who needs high resolution, anyway?

magicbastarder

http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/betterlight-intros-416-megapixel-digital-camera-back/

mikeanywhere

416mb - what next??

magicbastarder

417mb?

melekalikimaka

fajitas had an interesting tale bout some digi cam his lecturer used with some nutty res, hopefully he'll elaborate so i don't look stupid now...:o

thebaz

I thought i was doing ok with my 6 MegaPixel Nikon ---

rymus

psh.. all ya really need is 3.2mp... g'wan away with your fancy pants digital backs and stupidly high pixel count.

Dara Robinson

lol, just wondering what my PC would tell me when I tried to open a near 800meg picture in CS.

OI!!!! YOU!!!! GO F**K YOURSELF!!!

Shiny

lol.


At least if my composition was sh1t I could do say....1000% crop ?

Benster

Portrait photographer:

"Ok everybody, big smiles and... hold still...NOW!

Keep holding. Hoooold. Keep...holding....

Remember not to blink, now. Still holding..."

Dara Robinson

lol

Fenster

It's more a stupidly high-res scanner than a camera, in truth. Probably good for wide-field astronomical shots if you were using a tracking tripod, though.

prox

rymus wrote:

psh.. all ya really need is 3.2mp... g'wan away with your fancy pants digital backs and stupidly high pixel count.

Even 3.2 can be overkill.

0.3MP:

Zillah

prox wrote:

Even 3.2 can be overkill.

0.3MP:

Its for printing where it really matters. My 6MP isn't enough for a high quality A4, its why I'm considering upgrading to a D80.

Sebzy

Print A4 with a 5MP file all the time and the look excellent.

thebaz

Zillah wrote:

Its for printing where it really matters. My 6MP isn't enough for a high quality A4, its why I'm considering upgrading to a D80.

I have a nikon d50 , and according to the manual it should be well in the range to print A4 easily, using Large format 3008 x 2000 pixels .

Aparently there is a rule of conversion , that you divide pixel dimensions by 300 , and this will give what size in inches that can be quality printed.

So 3008 x 2000 pixels is equal to 10 x 6.6 inches , and A4 is 11.7 x 8.3 inches , so maybe you have a point , but in practice i have not had a problem printing to A4 from my 6 MP Nikon.

Redundo

I have heard of line scan cameras before.... they give an unbelievable quality of resolution. I had a link to a website a while back about an ex-CIA employee who was carrying out a project to record all the major national mouments in the US using one of these scanning cameras. Appartently the thing was so big it had to be transported around in a van!

I've been trying to find the link once again, but no luck so far. But I did come across this

Ah-Ha! Found it at last and check out this page of it in particular!

Dara Robinson

Wow, the detailed zooms you can get from those is incredible. nice site, thanks

Fenster

That's pretty insane, for sure

Zillah

thebaz wrote:

I have a nikon d50 , and according to the manual it should be well in the range to print A4 easily, using Large format 3008 x 2000 pixels .

Check the document/canvas size in photoshop. Its dignificantly smaller than an A4 at 300dpi. If you blow it up to A4 then you're just stretching it.

prox

A4 would be 2481x3508 pixels at 300dpi or about 8.7MP, so you'll be wasting 1.3MP every time you take a picture with your D80. Make sure they're the non-important pixels.

It's also a great size for a word document and a strange one for a photograph. Unless it's a photograph of a word document, I suppose.

Zillah

prox wrote:

A4 would be 2481x3508 pixels at 300dpi or about 8.7MP, so you'll be wasting 1.3MP every time you take a picture with your D80. Make sure they're the non-important pixels.

It's also a great size for a word document and a strange one for a photograph. Unless it's a photograph of a word document, I suppose.

You CAN just shrink the image if its too big y'know

prox

But the D80 takes pictures at 3872x2592. Shrinking it to fit A4 would mean you'd end with a picture 3508x2348, which leaves a 66.5 pixel border at the top and bottom. But you can't have half pixels, so it would have to be 67/66. And then you'd be trusting photoshop to turn every 100 pixels of the original image which the Nikon CCD and precision Nikkor lens glass so carefully created into 82.07 new pixels. What if it deleted the wrong 17.93% of the image? Surely you don't want that. Not after all the technical wizardry needed to acquire the right pixels in the first place.

Redundo

Dude, ease up on the technical manuals and go take some photographs.

thebaz

Zillah wrote:

Check the document/canvas size in photoshop. Its dignificantly smaller than an A4 at 300dpi. If you blow it up to A4 then you're just stretching it.

ok your right technically , checked the manual and the quality size of 15" x 10 " is for 200 dpi

Anyway as stated , i have printed full size on A4, and quality has been excellent , proof is the pudding i guess

Zillah

Mmm pudding.

I'm mostly going on what my lecturer has told me but he's semi professional so probably has fairly high standards.

Diarmuid

prox wrote:

But the D80 takes pictures at 3872x2592. Shrinking it to fit A4 would mean you'd end with a picture 3508x2348, which leaves a 66.5 pixel border at the top and bottom. But you can't have half pixels, so it would have to be 67/66. And then you'd be trusting photoshop to turn every 100 pixels of the original image which the Nikon CCD and precision Nikkor lens glass so carefully created into 82.07 new pixels. What if it deleted the wrong 17.93% of the image? Surely you don't want that. Not after all the technical wizardry needed to acquire the right pixels in the first place.

Good analysis, but trusting Photoshop with this sort of job should not be a huge leap of faith. Still you point is well taken.

mikeanywhere

Still waiting for the pudding ......................

thebaz

mikeanywhere wrote:

Still waiting for the pudding ......................

My puddings are hanginging on my wall in A4 frames , taken with my nikon d 50 (6 MP) ... and there pretty tasty ... any quality loss is certainly not noticeable to my eye ! --- but hey i'm no expert , still a learning novice :cool:

Jocksy

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E1DD113FF93BA35751C0A9619C8B63

thebaz

actually going back to my formula , if A4 pixel size is 2481x3508 pixels , divide both by 300 , and you get 8.3 " x 11.7 " A4 size in inches .

My Nikon will only go to 3008 x 2000 pixels , so if you divide dimensions by 300 , you get 10 " x 6.6 " , which is a good bit smaller than A4 size .. but i have found that printing at A4 in practice , hasn't effected quality . Hence the pudding

prox

thebaz wrote:

actually going back to my formula , if A4 pixel size is 2481x3508 pixels , divide both by 300 , and you get 8.3 " x 11.7 " A4 size in inches .

That's quite the formula.