The Megapixel Myth - You?re getting ripped off.

obkenobi Feb 8, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

[quote]If the eye can discren the difference between 225DPI and 300DPI, then you will see a difference in a print that is made at 11.52"x7.68" from each of these files.[/quote]Pixel resolution determines the final output size. It doesn't determine the QUALITY of the captured image. You could have a higher resolution, but with a crappy sensor you would not have the information to properly utilize that resolution. What are you recording onto those pixels? If you've got a tiny sensor it's not going to capture the same amount of detail a larger sensor would. Same resolution, completely different results.The megapixel myth has actually been known for a while now. Manufacturers are finally starting to make better sensors.

Reply

Closed Account Feb 9, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

"its all in the eye of the photographer" - Indeed, spending a few hours and learning to use your camera better will create far better images than buying a shinier camera. Watch a good, old film (not particularly old, but the last film like that I watched was Clerks, which was filmed on a cheapish Black and White film camera, and had an extremely small budget, but was still a good film) then compare it to a brand-new, super-shiney random-explosion-y film (Last one I watched being 'The Marine', which cost $15000000 to make, and was utterly terrible).The equipment (A camera, an image editing application etc), once it becomes relatively easy to use, stops becoming the issue, and the limitations becomes the ability/creativity of the user (Okay, not stricly true since you could always take good photos even on a extremely primative camera, but digital-stills-camera are far more accessible than pin-hole photograph was, for example..)And yes, the number megapixels is ignorable over 3-6MPx's for 99% of users. Most people are happy with ~800x600 photos, as long as they are in focus and correctly exposed (Which brings me back to my original learn-your-camera-better point)- Ben

Reply

tapewormz Feb 9, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

Assuming the jackass who wrote that article wants me to actually believe what he's saying... I could apply his logic to HDTV and say...NTSC images are just as good as High Def... NOT...

Reply

cerebralvisions Feb 9, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

It's not the tool. It's how you use it.

Reply

peppino Feb 9, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

This came from the blog. Click on the link. It talks about what quality of pics are accepted professionally."J. D Says: February 8th, 2007 at 3:24 pm *cough* bulls**t *cough*For consumers yet .. thats about it.If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us.Don’t see anything under 8MP on that list …<a class="user" href="http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.asp?article_id=1346">http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.asp?article_id=1346</a>The key is you want a good deal of mega pixels on a big enough sensor to be able to crop. "