OT: 6 megapixels best format for your woodworking pictures?

Page 6 of 8  


There are a few knobs I would like to shoot around here...LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

You've been havin' a busy day Rob.
Breathe, man. Breathe.
HNY
--
Tanus

This is not really a sig.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Largely depends on sensor size. Point and shoot cameras have tiny sensors. APS-C sensors are considerably larger, while what is classed as full-frame sensors are the same size as a 35mm frame, or very close to that. Up to a point, sensor density increases are great, but beyond about 5 MP, sensor density increases create more noise (equivalent to grain in film) than they do useful resolution. I started digital photography with a 2 MP camera that did well, even up to half of its frame in 1/3 page magazine articles, but it had other limits that led me past a couple other cameras to where I am now, with a 6 MP *istD Pentax DSLR, and a 10 MP K10D Pentax DSLR. Rumor has a 14 MP model coming out next year, but I'll have to see the improvements to believe them.
Anything over 5 MP, IMO, in a P&S is a waste of money. For DSLRs, 6 MP is a sweet spot--I've got a whole bunch of shots from my 6 MP Pentaxes (I have sold one since I bought the K10D) blown up to 20x30 with fantastic results, plus a number of full page, maybe 3/4 frame crops, in magazines, and a couple of what is called double trucks, photos that spread across more than one page (for a current example, check my article in the January '08 issue of Cars & parts, shot with my first Pentax *istD a couple years ago). From that point, you get into reproduction of ever-finer detail, something of very little use to the average snapshot photographer who puts a photo up on-screen or has a 4x6 print made. Up to 8x10, a 2 MP P&S does fine, in good light, with a relatively slow moving or stationary subject. For faster moving subjects, the shutter lag in the P&S cameras is a real problem: I have some speed shots on my web site--www.charlieselfonline.com--for those who want to see what a DSLR with almost no shutter lag can do.
Have a great New Year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While everything you say is true, you're talking about the extremes of people using them and not the folks on the street. It still holds IMO that the high Megapixels of today's often pretty expensive cameras are wasted on the majority of the population. As each price range begins to drop, higher and better pixel cameras come out for yet more premium pricing, and that is that marketing and advertising freaks are making neophytes want to buy them rather than admitting they're really more for the photo experienced enthusiast or professional photographer; not something most people are after. The lower pixel cameras are good deals right now and work well for the majority of people, especially when they have bothered to do any homework at all to see what pixel numbers actually mean. Pixel numbers are not only misstated and misleading a lot of times but sometimes are so overstated as to be meaningless. The average bear with a photo album, onscreen albums and amateur works are now low priced enough to be avialable to almost anyone and in many ways beat out the SLRs et al hands down.
Some pixel info:
pixel defined One addressable point of color. Pixels can vary in size - see resolution.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0203/02030602foveonx3notation.asp When is a pixel not a pixel? When it's three.
Each pixel can only be one color at a time. However, since they are so small, pixels often blend together to form various shades and blends of colors. The number of colors each pixel can be is determined by the number of bits used to represent it. For example, 8-bit color allows for 2 to the 8th, or 256 colors to be displayed. At this color depth, you may be able to see "graininess," or spotted colors when one color blends to another. However, at 16, 24, and 32-bit color depths, the color blending is smooth and, unless you have some kind of extra-sensory vision capability, you should not see any graininess
The bottom line: know the final destination of your images. Following is a guide to the amount of megapixels required in the camera:
Destination Minimum Megapixels Web site images 1 MP Computer screen 2 MP 3x5 and 4x6 prints 2 MP 8x10 print 4 MP 11x14 print 6 MP 16x20 print 12 MP Record Modes in the Olympus SP-560UZ Digital Camera Mode Resolutions Still Pictures (JPEG Record Modes) SQ2 1600x1200, 1280x960, 1024x768, 640x480 SQ1 2560x1920, 2304x1728, 2048x1536 HQ 3264x2448, 3264x2176 (more compression) SHQ 3264x2448, 3264x2176 (least compression) Video/Movies (MPEG Record Modes) SQ 160x120 15 fps HQ 320x240 15 fps SHQ 640x480 30 fps
...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You guys are just a bunch of cheap bastards bitching about a few mexapixels. If you had any interest in taking a decent picture, you'd just get the CF39 on the H2 kit and be done with it. http://www.dcviews.com/press/Hasselblad-39-series.htm Prices are here http://www.dcviews.com/press/pdffiles/Hasselblad-39-series-prices.pdf http://www.pictureline.com/cat/219/Hasselblad_Digital_Backs/?mid2
or the H3D (Amazon.com product link shortened)7MC6HOH9AVE6&tagaltime-ce-feed-20&linkCode=asn
I'm ordering mine as soon as I can get a coupon for free shipping or something.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: or the H3D : (Amazon.com product link shortened)7MC6HOH9AVE6&tagaltime-ce-feed-20&linkCode=asn
: I'm ordering mine as soon as I can get a coupon for free shipping or : something.
I have free shipping at Amazon, so how about I order two, you pay for them, and I'll have one shipped to you?
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy laid this down on his screen :

They had the best available at launch -the Apollo missions had Hassleblads (the best roll film cameras in the world) and 11's computer was less powerful than an XT - it had only 4K of RAM. Would you like to try to run your software on that?
At any rate there are three cameras on the rover, one is a low res colour imager but the other two have about 160Mp each!

It may well be, but that does not negate the usefulness of resolutions beyond 1 Mp.
Unlike with computers, where the best maxim is to get the best you can afford, cameras do have a utility ceiling. I'd suggest something larger than 4Mp in a compact camera should do well enough for woodworking pics. I have a Sony Cybershot with 7.2 Mps but woodworking is not the only thing I use it for. The basic rule is the better your original shot/resolution/focus/lens etcetera etcetera the more you can do with it when you put the file on your PC.
Oh and moving your camera closer to the subject is not equivalent to upping the resolution. The closer you get to a subject the more obvious is any inherent distortion of the lens. For most large piece woodorking shots I'd reccomend moving away from the subject and using the optical zoom (there is no point in using the digital zoom as you may as well just crop it on the PC) til the subject fills the frame.
Mekon (who used to make his living doing this stuff)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only because it had the best lenses (Zeiss) and a switchable back.

used for imaging.
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy pretended :

Other cameras had the switchable backs (eg Mamyia 645) The T* lenses on the blads were (and I guess still are) magnificent, but the bodies and viewfinders and other 'blad technology was the best available at that time. Just beautiful equipment.

Yes, I was wrong, I was reading the specs for the orbiter, not the rover.
Mekon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

exposure was a bit musical. I have been a long time Contax user and Zeiss....what can I say? I just sold an 85 (f2.8) mm portrait lens (Made in West Germany) for more money than I paid for my entire Contax collection. I shuddered at the thought of parting with it, but I could not turn down the offer. NASA's decision had also to do with their dislike for focal plane shutters. They wanted the 120 (220?) size film, but didn't like focal plane shutters that were that big and their inherit distortion on moving objects. These days people don't buy 'blads anymore... they lease them. Now there's high MP count CCD I could live with. It is hard to imagine to be able to put a few select pieces of Hasselblad into a case and walk off with knowing it can be as much as $ 100,000.00

minimise the physical size of the CCD, having less mass and better chance of surviving a hard impact. That is also why the lenses were restricted to a max of 3 elements and no adhesive was allowed to be used. Some really interesting design parameters.
r
PS, I always like to run into people who truly understand the Zeiss story.... then I tell them about an acquaintance of mine who bought a Zeiss microscope at an auction for $ 200.00 only to discover that the package also included a Zeiss-built 35 mm camera and an additional $ 20K worth of optics and lighting gear... including ring flash and all kinds of really nifty stuff. I took some pictures of phonograph styli and grooves and wondered how-the-hell that ever worked as well as it did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy was thinking very hard :
(snip)

Gulp. The first T* I saw was a 180 portrait lens and I got a pal to take a shot of me with it and the resolution it yielded was stunning. I still have some of those shots and occaisionally dig out a magnifying glass to wonder at the technology over again. I remember once in a moment of sheer stupidity, I told a group of my students that digital 'film' had no future. How could a photo receptor which has to have some sort of wiring and other macro components match film which works on an atomic level? I was of course blithely unaware of advances in IC chip technology and conveniently ignored the fact that the grain in film is clusters of those atomic particles and it is the clusters that digital competes with.
Mekon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The part that I like, is that there are many filters in Photoshop and other image processing software, trying to simulate the grain we used to fight to eliminate! (noise, blur) Soon enough, we'll be able to buy a gizmo which will reintroduce the scratches and pops while listening to a perfect digital recording..<eg>
I showed some slides to a neighbour of mine that I had shot in the Arctic. He wanted to know what process I had used to make the image so stark and cold. I told him I used the Kodachrome and Zeiss process. he said "Oh".."will that work on Corel?"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote on 28/12/2007 :
(snip)

ROFL..
Back in my darkroom days I was once a sports photographer. I covered this 3rd grade Rugby Union match and a few were published. A woman turned up at the office the next week with a copy of one of the prints. She wanted one of her husband. I asked which one he was so I could optimise the print for him and she said "Oh, he's not any of these he was standing behind you when you took the picture" "How can I give you a print of him if he was behind me?" I naiveley ask. She looks at me as if I am the stupidest person she has ever met and says..."You turn the negative upside down!" I took her into the darkroom an showed her what that did.
Mekon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote

http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/VinylDreams /
--
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 have only one thing to say:
"Holy fuck!"
...and then I break out into a diabolical chuckle....
I guess I shouldn't be that surprised, huh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Blah blah blah, blah blah. BLAH blah blah!
Blah, blah blah, um.... blah blah.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
-Zz
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:39:28 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is interesting to note that the (by far) highest resolution "digital" photography system - http://www.gigapxl.org/ - uses film as the optical sensor. The negative (sensor) size is 9" x 18" - maybe an electronic sensor will eventually reproduce this level of visual information content, but it will still be awhile...
The negative is then scanned, producing the digital image. The overall system resolution has increased since the project's inception - I think the latest files are 4 Gpix. They got Adobe to include enhancements to Photoshop to handle these multi-gigabyte image files.
The print displays are truly amazing. -- JeffB remove no.spam. to email
Mekon wrote:

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

Don't stop there. Printers will never equal the quality you get from a well made photo print or even a machine print at the 1 hour lab. We were right weren't we? At leas a few years ago.
My OM-2 sits mostly in the bag along with the lenses while my digital is in my shirt pocket and I've put together a few albums from my Canon printer. . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.