OT: 6 megapixels best format for your woodworking pictures?

[Mekon]

Robatoy was thinking very hard :

(snip)

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

[Robatoy]

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..

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?"

[Andrew Barss]

: 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.

The problem discussed in the article (and in more detail elsewhere) is that the pixels get smaller in typical cameras, i.e. the pixel density incrwases, and the size of the image snsor doesn't. This creates a great deal more noise in the image, so even slight cropping can give you a lousy picture.

Sure, more pixels AND a largr sensor are great, but those are professional cameras.

-- Andy Barss

[Mekon]

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

[Swingman]

"Robatoy" wrote

[Robatoy]

"Holy f*ck!"

=2E..and then I break out into a diabolical chuckle....

I guess I shouldn't be that surprised, huh?

[Swingman]

"Robatoy" wrote

I was looking at some framed wildflower prints in the "guest room" the other day, ones that I took a few years back with one of the first Sony Mavica's with an optical zoom lens. This camera had to be less than 1 MP, but the prints were framed for a good reason ... they are excellent "photographs" ... I keep thinking of the old saying in the recording biz: "I'd rather listen to a bad recording of a good song, than a good recording of a bad song".

... that's the whole story, and all you really need to know. :)

[Artemus]

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

[Zz Yzx]

Blah blah blah, blah blah. BLAH blah blah!

Blah, blah blah, um.... blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

-Zz

[Robatoy]

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.

[Robatoy]

Go back to alt.food.barbque, asshole!

[JeffB]

It is interesting to note that the (by far) highest resolution "digital" photography system -

- 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

Mek>

[J. Clarke]

Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera. Canon is the company with the full frame digitals.

[J. Clarke]

My Panasonic non-SLR type digital camera has a Leitz lens which fills the sensor with the same field that a 400 would on a 35mm. Canon has a similar model. Further, it is capable of quite close focus with that lens.

[Leon]

So did I, until I read the article. Now I agree. Unfortunately the example you give is great on paper but in reality most digital cameras, until you get into 35mm SLR's have a tiny CCD by comparison, 20 times smaller. The lenses on those smaller cameras are simply not fast enough to let in enough light to properly expose those itty bitty pixels.

[Leon]

Again, all good on paper but if the recorded image sucks because of a lens that is not up to the task you can never get a good image.

[Leon]

Exactly right.

Exactly, and I thought it was silly thinking that fewer pixels would be a lesser quality. Now I don't. I usta develope my own film and enlarge my own prints.

[DGDevin]

That's an interesting camera, I've been reading up on it lately, very tempting especially at half the price of the German-branded version. However given the choice between the 7 and 10 Meg models, I'd still go with the latter.

[Leon]

The important missed fact here is that the standard film camera to take the better croppable/enlargeable pictures was 35 mm and larger. Imagine trying to start with 110 and get the same results as a 35 mm. That is what the problem with more mega pixels on a CCD that is 20 times smaller than a 35mm digital is up against along with a cheaper quality slow lens. Exposure time has to be much longer and shake really comes in to play.

[Leon]

And that was pretty much the point of the article. Most 10 and larger megapixel cameras sold today are not a 35 mm digital SLR. Most hace tiny CCD's and limp lenses regardless of brand when compared to a 35 mm digital.