From: missfocus on
John McWilliams wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Celcius wrote:
>>> "The Kat" <news1(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gs0ic4l9fbf6jp220fnlto4fdacal1691u(a)4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:52 +1200, missfocus <user(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100%
>>>>> pixel view.
>>>>> More pixels is a big deal huh?
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying you CAN'T see the difference??
>
>>> Or one might also ask if the difference's worth spending much more
>>> money to achieve it?
>>> Marcel
>>
>> <sigh> To double resolution, one must quadruple pixels.
>>
>> What I will get when I go from a 6Mpix camera to a 24 Mpix camera
>> (sort of).
>>
>> Why sort of? Well, the senor is larger, so I will have 4 times as
>> many "production" pixels to work with the capture resolution (lp/mm on
>> the sensor) won't be quite as much. Which is a good thing, of course.
>
> Quite right.
>
> The amusing thing is when folks say, "But that's just 1.4x the
> resolution!" As if a 40% increase were nothing at all.
>
You're absolutely right - it's slightly more than nothing at all.
From: Alan Browne on
John McWilliams wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Celcius wrote:
>>> "The Kat" <news1(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gs0ic4l9fbf6jp220fnlto4fdacal1691u(a)4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:52 +1200, missfocus <user(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100%
>>>>> pixel view.
>>>>> More pixels is a big deal huh?
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying you CAN'T see the difference??
>
>>> Or one might also ask if the difference's worth spending much more
>>> money to achieve it?
>>> Marcel
>>
>> <sigh> To double resolution, one must quadruple pixels.
>>
>> What I will get when I go from a 6Mpix camera to a 24 Mpix camera
>> (sort of).
>>
>> Why sort of? Well, the senor is larger, so I will have 4 times as
>> many "production" pixels to work with the capture resolution (lp/mm on
>> the sensor) won't be quite as much. Which is a good thing, of course.
>
> Quite right.
>
> The amusing thing is when folks say, "But that's just 1.4x the
> resolution!" As if a 40% increase were nothing at all.

It's barely enough to justify a camera change which is why I was really
surprised when Bret changed his 8 Mpix 20D for a 10 Mpix 40D (12% res
increase).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
From: Scott W on
On Sep 11, 4:01 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...(a)Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
> > Alan Browne wrote:
> >> Celcius wrote:
> >>> "The Kat" <ne...(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:gs0ic4l9fbf6jp220fnlto4fdacal1691u(a)4ax.com...
> >>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:52 +1200, missfocus <u...(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100%
> >>>>> pixel view.
> >>>>> More pixels is a big deal huh?
>
> >>>> So you're saying you CAN'T see the difference??
>
> >>> Or one might also ask if the difference's worth spending much more
> >>> money to achieve it?
> >>> Marcel
>
> >> <sigh>  To double resolution, one must quadruple pixels.
>
> >> What I will get when I go from a 6Mpix camera to a 24 Mpix camera
> >> (sort of).
>
> >> Why sort of?  Well, the senor is larger, so I will have 4 times as
> >> many "production" pixels to work with the capture resolution (lp/mm on
> >> the sensor) won't be quite as much.  Which is a good thing, of course.
>
> > Quite right.
>
> > The amusing thing is when folks say, "But that's just 1.4x the
> > resolution!" As if a 40% increase were nothing at all.
>
> It's barely enough to justify a camera change which is why I was really
> surprised when Bret changed his 8 Mpix 20D for a 10 Mpix 40D (12% res
> increase).

It would be the differance between scanning film at 2000 ppi vs 1420,
is this a large differance?

If the camera is used with really good lenses then you can make a
12x18 inch print from the 24MP camera that is just as sharp as a
8.5x12.75 inch print from the 12MP camera, is this worth that little?

The differance might not be a knock you socks off kind of thing, but I
would not dismiss a gain of resolution of that level.

Scott
From: John McWilliams on
Scott W wrote:
> On Sep 11, 4:01 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...(a)Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> Celcius wrote:
>>>>> "The Kat" <ne...(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gs0ic4l9fbf6jp220fnlto4fdacal1691u(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:52 +1200, missfocus <u...(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100%
>>>>>>> pixel view.
>>>>>>> More pixels is a big deal huh?
>>>>>> So you're saying you CAN'T see the difference??
>>>>> Or one might also ask if the difference's worth spending much more
>>>>> money to achieve it?
>>>>> Marcel
>>>> <sigh> To double resolution, one must quadruple pixels.
>>>> What I will get when I go from a 6Mpix camera to a 24 Mpix camera
>>>> (sort of).
>>>> Why sort of? Well, the senor is larger, so I will have 4 times as
>>>> many "production" pixels to work with the capture resolution (lp/mm on
>>>> the sensor) won't be quite as much. Which is a good thing, of course.
>>> Quite right.
>>> The amusing thing is when folks say, "But that's just 1.4x the
>>> resolution!" As if a 40% increase were nothing at all.
>> It's barely enough to justify a camera change which is why I was really
>> surprised when Bret changed his 8 Mpix 20D for a 10 Mpix 40D (12% res
>> increase).
>
> It would be the differance between scanning film at 2000 ppi vs 1420,
> is this a large differance?
>
> If the camera is used with really good lenses then you can make a
> 12x18 inch print from the 24MP camera that is just as sharp as a
> 8.5x12.75 inch print from the 12MP camera, is this worth that little?
>
> The differance might not be a knock you socks off kind of thing, but I
> would not dismiss a gain of resolution of that level.

Also, consider how much attention is paid to the slightest differences
in resolution at a 100% crop - differences you really have to stretch to
discern at all, perhaps less than 1% type of differences are often the
subject of hot debate.

Anyway, if your yardstick is that doubling the pixels is the main thing
that makes an upgrade worthwhile, you will have a long wait till you go
again! 96 MP, Hooo-aaaaahh! </Al Pacino>.

--
john mcwilliams

"Um, his vocabulary, like, uh, really, ah....... sucked."
From: Scott W on
On Sep 12, 4:46 am, John McWilliams <jp...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 4:01 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...(a)Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> > wrote:
> >> John McWilliams wrote:
> >>> Alan Browne wrote:
> >>>> Celcius wrote:
> >>>>> "The Kat" <ne...(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:gs0ic4l9fbf6jp220fnlto4fdacal1691u(a)4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:52 +1200, missfocus <u...(a)invalid.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100%
> >>>>>>> pixel view.
> >>>>>>> More pixels is a big deal huh?
> >>>>>> So you're saying you CAN'T see the difference??
> >>>>> Or one might also ask if the difference's worth spending much more
> >>>>> money to achieve it?
> >>>>> Marcel
> >>>> <sigh>  To double resolution, one must quadruple pixels.
> >>>> What I will get when I go from a 6Mpix camera to a 24 Mpix camera
> >>>> (sort of).
> >>>> Why sort of?  Well, the senor is larger, so I will have 4 times as
> >>>> many "production" pixels to work with the capture resolution (lp/mm on
> >>>> the sensor) won't be quite as much.  Which is a good thing, of course.
> >>> Quite right.
> >>> The amusing thing is when folks say, "But that's just 1.4x the
> >>> resolution!" As if a 40% increase were nothing at all.
> >> It's barely enough to justify a camera change which is why I was really
> >> surprised when Bret changed his 8 Mpix 20D for a 10 Mpix 40D (12% res
> >> increase).
>
> > It would be the differance between scanning film at 2000 ppi vs 1420,
> > is this a large differance?
>
> > If the camera is used with really good lenses then you can make a
> > 12x18 inch print from the 24MP camera that is just as sharp as a
> > 8.5x12.75 inch print from the 12MP camera, is this worth that little?
>
> > The differance might not be a knock you socks off kind of thing, but I
> > would not dismiss a gain of resolution of that level.
>
> Also, consider how much attention is paid to the slightest differences
> in resolution at a 100% crop - differences you really have to stretch to
> discern at all, perhaps less than 1% type of differences are often the
> subject of hot debate.
>
> Anyway, if your yardstick is that doubling the pixels is the main thing
> that makes an upgrade worthwhile, you will have a long wait till you go
> again! 96 MP, Hooo-aaaaahh! </Al Pacino>.
>
Of course you mean double the pixels/inch, so 4 times the number of
pixels.

I am almost 3 steeps ahead of you, 96 MP is a very small image for me
when stitching a photo, almost a snapshot size, 384 MP is about the
average size I get when stitching, and 1,536 MP is just a bit past
what I have don't, so far maxing out at 1,1000 MP.

Scott.