Matus
Well-known
You've got a point. But I keep waiting for non linear ADC on the sensors. Then one could get much more natural highlights.
Anybody from the field dares to comment how feasible are the non linear ADCs in digital cameras? In in physics that is nothing new ...
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I deal with a different type of print – art exhibition catalogues.
So I may need a file to be (for a two page spread including bleeds) say 21" x 10" at 300ppi.
The catch is that this is in a book and will be looked at very closely. And, depending on the printer, the book can be printed anywhere from 175lpi (a minimum using AM screening) to 300lpi using stochastic or FM screens. FM screens can have dots as small as 10 microns. So this is like looking at an entire exhibition of photographic prints at a distance of say 12" (or whatever a comfortable reading distance is for you).
I continually need MORE resolution because so many "pros" do not work with the best gear (especially in the art world).
And trust me, there is a universe of difference between that Nikon D70 file and a recent full-frame. I mean it is not even worth a conversation. I just had to deal with it in a recent publication. The pro did not shoot enough so I had to rely on the gallery's assistant who had shot the exhibit using a D70 to fill in the holes. The files were terrible. I would never up sample these files and, if possible, just wouldn't use them.
I would like every photographer shooting art work and gallery installation shots to be using a full frame in the 20mp range and the best glass possible. Period.
So I may need a file to be (for a two page spread including bleeds) say 21" x 10" at 300ppi.
The catch is that this is in a book and will be looked at very closely. And, depending on the printer, the book can be printed anywhere from 175lpi (a minimum using AM screening) to 300lpi using stochastic or FM screens. FM screens can have dots as small as 10 microns. So this is like looking at an entire exhibition of photographic prints at a distance of say 12" (or whatever a comfortable reading distance is for you).
I continually need MORE resolution because so many "pros" do not work with the best gear (especially in the art world).
And trust me, there is a universe of difference between that Nikon D70 file and a recent full-frame. I mean it is not even worth a conversation. I just had to deal with it in a recent publication. The pro did not shoot enough so I had to rely on the gallery's assistant who had shot the exhibit using a D70 to fill in the holes. The files were terrible. I would never up sample these files and, if possible, just wouldn't use them.
I would like every photographer shooting art work and gallery installation shots to be using a full frame in the 20mp range and the best glass possible. Period.
venchka
Veteran
Legend has it that the Nikon D70 had the least offensive blur filter of all DSLRs. Probably akin to the Leica digital cameras. Would that all makers take note. However, the D70 is a relic to be avoided. Not a shining example of what is possible to be emulated.
Down with the blur filter!
Down with the blur filter!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There's also the precautionary principle.
Very few of my pictures have ever been run A3 in books (A4 double-page spread). But enough have, that I prefer to have them at a quality that will stand it.
Using the rough but adequate equation of 1 pixel = 1 dpi, 12x16 inches (near enough A4) at 300 dpi = 3600 x 4800 pixels = 17 megapixels = AT LEAST 18 megapixels (to allow for the crop). A 10% upsize may be OK, but that's the limit. No program can invent information that isn't there.
Of course, if you like an 'airbrushed' look, upsizing is fine.
Cheers,
R.
Very few of my pictures have ever been run A3 in books (A4 double-page spread). But enough have, that I prefer to have them at a quality that will stand it.
Using the rough but adequate equation of 1 pixel = 1 dpi, 12x16 inches (near enough A4) at 300 dpi = 3600 x 4800 pixels = 17 megapixels = AT LEAST 18 megapixels (to allow for the crop). A 10% upsize may be OK, but that's the limit. No program can invent information that isn't there.
Of course, if you like an 'airbrushed' look, upsizing is fine.
Cheers,
R.
venchka
Veteran
We should have a real straight from the camera comparison. I know for a fact that untouched RAW files from my 1D Mk III look like pooh-pooh.
Scan film. There plenty of megapixels. If that doesn't work, scan larger film.
Scan film. There plenty of megapixels. If that doesn't work, scan larger film.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I think it is pretty clear from reading this thread that some people need more MP to get none re-sampled files for certain specific commercial purposes/end uses. I think for the bulk of photo hobbyists the need may not be there for more MP. For home end use, 8x10 to 11x17, a digital P&S with a small sensor of 5/6 MP shot in the lowest native iso and PPed carefully will do. Then there is everything in between. You just have to tailor you gear to your needs. We will get more MP and other sensor improvements anyway which is all to the good.
Bob
Bob
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I work backward, starting with human visual acuity, said to be 1 arc-minute, or ~0.3mm/1m of viewing distance.
A 300dpi printer can lay down 0.085mm dots, you will have to get within 0.35m or ~1 foot to see such small dots, even if your eyes are that good.
Thus a jumbo print needs only 2Mp or so; an 8 x 10 needs 6Mp... 12Mp will make a nice 11 x 14...pixel for dot. Down-sampling makes smoother looking prints, depending on re-sampling algorithms available...bi-cubic is now common, and there is one more level beyond [well used in my field--aerial surveying].
I have also posted often that the mega-pixel war will come to a truce when sensors reached FF...now in Nikon D3X, M9, etc. No one will go beyond because lens image circles would not cover.
The only way to get more pixels into a 35mm FF is to reduce native pixel size...that war started at 12u [Contax], then 9, 7.2, 6 [24Mp] and perhaps 5u soon. Leica is in no position to start that war...entirely dependent on Kodak who is now at 6u.
If you apply this thinking to the 645 format, then 39Mp [Kodak] was the truce point...larger ones are now available.
A 300dpi printer can lay down 0.085mm dots, you will have to get within 0.35m or ~1 foot to see such small dots, even if your eyes are that good.
Thus a jumbo print needs only 2Mp or so; an 8 x 10 needs 6Mp... 12Mp will make a nice 11 x 14...pixel for dot. Down-sampling makes smoother looking prints, depending on re-sampling algorithms available...bi-cubic is now common, and there is one more level beyond [well used in my field--aerial surveying].
I have also posted often that the mega-pixel war will come to a truce when sensors reached FF...now in Nikon D3X, M9, etc. No one will go beyond because lens image circles would not cover.
The only way to get more pixels into a 35mm FF is to reduce native pixel size...that war started at 12u [Contax], then 9, 7.2, 6 [24Mp] and perhaps 5u soon. Leica is in no position to start that war...entirely dependent on Kodak who is now at 6u.
If you apply this thinking to the 645 format, then 39Mp [Kodak] was the truce point...larger ones are now available.