OT: 6 megapixels best format for your woodworking pictures?

Page 1 of 8  
Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/ modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
I thought I'd share this.
http://6mpixel.org/en /
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.
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I disagree.
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

See above.

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 cropping...)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly. I ment if you take a picture, then make it a normal "Print" or web sized picture. No zooming involved.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Garagewoodworks,

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.
MJ Wallace
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.)

MJ Wallace
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy formulated the question :

I remember listening to a Kodak rep at a seminar wanting us to get into silver reclaimation saying that over the last hundred years we have lined the sewers of the world with silver halides.
Mekon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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. Art
"Mekon" wrote in message ... > > But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It wasn't linear.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote

LOL ... replace color with frequency and we've got an audio (control room monitor) discussion going.
"The mix/scene sounded/looked great in the studio/lens, but ...."
;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can always add a little cowbell in Photoshop?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote

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.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 these days. 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 gone. I hope you'll find the time to read this article which opened my eyes...with quite a bit of sadness.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity
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.)
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote

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"?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 of it...suuuuure.

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote

Hehe ... Hell, just wait until the singer/songwriter's boyfriend shows up ... he'll feel compelled to add his 2000 cents, even though he's never been in a studio before, and can't even spell "mix".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL...I have seen that before. You can always tell a pro by how much he/she recognizes other pros and leaves them to do their jobs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A friend of mine suggests that he go out into the big room, and listen loudly on the big playback monitors. It usually works well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    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.