Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
I thought I'd share this.
It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
had 1 MP cameras.
So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. You are
able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an image
with adequate pixel density.
If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of your
house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a high resolution
8X10 picture made.
While This is true you could also take a close up of your door knob
with a lower grade camera and have the same quality.
There was something on TV (I can't remember what channel now) that
showed what the "sweet spot" of todays camera was. I thought it was
around 4 Megapixels. Gave you pretty good range of flexibility for
regular home use.
While I agree that an 11 Megapixel camera gives you good crisp detail
if you zoom in on specific areas, if you shrink the picture down to a
normal print size it doesn't look any better.
This door knob scenario was used as an example. You might not always frame
your subject correctly or you might take a scenic shot and just want the
lower right portion.
More pixels = more flexibility during picture cropping.
Zooming in on a region and then shrink it down?? Cropping involved zooming
in on a region of the picture and having the newly framed/cropped portion
become the 'new' photo.
Again: More pixels = more flexibility during picture cropping. (I'm sure
there are more advantages to increased pixel density than just image
While I agree that more pixels is better when cropping, you
are slightly wrong about cropping. Cropping is the selection of
a range of pixels based either on pixels, inches or picas, and
removing everything else outside of that crop.
So I start with a 8x10 image. If I crop out a 4x6 image, I
will get ONLY a 4x6 image, not a 4x6 image blown up to
a 8x10. Cropping makes the physical size of the image
smaller. The density of the image (how many pixels per inch)
remains the same when I crop, that's why you want a LOT of
pixels when you crop. You can enlarge, (blow up) a 4x6 cropped
image to a 8x10 but you will have a choice - either keep
the same density and lose some definition snd/or incur noise or
reduce the number of pixels per inch, which MIGHT make
your image worse. However, if you start with a highly
dense image (pixels per inch), you probably won't see
a big difference when you enlarge. That' why I agre
with you on the idea - more pixels better!
Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
And for everyone else, the standard density of JPG images
on the web is 72 pixels per inch. You will probably never
see anything higher. It's hard to see a big difference in
an image that is 72ppi vs one that is 150ppi on the web.
Yes, I am referring to cropping and enlarging. More pixel density the
better (less of a loss of image sharpness.) In my door knob example above
in thread I mentioned taking a picture of a house and zooming/cropping in on
the door knob and making a 8X10 photo.
I hope this wasn't the only reason they stopped production. There are
advantages to digital format other than resolution. (I don't need a dark
room or a 1hr photo lab near by.)
And a whole lot less wash water going into the environment.... water
that had all kinda of nifty bromides and crap in it.
Also, the making of film is hardly a green process.
But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
How did K25 lie to you?
That was my film of choice when I lived in Tucson. Fine enough grain
for 16 x 20 Cibachrome prints; and the color balance, slightly strong in
the red and yellow, was my preferred match for the Sonoran desert.
Others, especially Fuji, were way to strong in the green & blue and
just looked terrible to me.
"Mekon" wrote in message ...
> > But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
You just said it, Art: : "slightly strong in the red and yellow,"... a
nice 'untruth'. Seductive.
You are right about Fuji, it lied also... but badly.
I also got great 16x20 in Cibachromes from those slides. Then I went
to C prints and CPS 135.
Yabbut, the cowbell always comes before the big crash cymbal hit, or right
after/before the 'rain tree' fades, and it takes two hours of studio time
and an iChing consultation to make that decision.
Keep that in mind the next time you hear those in a mix ... in the rare
event that you even notice.
Oh, frigg... the 'RainTree'... <as I pick up my Zanfir flute>
I made a 'bass' version of a rain tree once out of a 6" SonoTube and
big marbles...my kids and I had a huge laugh...
The attention to detail in a recording studio is such a waste of time
By the time they squeeze the shit out of the dynamic range by trying
to get some 'level' out of an MP3, detail, as we once knew it, is long
I hope you'll find the time to read this article which opened my
eyes...with quite a bit of sadness.
It is a worth-while read. (Try to get past RS's political shit, but
when it comes to music, they do have some validity.)
Read it, but didn't need to ... lived it. Engineered a big commercial a few
years back using a Ricky Martin production as the backing track ... I was
instructed to rip the song off a CD his producer sent along for the purpose.
If you've ever seen "music" (I use the term in the most loose sense)
waveforms represented on computer software, you will appreciate the fact
that, on the screen, and starting at zero to the end of the song, the
waveform from this track looked precisely like a red tubafour extending from
left to right ... now, that's compression!
It was pretty standard practice to compress mixes pretty hard for radio play
when I first started engineering back in the dinosaur "vinyl" days. (those
57 Chevy dashboard speakers were so bad that we routinely, and "accidently",
drove off with speakers from the local drive-in move theater as "upgrades")
... and if you don't learn to compress for TV, you'll go broke quickly.
BUT, we had a sensibility to the music in those days that is arguably
nonexistent today (just another example of the world going to shit, Joe B.
... with all the cRap on the airwaves) and were considerate enough to do two
masters, one for airplay, one for retail/the people ... that's much too
complicated for today's ProTools mouse jockey's world of "let the pigs have
the same swill".
You start with shit, no matter how much sugar you use, you still got shit.
.... can you say "iPOD ear buds"?
I know of what you speak. An earbud trying to come up with the same
amount of air-movement of a bass drum-skin getting the shit kicked out
At Eastern Sound in Toronto, they still have a single 6 x 9 paper cone
with a whizzer, in mono, sitting on top of their million dollar board.
They're messing with that a lot too though...I'm sure you noticed that
commercials 'appear' to be louder than the programming in between?
I listened to The Arctic Monkeys (The article mentions the same thing,
IIRC) a while back and noticed they never took a breath, just one long
flow of singing. (yup, I used the word, sorry)
Then on another CD (The Muse) every time the singer (yup, used the
word again) breathed in, they had enhanced the gulp of air every-
fricking-time. Boy did THAT get tiresome quickly.... but on my kid's
ear-buds, that gulp isn't so repulsive, simply because it can't
deliver it with the same grossness.
I can't stand them. I have some pretty decent Sennheiser 'over-the
ear' type of headphones, I just don't like they way they throw the
image inside my head.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.