From: Elliott Roper on
In article <2hj3q6-5as.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:

> John Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote:
> > "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in news:4ac15107$0$12712$5a62ac22
>
> >> Yes and no. They dropped the megapixel count on the G11.
>
> > And they should raise it again, when they figure out how to get the same or
> > better image-level read noise with the higher densities.
>
> Yeah, 10.000.000MPix --- the best way to fill memory cards
> and hard drives with useless information. And absolutely
> needed for showing them on a monitor or printing 4x6. You
> need more MPix for 8x12.
>
> > I can tell you this, though. If I'm out on a sunny day shooting scenery,
> > I'd rather have 14.7MP with a little more noise than 10 MP. I'd only
> > prefer the G11 if the light got a bit low.
>
> So you are often printing posters of house size?

Yebbut! Yebutt! You can crop like crazy and still print posters.
I'm finding that's the magic ingredient of my 5Dii, its obscene
21Mpixels and a decent prime lens or two.
Youse trolls can tell me I'm not a photographer because real
photographers swim to the middle of the river to get a close-up of a
trout jumping taken with their Box Brownies on Verichrome, but I prefer
to stay dry and warm on the bank of the river. I get a better start on
the trolls too. Never jump into a river near a bridge.

A 16GB card is cheap as chips and holds 555 CR2s at ISO 800. A RAW on
disk costs about USD(64*3e7*1.6)/1e12 == $0.00307
(1TB disk costs UKP 64, 5Dii RAW averages about 30MB, 1UKP==1.6USD)
At that price I can afford two Aperture vaults and a managed library
copy for a smidge over a US cent per image. That's about the same price
as shutter wear.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
John Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in
> news:snt7p6-rdf.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de:

>> It seems a lot of people are, uhm, a bit megapixel crazy.

> Other than the increased storage requirements and processing speed, what
> is crazy about resolution?

Megapixels don't equal resolution, your question is illogical.

> You really don't have enough pixels (in terms
> of proper sampling) until it takes about 3 pixels exclusive to transition
> a sharp black/white subject transient, with your optics.

So with a perfect optics you need infinite pixels for a 4x6
print (in terms of proper sampling) --- if your claim was true.
Never mind you cannot put even 4 MPix on a 4x6 inch print
even with 400 PPI.

How many cycles/mm does your optics do, in terms of MTF?

> Historical
> digital cameras image poorly, and if you print at any good size or crop,
> the pixel structure becomes immediately apparent, and all its artifacts.

Just to irritate you, I'll mention old digital cameras that took
4 and more pixels to transition between black and white ... at
lowly 4 MPix. According to you, they have more than enough
pixels (transition takes more than 3 pixels) and at the same
time too few (pixel structure).

Maybe you should decide one day what you want.

>> A chain being only as strong as the weakest link, I feel that
>> resolution is already being limited by most lenses outside
>> their best apertures at lower than the present megapixels.
>> (I don't think you'll get a noticeably better image from a wide
>> open EF 50mm f/1.4 at 18MPix than at 8MPix + sensible upscaling
>> (e.g. Lanczos scaling) where needed, for a drastic example.)

> Hardly. The noise is finer,

Finer? Are you sure it's not stronger, since it has not been
averaged over a larger area (the amount of light captured is the
same, but the per-pixel amount is less than half) --- and you
have added read noise 18 million times instead of 8 million times?

> and there is less alisasing in the 18MP
> version.

You seem to forget what an AA filter is.

> Low-MP images are fragile things; they only capture some of the
> detail at the highest image frequencies they capture, as it depends on
> luck of pixel and subject alignment, and then what you do capture at
> those highest frequencies are prone to loss with any king of geometric
> manipulation, like rotation, perspective correction, CA correction, etc.

And that is different with "High-MP images" in what way? Do
they capture all of the detail at the highest image
frequencies they can capture or what?

Did you know that the higher per-pixel noise of "High-MP
images" overlays the very same high frequencies they offer as
an advantage over lower MPix images?

>> Canon has concluded that they need to sell cameras and to sell
>> cameras they need to compete in features and marketing numbers.
>> Megapixel record numbers belong there.

> Except for some specimen-variable vertical banding patterns at low ISOs
> on the 7D (invisible for so-called "proper exposures", for the most
> part), the 7D has the best IQ of any APS-C to date, while having the
> highest pixel density as well.

So you say.
Let us assume it was true that the 7D had the best IQ (however
you want to measure that, there are so many ways) despite having
the highest pixel density, what do you think a 20D manufactured
with the knowledge and techniques used on the 7D would get as IQ?

> In fact, I expect the 7D to be more
> usable than my 5D2 in low-key images at extremely high ISOs,

You ... expect. The proof of the pudding is in the eating,
not in the expecting of cooking one.

> because the
> 7D is very lacking in line noise, especially horizontal banding with
> nyquist component, which causes color lines (the vertical is lower-
> frequency and is more of a luminance noise).

Do your tests, produce your results and we'll see.

>> If suddenly a serious part of the camera buyers(!) would decide
>> cameras needed to look like puppys and smell of burned toast ---
>> well, Canon would be stupid to not offer them exactly that.

> Sometimes the populous is right by accident, which is the case, IMO, with
> pixel resolution.

Very often the populus is wrong by design, which is the case,
IMHO, with pixel resolution.

-Wolfgang
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> John Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote:
>> > "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in news:4ac15107$0$12712$5a62ac22

>> >> Yes and no. They dropped the megapixel count on the G11.

>> > And they should raise it again, when they figure out how to get the same or
>> > better image-level read noise with the higher densities.

>> Yeah, 10.000.000MPix --- the best way to fill memory cards
>> and hard drives with useless information. And absolutely
>> needed for showing them on a monitor or printing 4x6. You
>> need more MPix for 8x12.

>> > I can tell you this, though. If I'm out on a sunny day shooting scenery,
>> > I'd rather have 14.7MP with a little more noise than 10 MP. I'd only
>> > prefer the G11 if the light got a bit low.

>> So you are often printing posters of house size?

> Yebbut! Yebutt! You can crop like crazy and still print posters.

| And they should raise it again, when they figure out how to get the same or
| better image-level read noise with the higher densities.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You get the same noise at image level, so cropping like crazy
(what's that? 3% of the length and 3% of the height of the image?
And why didn't you frame the shot correctly in the first place?)
is enlarging like crazy, and you get all the noise blown up.
On pixel level --- where your crop argument counts --- the noise
is much worse.

> I'm finding that's the magic ingredient of my 5Dii, its obscene
> 21Mpixels and a decent prime lens or two.

The "obscene 21Mpixels" aren't any more than the 20D's 8 MPix!
It's just that the old, old 20D does the cropping already in
the hardware, saving you a lot of unneeded data to be
stored, transfered and handled. And you don't get all that
visible vignetting when shooting wide open.

I'll admit that the 5D2 pixels can do higher ISO better,
though.

Now compare that to 15 or 18 MPix on the same (or even slightly
smaller) area as the 8 MPix of the 20D --- you ask that much more
from your lens, you get less light per pixel ...

> A 16GB card is cheap as chips

I don't know your chips ... (probably high end athlon CPUs)

16GB cards from good brands (and I wouldn't consider any
other type of card) are not exactly cheap especially if you want
to buy a *fast* 16GB card. Which is a really good idea, unless
you shoot slowly, never filling the buffer, and don't mind waiting
while transferring the data from the card to the computer.

> and holds 555 CR2s at ISO 800.

Not too bad, but not a huge amount either.

> A RAW on
> disk costs about USD(64*3e7*1.6)/1e12 == $0.00307

A RAW on disk costs a lot more than just the space it occupies.

Do you have a reliable "the house gets burned down, swamped
with water, burgled, earthquarked" backup method? Have you
implemented it? Do you exercise it regularly?

Do you have an extra fast computer? One that is overpowered
by a factor of at least 2 or 3 (or even much more for obscene
megapixels) for any and all tasks except RAW conversion? Do you
keep it up to speed, upgrading at least yearly?

Do you check your shots at the same screen magnification as
before --- so more pixels mean more time spend checking the
image?


> At that price I can afford two Aperture vaults and a managed library
> copy for a smidge over a US cent per image.

Can you afford more than 24 hours a day?

-Wolfgang
From: Elliott Roper on
In article <reicq6-l63.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:

> Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> > Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >> John Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote:
> >> > "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in
> >> > news:4ac15107$0$12712$5a62ac22
>
> >> >> Yes and no. They dropped the megapixel count on the G11.
>
> >> > And they should raise it again, when they figure out how to get the same
> >> > or
> >> > better image-level read noise with the higher densities.
>
> >> Yeah, 10.000.000MPix --- the best way to fill memory cards
> >> and hard drives with useless information. And absolutely
> >> needed for showing them on a monitor or printing 4x6. You
> >> need more MPix for 8x12.
>
> >> > I can tell you this, though. If I'm out on a sunny day shooting
> >> > scenery,
> >> > I'd rather have 14.7MP with a little more noise than 10 MP. I'd only
> >> > prefer the G11 if the light got a bit low.
>
> >> So you are often printing posters of house size?
>
> > Yebbut! Yebutt! You can crop like crazy and still print posters.
>
> | And they should raise it again, when they figure out how to get the same or
> | better image-level read noise with the higher densities.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You get the same noise at image level, so cropping like crazy
> (what's that? 3% of the length and 3% of the height of the image?
> And why didn't you frame the shot correctly in the first place?)
> is enlarging like crazy, and you get all the noise blown up.
> On pixel level --- where your crop argument counts --- the noise
> is much worse.
>
> > I'm finding that's the magic ingredient of my 5Dii, its obscene
> > 21Mpixels and a decent prime lens or two.
>
> The "obscene 21Mpixels" aren't any more than the 20D's 8 MPix!
> It's just that the old, old 20D does the cropping already in
> the hardware, saving you a lot of unneeded data to be
> stored, transfered and handled. And you don't get all that
> visible vignetting when shooting wide open.
Sorry for the late reply. I was on holiday.
Vignetting on either of my lenses is not so bad it can't be fixed in
post.

> I'll admit that the 5D2 pixels can do higher ISO better,
> though.
>
> Now compare that to 15 or 18 MPix on the same (or even slightly
> smaller) area as the 8 MPix of the 20D --- you ask that much more
> from your lens, you get less light per pixel ...
5Dii has similar pixel density to 350D and 20D. Almost exactly the
same.
> > A 16GB card is cheap as chips
>
> I don't know your chips ... (probably high end athlon CPUs)
>
> 16GB cards from good brands (and I wouldn't consider any
> other type of card) are not exactly cheap especially if you want
> to buy a *fast* 16GB card. Which is a really good idea, unless
> you shoot slowly, never filling the buffer, and don't mind waiting
> while transferring the data from the card to the computer.
True, but still cheap compared to shutter wear.
> > and holds 555 CR2s at ISO 800.
>
> Not too bad, but not a huge amount either.
>
> > A RAW on
> > disk costs about USD(64*3e7*1.6)/1e12 == $0.00307
>
> A RAW on disk costs a lot more than just the space it occupies.
>
> Do you have a reliable "the house gets burned down, swamped
> with water, burgled, earthquarked" backup method? Have you
> implemented it? Do you exercise it regularly?
Yep. Wiebetech RTX400-SV 4 bay tray-free. I hold bare backup drives for
a friend down the road with a similar enclosure, and he holds mine. As
I started to say before, the Aperture library and its vaults give me 3
copies on separate disks in a totally painless manner.
> Do you have an extra fast computer? One that is overpowered
> by a factor of at least 2 or 3 (or even much more for obscene
> megapixels) for any and all tasks except RAW conversion? Do you
> keep it up to speed, upgrading at least yearly?
No. I use a very ordinary 2006 Mac Pro with Aperture and the standard
graphics card. It is fine. I only upgrade when a replacement is cheaper
and at least 4 times faster overall than what I have already. Aperture
loafs along quite briskly. Video with FCP and Motion are far more
demanding, but still kinda OK. Poor little thing works quite hard
rendering and colour correcting stuff while I sleep.
> Do you check your shots at the same screen magnification as
> before --- so more pixels mean more time spend checking the
> image?
Nah! I only look carefully at the good ones. Inspection time is
independent of pixel count. RAW decodes are about 1 second, and
slurping images from the card is effectively free, since it overlaps
with with editing the first ones off. Aperture's previews make
reviewing stuff a breeze. You get 10-20 viewable full size pics per
second. I can't work any faster than that.

Yesterday I drove 500 miles from Thurso , took 2 ferries from the
Shetlands and still had plenty of time to load and review the 1000
RAWs, update one vault and and start pre-render of 10 movie clips I
shot while away before I was tired enough to go to bed.
>
>
> > At that price I can afford two Aperture vaults and a managed library
> > copy for a smidge over a US cent per image.
>
> Can you afford more than 24 hours a day?
Hell yes. I am retired. Seriously, I have been averaging only 50 shots
a day since I bought the thing, and the post processing and backups
might take an enjoyable few hours per week, including 'cropping like
crazy'.

My original point was that a combination of an obscene number of
megapixels, great prime lenses and a decent lump of image processing
software makes a very usable and versatile system. I don't buy the
monkish attitude that every shot has to be composed carefully before
clicking. That's down there with the "great artists only use Box
Brownies" myth.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:

>> Now compare that to 15 or 18 MPix on the same (or even slightly
>> smaller) area as the 8 MPix of the 20D --- you ask that much more
>> from your lens, you get less light per pixel ...
> 5Dii has similar pixel density to 350D and 20D.

As I alluded to above.
But the 50D (15MPix) and the 7d (18 MPix) have higher pixel
densities.

>> > A 16GB card is cheap as chips

>> [...] are not exactly cheap especially if you want
>> to buy a *fast* 16GB card [...]

> True, but still cheap compared to shutter wear.

How many shutters per camera do you use and how many did you use
at most at any time?
How many cards per camera do you use and how many did you use at
most at any time?

Now do the math, and do it again for someone who regularly
wears out shutters on cameras.

>> Do you have a reliable "the house gets burned down, swamped
>> with water, burgled, earthquarked" backup method? Have you
>> implemented it? Do you exercise it regularly?
> Yep. Wiebetech RTX400-SV 4 bay tray-free. I hold bare backup drives for
> a friend down the road with a similar enclosure, and he holds mine.

So how about a mudslide eating your house and turnning the rest
of the houses still standing into a "do not enter"-zone ---
and maybe eating it too with a second slide?
http://news.google.de/archivesearch?q=nachterstedt+landslide+OR+mudslide
Or how about an earthquake flattening every building in the
area?

>> Do you have an extra fast computer? One that is overpowered

> No. I use a very ordinary 2006 Mac Pro with Aperture and the standard
[...]
> Poor little thing works quite hard
> rendering and colour correcting stuff while I sleep.

I see. Fine, if you don't need interactive tuning with your
rendering and colour correcting --- or if a turn-around time of
a day is OK with you. Unfortunately, I am much more demanding
than that --- if I change a slider, I don't want to wait till
tomorrow to see the results.

>> Do you check your shots at the same screen magnification as
>> before --- so more pixels mean more time spend checking the
>> image?

> Nah! I only look carefully at the good ones.

Unless your good/bad ratio changes very much for the worse
with more pixels, this doesn't matter, does it?

> Inspection time is
> independent of pixel count.

So you say you would inspect a 360x240 pixel image as painstakingly
as a gigapixel panorama? I disbelieve!

> RAW decodes are about 1 second,

You meant to say "The batch RAW decoding I use with standard
parameters on my machine ..." actually, your camera is faster
than that, and gives you a complete JPEG to enjoy, not just
another uncooked format that's blown up by having all 3 channels
in the TIFF.

> Yesterday I drove 500 miles from Thurso , took 2 ferries from the
> Shetlands and still had plenty of time to load and review the 1000
> RAWs, update one vault and and start pre-render of 10 movie clips I
> shot while away before I was tired enough to go to bed.

So you review 1000 RAWs in about an hour or three? 4 - 10
seconds for each shot? Hmhm. Can be done, but it's hard work
--- and works only for a first selection. Try "I've got a couple
thousand shots, unsorted --- is this shot the best one of person X
(one of the 100 people attending)?".

> My original point was that a combination of an obscene number of
> megapixels, great prime lenses and a decent lump of image processing
> software makes a very usable and versatile system.

Depends on what your needs are. If your needs are along the lines
of quickly changing focal lengths, 4x6" prints out of the camera,
low weight, small packsize ... you loose.

Anyway it's an ... interesting ... attitude to use "great
prime lenses" and then throw away their advantage over any
*bad* zoom lens by cropping "like crazy".

> I don't buy the monkish attitude that every shot has to be composed
> carefully before clicking.

Why should composing properly be "monkish"?

Why don't you just use a fisheye and fixed ISO 100, 1/100s,
f/16 and do everything in postprocessing? That's the logical
solution to not composing, metering etc. at all! That's
surely how great artists work!

> That's down there with the "great artists only use Box
> Brownies" myth.

Of course, lomography doesn't do composing either, carefully
or not.

-Wolfgang