP will produce.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 19, 2011)

Discussions like these always make me nostalgic for the simple days of film.


----------



## rgregory1965 (Nov 19, 2011)

So I could have saved a few hundred by gettin a D90 istead of my D7000......nice to know now.....lol


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 19, 2011)

rgregory1965 said:


> So I could have saved a few hundred by gettin a D90 istead of my D7000......nice to know now.....lol



Not really. Both camera might not have big differences in REAL resolution, but D7000 is definitely better in noise performance, dynamic range, tonal range and color sensitivity.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 19, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> There is NO difference. If you plan to crop, you could always upsize  using Perfect Resize to get 1000% size without quality loss. If you want  more natural results, a bicubic resizing will look exactly like what a  higher MP will produce.



Apparently this is not an evidence based discussion.


----------



## Crollo (Nov 19, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> If you plan to crop, you could always upsize using Perfect Resize to get 1000% size without quality loss.



Uh, no...


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 19, 2011)

unpopular said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO difference. If you plan to crop, you could always upsize  using Perfect Resize to get 1000% size without quality loss. If you want  more natural results, a bicubic resizing will look exactly like what a  higher MP will produce.
> ...



Common sense will tell you that when the sensor's resolution is higher than the lenses resolution, more MP will look like bicubic upsizing. Just my common sense. I might be wrong.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 19, 2011)

Take a look at my posts in this thread, and let me know what you think. What you say does make sense, but only if it were the case. And it may be. But I think I have reasons to think it isn't, and that digital cameras actually have much lower functional resolution than they claim.

---

As far as the 1000x statement, I know you were a bit excited on the topic and prob exaggerated, but at this amount you'll start seeing pixelation, and not organic, smooth transitions like you would with low optical resolution. Even at 4x you'll start seeing the image's finer details break down into blurry squares. If you try to sharpen this artifact, you'll only emphasize it, whereas with optical blur if you try to sharpen you have some opportunity to recover the visibility of detail. 

I don't think of this as an argument in favor of large pixel count, but interpolation is always destructive - even if the detail which a larger pixel count returns has more to do with the lens than the scene - it is detail nonetheless, if even only to be used in USM.

Remember, the real world isn't composed of boxes.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 19, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> ...you could always upsize using Perfect Resize to get 1000% size without quality loss.



I have never used this software but I seriously doubt your claim. One cannot create what isn't there in the first place.

I used to install home theaters on the side for a while because I love movies. In the process, I installed upconverting DVD players. Not because they were incredible, they were not. But they did improve the image to some degree and for anyone with a fairly large collection of regular DVDs they were well worth it. I have one of those players myself 

However they did not and still do not achieve the quality of Blue Ray. Therefore I doubt your claim of 1000% size increase with no loss of quality. And the problem is the same, inventing pixels that are just not there. It may become possible some day but I don't see it today.

The idea of making a print large enough for a billboard or the side of a truck from a 10mp photo is neither here nor there. Those are not meant to be seen up close, they are seen from a distance and, most often, while moving at a fairly high speed. So the quality requirements are not the same as for a print shown in a gallery or, as with most of the very large photos that exist today, meant to be studied in details, in little chunk. And those are achieved by stitching together hundreds of shots. Not by using some sort of "upconverting" software.

As far as the OPs question is concerned, none of it matters much. The camera brands are playing to the bragging rights of the buyers, most of whom understand very little besides big numbers.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 19, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> I have never used this software but I seriously doubt your claim. One cannot create what isn't there in the first place.
> 
> I used to install home theaters on the side for a while because I love movies. In the process, I installed upconverting DVD players. Not because they were incredible, they were not. But they did improve the image to some degree and for anyone with a fairly large collection of regular DVDs they were well worth it. I have one of those players myself
> 
> ...



The point he was making is that it wasn't there in the first place. The last statement is kind of like saying that because owning a Leica earns your bragging rights, Leica is just as good as a P&S. Simply because camera manufactures are appealing to photographer's egos does not mean that there is no benefit to larger pixel counts.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 19, 2011)

I won't dispute that larger files allow more cropping, and you'll end up with a cleaner image when printed as fine art. For my application having huge files slows everything down, and doing stuff for the wire services, the huge files just aren't necessary.  Doing advertising/studio work I can understand the need for larger raw files.

What I believe is that the camera companies are simply using the "bigger is better" mentality, in order to lure potential buyers into thinking that is what is required to be a photographer, and people believe it.  That's business.  I can't dispute all the facts that have been displayed on this thread, because honestly I just don't understand it all, and don't feel I need to know it to be a good shooter.  I like to leave the technical information to those that appreciate it, understand it and enjoy that side of photography.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 19, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> I can't dispute all the facts that have been displayed on this thread, because honestly I just don't understand it all, and don't feel I need to know it to be a good shooter.  I like to leave the technical information to those that appreciate it, understand it and enjoy that side of photography.



I agree. I'm not technically minded either but I have enough experience to trust my eyes as far as the results are concerned. Most of the technical stuff I get comes from spending time here and with more technically-minded photogs.




unpopular said:


> The last statement is kind of like saying that because owning a Leica earns your bragging rights, Leica is just as good as a P&S. Simply because camera manufactures are appealing to photographer's egos does not mean that there is no benefit to larger pixel counts.



I hope you meant this the other way around, ie a P&S being just as good as a Leica. Because if a Leica is just as good as P&S we have a problem 

And that is exactly what I meant. But you have to keep in mind that I'm talking about sales in general. Not sales to the Pro or advanced amateur markets which are in reality very small. The market that keeps the camera brands going is the amateur one, you know, the snapshot people. And in the hands of people who are not really interested in learning the art, people who just want memories, a P&S is just as good. Actually, because there is so much less to learn about them, a P&S may very well get them better shots on a regular basis.

For a lot of people, big names and large mp counts are nothing more than d&#8226;ck extenders. Before I got back into photo I carried a small Nikon P&S which was just great for my family album photos. Back in the days of film I carried an Olympus XA on vacations. Nothing more than a P&S but, man, it was the Rolls Royce of film P&Ss and I still own 2 of them.

So, NO, I don't have a problem with P&S cameras. I don't have a problem with chest thumpers either. In photography they allow the camera companies to make enough money to keep on doing research to come up with new, better stuff which will eventually be useful to the pros and advanced amateurs


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:
			
		

> >>>SNIP>>>One cannot create what isn't there in the first place.>>SNIP>>
> 
> And the problem is the same, inventing pixels that are just not there. It may become possible some day but I don't see it today.



Well, "inventing pixels that are just not there" is precisely, exactly, and simply, what the demosaicing routine does when it creates the images off of every single image made with every single Bayer-sensor arrayed camera. The images you are looking at today, in 2011, are created with "estimated" color information...and current RAW file converters create the "illusion"of detail and texture above the Nyquist limit...and I say this not to appear dickish, but just to set you on the path of better information...what you think will be possible "someday" is the way digital imaging actually works at the most-basic level.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 19, 2011)

Derrel said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe so but you are talking about within the small size of the sensor.

I was responding to the 1000% comment.


----------



## Helen B (Nov 19, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> According to DxOMark, the best lenses for DSLRs have a resolution of 66-67 lp/mm - which equals to about a maximum circle of confusion of about 15 µm. Using the Diffraction Limit Calculator of http://www.cambridgeincolour.com. The maximum pixels a full frame sensor should have is 24 megapixels and crop sensor should have about 10 megapixels, why do lots of crop sensors have 16-18 megapixels?



Could you give us your calculations for those values. They look wrong, but I'd like to see your calcs.



EchoingWhisper said:


> Common sense will tell you that when the sensor's resolution is higher  than the lenses resolution, more MP will look like bicubic upsizing.  Just my common sense. I might be wrong.



Remember that the resolution of a system is not the resolution of the lowest-resolving element of the system. It can be reduced below that.

Remember that DxO Mark resolution figures are not for the lens, but for a lens/camera pair. The lens resolution could be higher. Note that the same lens achieves higher resolution on the D3x than on a D3, for example (that alone seems to blow a bit of a hole in your argument).

Best,
Helen


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 19, 2011)

Helen B said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > According to DxOMark, the best lenses for DSLRs have a resolution of 66-67 lp/mm - which equals to about a maximum circle of confusion of about 15 µm. Using the Diffraction Limit Calculator of http://www.cambridgeincolour.com. The maximum pixels a full frame sensor should have is 24 megapixels and crop sensor should have about 10 megapixels, why do lots of crop sensors have 16-18 megapixels?
> ...



Yes, it seems wrong. Resolution of 66-67 lp/mm = Circle of confusion of about 15 µm. Agree? Maximum pixel pitch for circle of confusion of about 15 µm = 6 µm. 6 µm pixel pitch for each pixel on 24mmx18mm = about 10MP. Correct? Wrong?



EchoingWhisper said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > Common sense will tell you that when the sensor's resolution is higher  than the lenses resolution, more MP will look like bicubic upsizing.  Just my common sense. I might be wrong.
> ...



Yes. I know that. But when you look closer, why does a lens have a higher resolution per mm in D3x but a lower resolution in D7000. Ain't D7000 have a smaller pixel pitch?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 19, 2011)

The maximum detail a D7000 can "see" is 85 lp/mm. I don't see any lens with that performance.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 19, 2011)

While individual sensor pixels may not resolve a lens, the collection of pixels which make up a single image pixels is twice as large in either dimension. All four pixels are used to describe the average illumination of the CoC at any given 4x4 sensor pixel area, rather that each individual sensor pixel is of higher resolution or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_filter_array
Bayer filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing


----------



## Helen B (Nov 20, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> The maximum detail a D7000 can "see" is 85 lp/mm. I don't see any lens with that performance.



Not necessarily. You are forgetting the MTF of the AA filter - which is why the D3x can have a higher system resolution than the D7000 with its slightly smaller pixel pitch.

The mentions of a 15 µm c-o-c and the diffraction limit in your calcs was what looked wrong. Going directly from 67 lp/mm to a maximum pixel pitch of about 6 µm is better - though that comes to about 12 MP for a 24 mm x 18 mm sensor, doesn't it? (not that it matters much). You then need to account for the MTF of the AA filter/sensor part of the system, which could be about 0.3 lp/pixel at 20% modulation. As I mentioned before, you need to remember that the DxO figures _are not for the lens_ but for a lens/camera system.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 20, 2011)

In the real world, FOCUSING MISTAKES, and focus shift from wide-open to shooting aperture are simply huge, huge limiting factors on how much detail is resolved. Perhaps the most serious problem with the ultra-high resolution d-slrs and medium format systems is setting a focus point that maximizes resolution. If the focus is off just a little bit, a "24 megapixel" D3x capture can easily,easily have lower resolution than a well-focused D3s photo that is properly focused. Camera motion or vibration are other sharpness killers.

Take a look at this review, about 3/4 of the way down the page, and look at 12MP versus 24 MP captures of the same subject matter:
Nikon D3x Review by Thom Hogan

Actually "achieving" 24 megapixels's worth of image is quite a challenging endeavor...and, a GOOD 12 MP capture can be up-rezzed to look an awful lot like a 24MP capture. If you're shooting for publication and your files are being screened, MP count doesn't much matter as long as the focus is decent and the lens is good...SPorts Illustrated has been running double-trucks since the D1 days (2.7MP) and the Canon 1D days (4.2 MP), and the images as printed in the magazine look quite good no matter what the MP count of the camera was. Same on newsprint...the screen is so coarse and the paper so "meh" that the camera's MP count is almost meaningless.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 20, 2011)

... it's like a lacuna or something.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 20, 2011)

Helen B said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > The maximum detail a D7000 can "see" is 85 lp/mm. I don't see any lens with that performance.
> ...



This gave me another good idea. I think if camera manufacturers created vignettes around each pixel then the AA filter/low pass filter could be eliminated.

EDIT: Lol. Stupid idea that won't work.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 21, 2011)

^^ Lol. I was kind of scratching my head a bit. :greenpbl: << wtf is this guy, anyway?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 21, 2011)

Did I mention I missed the film days when all we had to worry about was pushing a roll of 400asa to 1600asa and hope it held together enough to get a decent print.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 21, 2011)

^^ I dunno. You still had Rodinal v. Microdol and the whole accutance v. resolution debate.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 21, 2011)

I didn't really think much about what we were using, depended on what  neg film we were shooting, ilford/kodak, played with different temps, processing colour, how many times to turn the can over while processing. It was all pretty simple stuff.  I don't ever remember getting into many discussions with the other photographers about processing.  As long as the grain didn't look like golf balls, which it did on occation, and we could squeeze a decent 8x10 out of it the world was right.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 21, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> I didn't really think much about what we were using, depended on what  neg film we were shooting, ilford/kodak, played with different temps, processing colour, how many times to turn the can over while processing. It was all pretty simple stuff.  I don't ever remember getting into many discussions with the other photographers about processing.  As long as the grain didn't look like golf balls, which it did on occation, and we could squeeze a decent 8x10 out of it the world was right.



I recall this era as being filled with HUGE discussions and arguments as to how much water to add to the coffee maker, and how long a pot of coffee could sit before it was deemed "sludge", as well as some pretty bitter arguments about whose job it was to make coffee;perhaps no argument was as bitter,nor as frequent, as the one about HOW MUCH COFFEE was optimal to achieve the desired degree of jangled nerves; darkroom techs/photogs were expected to make coffee, since we knew how to measure water, mix powders, and insert filters, as well as how to handle complicated tasks such as rinsing out the glass carafe without breaking it, as well as handling the nuances of the On/Off switch and the Timer/No Timer settings. Of course, the paste-up crew drank the majority of the coffee as they waited for halftones to come out. Souping pushed rolls of Tri-X to E.I. 3200 meant an ounce of HC-110 syrup per 4-roll tank and about 15 minutes at 76 degrees Farenheit...and all you really had were highlights and mid-tones and zero shadow detail...


----------



## Helen B (Nov 21, 2011)

The issues about resolution degradation that Derrel mentioned apply to film just as much as digital. Bear in mind that many films have a resolution of over 100 lp/mm, and some have a resolution of over 200 lp/mm. The really high resolution films like Tech Pan did show up the flaws in your equipment and technique. Equally well, the graininess of pushed High Speed Ektachrome, Scotch 640T or even relatively recent film like Ektachrome 320T would hide a lot of flaws.

Though not every situation benefits from high resolution, that doesn't mean that it is entirely useless - why would we shoot medium and large format if we didn't need high resolution (in terms of lp/picture height) images?

Referring to Derrel's post about making coffee - there would usually be a list of everyone's preference for coffee and tea pinned to the wall in the lab. It is surprising how many people liked Dektol in their coffee. I preferred PQ Universal. Meanwhile, the subject of how to develop Tri-X that had been exposed at EI 1600 was a very hot topic, with stand development in 1+3 D-76 for 90 minutes being quite popular.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 21, 2011)

Oh, Helen....Scotch 640T...whoa! flashbacks!!!!!!


----------



## Helen B (Nov 21, 2011)

I still have one boxed roll, just for the memories... My precious...


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 21, 2011)

Helen B said:


> ...It is surprising how many people liked Dektol in their coffee.



Wow! I'm not the only one who likes to drink Dektol?

:lmao:




"Though not every situation benefits from high resolution, that doesn't  mean that it is entirely useless - why would we shoot medium and large  format if we didn't need high resolution (in terms of lp/picture height)  images?"

What I have found is that it is a lot easier and cheaper to err on the side of better. Redoing a shoot because the image editor/client doesn't like the resolution in 35mm would have been quite costly. No matter what the client said, I always shot in the highest resolution/IQ/whatever terms someone else understands I could shoot in that was practical for the shot.

It is easy enough to mess up a picture to make it look like a cheap camera was used. Not so easy to do the opposite.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 21, 2011)

i liked mixing microdol and rodinal for a bitter-sweet brew. I don't remember the proportions tho.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

Just thought of something. Think I'm right though. If you plan to print smaller (smaller than the suggested size at 300PPI), a higher megapixel (more than the resolution limit lens) would be better (cause' you'll be downsizing and hiding the noise, if you were to print larger, you will upsize and the size of the noise would increase with the picture), if you plan to print larger, a lower megapixel (exactly at resolution limit of lens) would be better (cause' you'll be upsizing the picture without resolution loss and you won't increase the size of the noise).


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

I think I was dead wrong at the starting of this thread. At the center of the Samyang 24mm 1.4 on D3X (which is currently the sharpest lens tested by DxOMark), the lp/mm is about 80. So given that the AA filter on D3x robs away 30% of sharpness per pixel, the real lp/mm of the Samyang lens is 115. This gives it a circle of confusion of 8 micro meters, and maximum pixel pitch 3.5 micro meters for sensors. Which means, to out resolve this lens without any artifacts like moire, aliasing etc (given that the lens has no AA filter), you'd need 71 megapixels on full frame and 31 megapixels on DX. We still haven't reached the end of the megapixel race, and the race goes on whenever a lens sharper than the Samyang 24mm 1.4 is made.


----------



## murlis (Feb 6, 2012)

another thing, whether it has been discussed or not, that if you have more megapixels, they will have to be smaller, what does this mean, well in everyday use not a lot, but they will not be as sensitive to light, and therefore more susceptible to noise, smaller pixels tend to give a much "messier" image when you crop them. this is a result of many things such as the bayer filter on the sensors, because they only measure the intensity of light rather than the colour itself, they make the pixels go in order of red, green, blue, green, red, green, blue etc... as a result the sensors have to "Borrow" colour data from the pixels on either side. This is only normally noticeable when you shoot on very small sensors in compacts that have high megapixels, especially when the noise is high, but it can be found on ANY camera that uses this system. Now the next photos I have included were all taken at the same time, but with different cameras. 

This was taken on a Kodak Easyshare bridge camera, that comes in at 12MP






This on a Sony Cybershot compact camera that is 8MP





and this on a Sigma DP2 at *ONLY* 5MP





the clarity of the sigma, with less pixels on a much larger sensor always seems to amaze people, and has been rated as being able to upscale to about 12mp worth in DSLR terms. The Sony camera shows the pixel colour borrow issue most, on the leaves on the plant. They look wobbly.

Just my input, tom.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

murlis said:


> another thing, whether it has been discussed or not, that if you have more megapixels, they will have to be smaller, what does this mean, well in everyday use not a lot, but they will not be as sensitive to light, and therefore more susceptible to noise, smaller pixels tend to give a much "messier" image when you crop them. this is a result of many things such as the bayer filter on the sensors, because they only measure the intensity of light rather than the colour itself, they make the pixels go in order of red, green, blue, green, red, green, blue etc... as a result the sensors have to "Borrow" colour data from the pixels on either side. This is only normally noticeable when you shoot on very small sensors in compacts that have high megapixels, especially when the noise is high, but it can be found on ANY camera that uses this system. Now the next photos I have included were all taken at the same time, but with different cameras.
> 
> This was taken on a Kodak Easyshare bridge camera, that comes in at 12MP
> 
> ...



Not really, if you display all pictures at the same size, they'll look the same if the sensor design is the same. You do realise that on 100%, the one with higher pixels will be larger. Read this to understand more - The Real Megapixel Myth


----------



## DiskoJoe (Feb 6, 2012)

It good to have extra pixels when you crop a shot.


----------



## murlis (Feb 6, 2012)

The whole point is that the sensor design is not the same  I have maybe put this erroneously here as the Sigma actually has 14 megapixels, but then downscales it to 5. And i made reference to sensor size rather than sensel size!


----------



## Jeremy Z (Feb 6, 2012)

Thanks for the great thread. 

I've suspected this all along, but have not known how to prove it. 

I've found that I rarely need more than 4 MP, and most of those times, it was needed as a digital zoom, when my PnS ran out of telephoto.


----------

