From: John McWilliams on
Scott W wrote:
> 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.

Yaaassss! Double each side so as to get 4x 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.

What are the pixel dimensions of your panos typically? I don't think
I've gone past 12,000 longways.

--
john mcwilliams
From: No Spam on

"Scott W" <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7038e21-ca09-444d-925e-5f1e3c1a481f(a)b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 4:01 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...(a)Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> >
>
> 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

This should be on alt.urban.legend...

You can get excellent 12x18" prints from a 6 mp dSLR. IMHO people should put
their calculators away and take photos. Only the marketers and measurbators
care.



From: Scott W on
On Sep 12, 8:06 am, John McWilliams <jp...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yaaassss! Double each side so as to get 4x 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.
>
> What are the pixel dimensions of your panos typically? I don't think
> I've gone past 12,000 longways.
>

Mostly I try to keep the both dimensions below 25,000, otherwise I
can’t make a jpeg of it. Past 30,000 and I can’t edit it with
PhotoShop Elements.

But of late I have started taking a lot larger pan, mostly because I
now have a Gigapan unit. My largest on is 83,985, 13,631, which can
be seen here
http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=8682

I think I will mostly be doing 200-600 MP images, over 1 GP and they
get somewhat slow to stitch.

This is about as small as I make them, at least while I am playing
with the Gigapan.
http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=8838

That one is only 17,584, 9314.

Here is one of Coconut Island, on the Hilo side of Hawaii.
http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=6845

A little more interesting that the others. I really want to redo that
one at much higher resolution.

Scott

From: Scott W on
On Sep 12, 8:16 am, "No Spam" <n...(a)spam.here> wrote:
> "Scott W" <biph...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c7038e21-ca09-444d-925e-5f1e3c1a481f(a)b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 11, 4:01 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...(a)Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> This should be on alt.urban.legend...
>
> You can get excellent 12x18" prints from a 6 mp dSLR. IMHO people should put
> their calculators away and take photos. Only the marketers and measurbators
> care.

You can make a decent looking 12x18 print, but if you make the same
print from a 12 MP image it is going to look sharper. T0 get a super
sharp print you need more like 35 MP, 400ppi, but you have to look
pretty close at the print to tell the differance between 300ppi and
400ppi.

Scott
From: David J. Littleboy on

"No Spam" <no(a)spam.here> wrote:
>
> You can get excellent 12x18" prints from a 6 mp dSLR.

Only if you don't look at your prints...

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan