Digital Cameras and Megapixels

[SamSpade]

Ok, got a question. I've had digital cameras for about 7 years, and one thing just occurred to me.

What's the point of more megapixels? Maybe I am missing something, so that's what I want to know.

Generally, I used to think that more is better. So the other day I got a huge memory card for my camera, and it dawned on me I could "upgrade" the quality of my pictures - but for a price.

See, if I have a 1 or 2 gig card, I can stop making little .8 pix and move on up to the higher quality ones - but they're HUGE. I mean, HUGE pictures that I will never have any use for except to have them made into actual copy. Since over half of all pics I take remain in digital form, what's the advantage of all those extra megapixels? Unless your monitor is high quality, the pic is just going to get bigger - you don't get any better resolution than what your monitor can show.

So I'm thinking - the only reason I'd even migrate upward to 2 or 3 megapixels is to is if I want copy - having a camera that does 7,8,9 megapixels doesn't do me any good at all, right? Not unless I want copy.

Is there any other reason to upgrade my camera?

 

[aps45819]

For illustrations accompaning printed articles, they require either slides or a minimum of 8 meg digital, usually 10.
If all you want it to look at them on your monitor 0r print the occasional 3x5 pic, the lower res is fine. A lot of CD players will let you play a CD filled with .jpg files and the higer res picks will look better on your TV.

 

[desertrat]

Ok, got a question. I've had digital cameras for about 7 years, and one thing just occurred to me.

What's the point of more megapixels? Maybe I am missing something, so that's what I want to know.

Generally, I used to think that more is better. So the other day I got a huge memory card for my camera, and it dawned on me I could "upgrade" the quality of my pictures - but for a price.

See, if I have a 1 or 2 gig card, I can stop making little .8 pix and move on up to the higher quality ones - but they're HUGE. I mean, HUGE pictures that I will never have any use for except to have them made into actual copy. Since over half of all pics I take remain in digital form, what's the advantage of all those extra megapixels? Unless your monitor is high quality, the pic is just going to get bigger - you don't get any better resolution than what your monitor can show.

So I'm thinking - the only reason I'd even migrate upward to 2 or 3 megapixels is to is if I want copy - having a camera that does 7,8,9 megapixels doesn't do me any good at all, right? Not unless I want copy.

Is there any other reason to upgrade my camera?

More pixels are better for enlargements. Say if you wanted to make an 8X10 print for example. So basically you are right. It's kinda neat to take a picture and later decide you just want to zero in on a small part of it, say a group photo and you want one face. More pixels.

 

[Larry Gude]

Fwiw...

...I had an opportunity to be on the cover of a trade mag several years ago and they let Vrail shoot the pics because we had, at the time, a 5 mp camera. The magazine said that would work as their's, at the time, was only 6.

So, that's not much of an answer, but, 5 mp or better seems to meet some sort of publishing threshold of quality...assuming you are looking forward to being..."On the cover of the Rolling Stone..."

So to speak.

 

[bigluke]

Yeah.. more pixels the better the print is going to be. But, if you are only printing 5x7 than you won't notice too much difference from say 3.2 megapixels and 8 megapixels. If you only view them on the screen, they yeah, you probably don't need to upgrade. I just think about future use of the photos as well. Technology is making it cheaper to store larger files. Say in 5 years you want to print out an 8x10 or something, you won't be able to "upgrade" the pixels of the photos you have taken. If that makes sense.

 

[desertrat]

...I had an opportunity to be on the cover of a trade mag several years ago and they let Vrail shoot the pics because we had, at the time, a 5 mp camera. The magazine said that would work as their's, at the time, was only 6.

So, that's not much of an answer, but, 5 mp or better seems to meet some sort of publishing threshold of quality...assuming you are looking forward to being..."On the cover of the Rolling Stone..."

So to speak.

:worthless

 

[Tomcat]

If you have a square area 100 blocks by 100 blocks,and fill it with a picture, then enlarge the area by 5 times yet keep the same 100x100 blocks, you wouldn't have much detail in each block. Take the same area and make it 500 blocks by 500 blocks, can you see where I'm going with this? Guessing from your memory card statement, you currently have your camera set on the lowest quality setting. Unless you have use for it don't use the raw setting(if your camera has one) but the highest jpeg setting possible and don't use any compression. Your right, the higher setting will also give you a larger picture (I think mine straight out of the camera are something like 15"x23") However it's easier to reduce the size and have much better quality than to enlarge a small picture and lose quality. Hope this makes some sense to you.

 

[lugebob]

Get the highest resolution Cam that you think you will ever need. If you ever want to take a portrait to hang over the mantel or a pict to send to a magazine... ever... then go for 5mp or higher. You do not need to take your daily shots at that level. I change the setting often in my cam.

1 mp for junk shots (parties, school concerts, and some fast action). basically shots just to capture the moment and tell a story to be shared on the net or email.

3 mp (my standard set and forget setting) great shots all around and not bad to print up to an 8x10... file size is to big for email

5 to 6 mp I only select this resolution when I know that I want to print a large portrait quality photo, send to a magazine, or want to do some tricks in photoshop or the object I am shooting is tiny or far away. The camera usually is slower at these resolutions in a consumer level digital cam.


Along with the High resolution cam.. you will need to have a program that can easily resize the images for you one at a time or in a batch. converting 65 3mp vacation photos to email to mom and dads dial-up account can take some time if you do not have the right tools.

bob
PS If you have not checked this free photo edit and cataloging software from google you should. http://picasa.google.com/ It will find and catalog every photo on your computer.... even the ones you dont want to find heehee

 

[SamSpade]

Ok - another question, and someone clarify something for me.

Both popular pic formats - gif and jpg - are some kind of compromise on image quality. GIF, if I'm not mistaken, minimizes color - JPEG curtails some resolution - to achieve compression.

I guess as far as I can tell, the only lossless format would be BMP - which would result in HUGE files, but no loss of any data.

So, how does a hi resolution jpg work if the format is, itself, a form of data compression? Wouldn't the logical step for digital camera formats be to migrate to less lossy formats, if size is no obstacle?

 

[Tonio]

I would say get the highest resolution you can afford. A 8-meg camera might sound like a lot now, but that will change in four years or so. Also, get one with a decent zoom - a 6-meg camera with a good zoom is a better investment than an 8-meg camera with a short zoom.

If the camera companies don't already manufacture this, I would like to see them offer digital SLRs with the ability to upgrade in megapixels, similar to PCs' ability to upgrade motherboards or memory.

 

[desertrat]

I would say get the highest resolution you can afford. A 8-meg camera might sound like a lot now, but that will change in four years or so. Also, get one with a decent zoom - a 6-meg camera with a good zoom is a better investment than an 8-meg camera with a short zoom.

If the camera companies don't already manufacture this, I would like to see them offer digital SLRs with the ability to upgrade in megapixels, similar to PCs' ability to upgrade motherboards or memory.

That would be cool. I think, though, that the imaging sensor is what you'd have to change and that would be hard to swap out. Anyway, if you've got an SLR you'll probably have more invested in lenses etc. than the body itself.

 

[lugebob]

Ok - another question, and someone clarify something for me.

Both popular pic formats - gif and jpg - are some kind of compromise on image quality. GIF, if I'm not mistaken, minimizes color - JPEG curtails some resolution - to achieve compression.

I guess as far as I can tell, the only lossless format would be BMP - which would result in HUGE files, but no loss of any data.

So, how does a hi resolution jpg work if the format is, itself, a form of data compression? Wouldn't the logical step for digital camera formats be to migrate to less lossy formats, if size is no obstacle?

GIF is a low overhead compression meant for flat basic graphics... logos, cartoons, simple stuff

JPEG is for compressing complex color photographs and the compression level can be set or controlled to yield the quality that you want in most cases.

RAW is the format that you are refering to. This is the non compressed, loss-less file that you can get from professional digital cameras and some higher end consumer cams.

as far as I know BMP is a loss-less format you can convert to after it is out of the cam.... but it is not common or suggested. JPEG set to high,works great and is compatible with the rest of the world.

 

[Tonio]

as far as I know BMP is a loss-less format you can convert to after it is out of the cam....

LugeBob, do you know if BMP is proprietary to Windows, and if that format would have problems on Mac OS or Unix/Linux?

 

[lugebob]

BMP was developed for Windows but there are convertors and viewer out there for each platform.... I try to steer clear of BitMap solely because of the file size.


here is a link to more than you will ever want to know about BMP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap

 

[CAE]

Interesting discussion about pixel-count:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

This website is a wealth of information. Mostly, I learned how to set the White Balance on my camera, which makes a huge difference. Tons of other good info, as well...

 

[vanbells]

Anyway, if you've got an SLR you'll probably have more invested in lenses etc. than the body itself.