megapixels

[NormRD]

Looking at getting one of those dv camcorders which also take still pictures. Most are 600K range for stills and some are at 1 megapixel. What type of quality will i get from these? Great 3x5, ok 5x7's?

Some say max digital still pic resolution as:
1024x768...this is one megapixel?

------------------
92 Red/Blk

 

[NetViper]

oops.

[This message has been edited by NetViper (edited 26 October 2001).]

 

[Lud]

NetViper - He is talking about stills from a digital video camera, not a regular digital camera.

To answer the question, a 1 megapixel image is generally good for a 3x5 print comparable to 35mm and a 4x6 print that is acceptably close to 35mm quality for most people, depending on the subject matter and camera's compression level. If you try to make a print any larger from a 1 megapixel image you will really see the pixelation.

1024x768 is not a megapixel. A megapixel is a very straightforward thing - one million pixels. If you multiply 1024x768 you get about 0.8 megapixel. That is good for a max of about 3x5 acceptable quality and 2x3 comparable to 35mm quality.

[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 26 October 2001).]

 

[NormRD]

Thanks Lud,

Basically we are looking at one of those tiny dv camcorders. We like the size and would prefer to bring only it, vs hauling a camcorder and a camera around. I think around 1 megapixel will be enough for us, we basically would like to have regular picture 3x5/4x6 size prints that are equivalent to 35mm.

What can 35mm be enlarged to with out losing quality? 8x10. How many megapixels are required for a good 5x7 or 8x 10. 2,3 megapixels?

 

[Lud]

For 8x10 you want 3+ megapixels (most cameras in that range are 3.3). In theory to get 35mm quality at 8x10 you need more, but in practice you can get a very good 8x10 with the 3+ megapixel cameras, especially if you turn off compression and record the image as a TIFF.

2+ megapixel cameras are good for anything between 3x5 and 8x10. This does not mean they are good for 8x10, but below that, especially if you turn off compression, it's usually pretty good. Again the specific camera and subject can make a difference.

With 35mm it really depends on your equipment and film. With a good B&W film using the right equipment you can get 11x14 and even 16x20 prints that look really good. With color film (esp. "all purpose" or fast ISO speeds) you are more likely to be stuck closer to 8x10 or 11x14. You also have an issue with who is doing the printing once you start enlarging that much; just like working on your car, the person doing the work needs to have skill and a true interest in the work if you want everything just right.

[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 26 October 2001).]

 

[hejo]

Originally posted by NormRD:
Thanks Lud,
What can 35mm be enlarged to with out losing quality? 8x10. How many megapixels are required for a good 5x7 or 8x 10. 2,3 megapixels?

I'll jump in here too. From my experience for the 35mm it depends on the ISO of the film being used but a general rule I use is 8x10 maybe more if it's the right kind of picture and film.

For digital if you want a good 5x7 I'd say you need to get into the 2.1mp range but that might not be enough. For an 8x10 at minimum 3+mp but it depends a little on the sensor technology. If you want to really learn more here's a good digital web site. http://www.dpreview.com If you're going to primarily post images to the web what you're looking at should be sufficient.

If want to get into printing then you have to also consider the printing device as well. The best inkjets are Epson and HP. Epson does a better job (6 color) but cost more where the HP (4 color) does pretty well and is really affordable. For me the HP is good for up to 8x10 but if I need to go larger I prefer the Epson. I own an HP and take my images to the photoshop to print them on the Epson.

I did a test and took the same picture using the same tripod pod in a controled setting. I used a Canon EOS Elan II $900 setup, Canon D30 $3000 setup @3.1mp and an HP315 [email protected]. I then had the 35mm scanned and printed all 3 images on an HP Photoprinter 1100 using the best photo paper available from HP.

The results were you couldn't tell the difference between the 35mm and the Canon D30. They looked perfect at 8x10. In fact the different pro photographers I showed them to liked the D30 better. BTW I used the same lens between the Elan and D30.

The HP 315 just wasn't up to the same quality at 8x10 but when I printed it at 3x5 it was great. At 5x7 and 6x10.... well for me I could start to see the pixalation. For my wife who's not really into photography she thought the 8x10 was fine.

So I think you need to see some actual samples and decide what's good enough for you. I produce pictures that are hung around town in my friends businesses and in my own house. I'm maybe a little more picky than the average user. Hope this helps.

------------------
hejo

Lake Oswego, Oregon
95T Blk\Blk SportShift