The Megapixel Race

[Bill Pierce]

I wonder what size prints folks make from their digital camera files, mostly because some of the early cameras, with what by today's standards are low megapixel counts, make pretty impressive prints as long are the prints are small. My Digilux II does a pretty impressive 8x10 as does my Sigma DP2. Since Edward Weston did OK with 8x10 prints, I feel pretty good about these older cameras. Sometime I even make 11x14's.

There are a lot of differences outside of megapixels between cameras, but one of the most obvious differences is the large print size possible with cameras that produce large megapixel files. Even my tiny G10 with its 15Mg sensor produces prints on 17x22 inch paper that, if shot under the right condition, people can not tell from similar prints from more expensive cameras with much larger sensors.

In other words, if you don't make big prints, you don't need big megapixels. Sometimes if you have big megapixels, you don't need a big camera. So, how many megapixels is your main camera and what is the biggest print you routinely make? Any other thoughts on the megapixel race?

[Roberto V.]

My only digital camera is 6.3MP and I've made 16x20 prints from it. They look great as long as you don't look extremely close.

[flip]

I generally print 4x6 and sometimes up to 8x12. I think that the lens deficiencies are more obvious than the pixel deficiencies for most purposes. ( I imagine that gives some solace to those who shoot MF and LF. )

However, insofar as I have some decent glass, I would appreciate enough MPx to crop willy-nilly.

[sper]

I have a 21mp 5D2 and at 100% it makes a 13x19 pretty evenly. Same goes for my old Coolscan V. That's pretty much perfect for me because I have a 13x19 printer.

I don't mind the resolution getting higher as long as things like latitude and color also improve. I think the question of 'enough' isn't relevant anymore because very few cameras don't have 'enough.' Really its more like how much are you and your future hard drives willing to deal with. My i7 iMac isn't exactly lightening quick with my 5D raws, and I'm quickly filling up a 1 terabyte RAID.

I think its ironic that marketing people were telling us 6mp was enough when I think it hardly is for anyone but consumers. And now we actually have enough and still we're going to get more, even if we don't need it or want it.

My dream 5D3 would be 20-25mps with ISO 6400 looking like the 5D2's ISO 1600, and far, far more latitude. However I suspect it will be closer to 30mps, and slightly better latitude.

[Pablito]

I think its ironic that marketing people were telling us 6mp was enough when I think it hardly is for anyone but consumers.

I have made gorgeous exhibition prints with image size 16x24 from 6mp files shot with a D70. Used AlienSkin Blow Up software.

[photogdave]

I've made really nice 13"x19" prints from the 5MP Panasonic LC1. Plenty of detail in eyelashes, hair etc. Only possible at ISO 100 from that camera though. Oh yeah, this was from out of camera JPEG too!
I'm going to try a 16"x24" from an LX5 JPEG soon. I bet it will look great.

[Gid]

Here is an old but interesting article

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/counting1.shtml

I once read an article that proposed that no more than 4MP were required for any print provided that the viewing distance was appropriate to the size of the print - you don't normally view a billboard poster from 2 inches with a loupe.

I have crops from a 5MP camera (Olympus E1) printed to 16 x 12 inches that have more than enough detail for my eyes - even close up.

I have seen many magazine double page spreads from the Nikon D2H (4MP) that had all the detail you could want.

I don't think that MP per se are the deciding factor - more sensor technology and the processing chain. However, its an emotive subject as much to do with "how big is your ...." as real world results.

[sper]

I just don't particularly like having to up sample unless I'm making a REALLY big print.

[varjag]

I've been to several shows where people presented overblown shots from (common in the day) 6Mp DSLRs. Pretty pathetic quality, but for many people there is no difference really.

[jonmanjiro]

> Any other thoughts on the megapixel race?

The mega pixel race is all but over. One example:

Canon Powershot G7 - Effective Pixels Approx. 10.0 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G9 - Effective Pixels Approx. 12.1 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G10 - Effective Pixels Approx. 14.7 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G11 - Effective Pixels Approx. 10.0 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G12 - Effective Pixels Approx. 10.0 Megapixels

The new race is high ISO performance and improved dynamic range, and its been going for a few years already.

[maddoc]

I think that for more than 99% of all sensor-equipped imaging taking devices the all-determining factor is the quality / size of the LCD screen on the back-side... I see hardly anymore prints made / shown but most often slide-shows on LCD screens....

[jonmanjiro]

I agree with some of this. The current resolution in most cameras is fine. Bandwidth problems need to be addressed. It looks like Pentax and Nikon made a little headway with their newest cameras. But there is a lot of room for improvement. If the ISO continues to improve, some of the heavy lenses we pack around will get lighter. On of the things I like about RF cameras is that they aren't dependent on fast lenses for focusing in dim light. With AF on DSLRs much of the problem is under control.

I think,once the FX cameras hit 30MP the designers will spend more time on the other issues. I get 16 x 20s from a 14MP with no trouble. They don't look as good as a Creo scan of a Kodachrome delivered at 250MB.. 20 x 24s look better than the Dyes I had done in the past.

Dang, you quoted me before I added "improved dynamic range" :bang:

[antipodiain]

I regularly print A2 size from a 10mp Canon G7 (Americans will have to look up what that is in inches, just as i have to convert to metric measures from their posts, but its BIG). I shoot only JPEGs and print the files more or less how they come out of the camera, usually with only minor modifications to brightness. At low ISO values the prints are extremely sharp, even when viewed close up. I realised some time ago that 10mp is enough for all reasonable purposes, the rest is marketing.

[Matus]

This topic appears again and again. But here is my experience & opinion.

IF you want your print to have fine detail (not every subjects requires that) when viewed close (say around 20") you what those nice 300 or 360 points per inch of information. Contact prints on glossy paper yield up to 600 spi - you may need a weak loupe to see the fill detail.

With the exception of Sigma Foveon Chips all the rest uses Bayer interpolation what takes away some 30% of the information, so for truly detailed prints one may want to downsize the original digital file by about that amount and only then print what was left. So for an A4 print printed at 360 spi you need about 8 Mpix of this "pure" information. That makes it to about 10 - 12 Mpix of original image.

I can see this clearly with my elderly Minolta 7D - it takes 6 Mpix photos which when down sampled to some 4 Mpix look much better (and I use one of the best prime lenses, no issue there). A4 prints from the 7D are just OK, A3 prints where detail is needed lack quite strongly.

***

OK - the above was a bit extreme. In most cases a direct print from digital camera without downsizing will look perfectly fine. So you would need only 8 Mpix camera for nicely detailed A4 print or 16 Mpix for A3 print.

However I find that once the amount of information approaches some 15 - 25 Mpix (strongly subjective) - the resulting printed image observed from this close distance can not anymore be viewed "at once" - it simply became too large. Of course one may still come up close to enjoy the detail of some section of the image, but one can not do that for the whole image at the same time.

So at this large size - if the image is in the printing process "blew up" to large size - from a distance from which the user can still observe the whole image - the image will look perfectly sharp.

Extreme example - imagine you take a digital image with enough data to be printed at native 360 spi on the wall of your room - if you want to observe the whole image - you need to stand several meters from the image - at that distance the 360 spi resolution is not necessary anymore.

***

So - for me a camera with FX sensor that can deliver some 16 - 20 Mpix would be just fine. If I use a camera that can deliver more than that (6x6 or 4x5 film in my case) it is usually not to get more information, but different look and tones - in particular in BW.

[Steve_F]

I have made gorgeous exhibition prints with image size 16x24 from 6mp files shot with a D70. Used AlienSkin Blow Up software.

I've made prints of A2 size (approx 22x16) using a Fuji S2 (6mp). The glass used is important too. I used my 80-200 2.8 Nikkor.
The shots were head & shoulder for a window display at a hair salon.
Shot in 'RAW' and processed carefully before being interpolated up to size in PS using 'Bi-cubic smoother'

Steve.

[tom.w.bn]

I must admit that I use my 5DII most of the time in sRAW mode reduced to 10MP. Processing time of the full 21MP is annoying, so I use them only when I know I want to crop (digital zoom when 50mm is the longest lens I have with me) or when I know I need it larger.
For my Canon Pro 9000 printer (A3+ Format) 10MP is enough.

The Canon powershot Gx is a good example that MP is not everything. They noticed that 15MP is too much for the small sensor and reduced it to increase quality.

[Matus]

I agree that the amount of information needed for given print size depends very much on the subject. I also did a few portrait sessions and one tight head shot I took with the 6 MPix DSLR was printed to about A2 on metal plate. And it looked quite nice - but the fine detail was not the point there. I would not do the same with a landscape shot though ...

And in early summer I should get to see a few shots I took during other portrait session taken with 5D MarkII printed up to 1.5 x 1.5 m ...

[Steve_F]

I agree fully. For items such as landscape or anything with very fine intricate detail, that requires fine rendition I would choose my RZ67 every time. That's only because I don't have LF. ;)

Steve.

[Ronald_H]

I have made gorgeous exhibition prints with image size 16x24 from 6mp files shot with a D70. Used AlienSkin Blow Up software.

Yes. Few people seem to realize that the jump from 3 to 12Mp yields only a factor 2 in resolution. Those huge prints from my D70 never gave the impression that something was lacking. Sure, extra resolution is always welcome, but even for a rather advanced user anything more than 6Mp is really not necessary. But people do feel the need...

I'd rather have 6Mp with more dynamic range than 12Mp.

[Roger Hicks]

For a given pixel size (i.e. not more and more on a tiny chip), it's a bit like 35mm, MF and LF: the more megapixels, the smoother the tonality, the detail, the microcontrast. I was astonished by the quality that Zeiss primes deliver on a 6 megapixel D70 -- but it is foolish to pretend that for all subjects you can get the same quality from 6 megapixels as from (say) 18.

Cheers,

R.

[Matus]

I'd rather have 6Mp with more dynamic range than 12Mp.

You've got a point. But I keep waiting for non linear ADC on the sensors. Then one could get much more natural highlights.

Anybody from the field dares to comment how feasible are the non linear ADCs in digital cameras? In in physics that is nothing new ...

[Paddy C]

I deal with a different type of print – art exhibition catalogues.

So I may need a file to be (for a two page spread including bleeds) say 21" x 10" at 300ppi.

The catch is that this is in a book and will be looked at very closely. And, depending on the printer, the book can be printed anywhere from 175lpi (a minimum using AM screening) to 300lpi using stochastic or FM screens. FM screens can have dots as small as 10 microns. So this is like looking at an entire exhibition of photographic prints at a distance of say 12" (or whatever a comfortable reading distance is for you).

I continually need MORE resolution because so many "pros" do not work with the best gear (especially in the art world).

And trust me, there is a universe of difference between that Nikon D70 file and a recent full-frame. I mean it is not even worth a conversation. I just had to deal with it in a recent publication. The pro did not shoot enough so I had to rely on the gallery's assistant who had shot the exhibit using a D70 to fill in the holes. The files were terrible. I would never up sample these files and, if possible, just wouldn't use them.

I would like every photographer shooting art work and gallery installation shots to be using a full frame in the 20mp range and the best glass possible. Period.

[venchka]

Legend has it that the Nikon D70 had the least offensive blur filter of all DSLRs. Probably akin to the Leica digital cameras. Would that all makers take note. However, the D70 is a relic to be avoided. Not a shining example of what is possible to be emulated.
Down with the blur filter!

[Roger Hicks]

There's also the precautionary principle.

Very few of my pictures have ever been run A3 in books (A4 double-page spread). But enough have, that I prefer to have them at a quality that will stand it.

Using the rough but adequate equation of 1 pixel = 1 dpi, 12x16 inches (near enough A4) at 300 dpi = 3600 x 4800 pixels = 17 megapixels = AT LEAST 18 megapixels (to allow for the crop). A 10% upsize may be OK, but that's the limit. No program can invent information that isn't there.

Of course, if you like an 'airbrushed' look, upsizing is fine.

Cheers,

R.

[venchka]

We should have a real straight from the camera comparison. I know for a fact that untouched RAW files from my 1D Mk III look like pooh-pooh.
Scan film. There plenty of megapixels. If that doesn't work, scan larger film.

[Nikon Bob]

I think it is pretty clear from reading this thread that some people need more MP to get none re-sampled files for certain specific commercial purposes/end uses. I think for the bulk of photo hobbyists the need may not be there for more MP. For home end use, 8x10 to 11x17, a digital P&S with a small sensor of 5/6 MP shot in the lowest native iso and PPed carefully will do. Then there is everything in between. You just have to tailor you gear to your needs. We will get more MP and other sensor improvements anyway which is all to the good.

Bob

[Frankie]

I work backward, starting with human visual acuity, said to be 1 arc-minute, or ~0.3mm/1m of viewing distance.

A 300dpi printer can lay down 0.085mm dots, you will have to get within 0.35m or ~1 foot to see such small dots, even if your eyes are that good.

Thus a jumbo print needs only 2Mp or so; an 8 x 10 needs 6Mp... 12Mp will make a nice 11 x 14...pixel for dot. Down-sampling makes smoother looking prints, depending on re-sampling algorithms available...bi-cubic is now common, and there is one more level beyond [well used in my field--aerial surveying].

I have also posted often that the mega-pixel war will come to a truce when sensors reached FF...now in Nikon D3X, M9, etc. No one will go beyond because lens image circles would not cover.

The only way to get more pixels into a 35mm FF is to reduce native pixel size...that war started at 12u [Contax], then 9, 7.2, 6 [24Mp] and perhaps 5u soon. Leica is in no position to start that war...entirely dependent on Kodak who is now at 6u.

If you apply this thinking to the 645 format, then 39Mp [Kodak] was the truce point...larger ones are now available.