ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Megapixel arguement
- Thread starter Clart
- Start date
Computer monitors display images at 72 ppi (pixels per inch), meaning that there are 72 pixels for every 1 inch of linear screen space you see on your screen. You need to make prints to see a difference, images on screen are theatrical
yes
Non RS : (
correct mcbunny around [SIZE=-1]3872x2592 is 10mp can differ[/SIZE]
It can't.
An image stored as a file which has "real world" units simply contains a PPI which tells (the end application) how to convert to real world units.
The only real unit in an image its size in pixels.
thread of the year!
I'm confused as fook! lol
10mp pic will be bigger on a moniter than a 3mp pic as the pixels are a fixed size on the moniter.
when it comes to printing then the pics will both be the same size (6x4) but the image quality will be better on the 10mp pic than the 3mp pic.
surely you can't say that a 10mp pic will fit to a 6x4 piece of paper, it would need to be cropped a fair bit and resized hense loosing some pixels to get the size down for the pic to fit on a 6x4 but without distorting it...
I'm confused as fook! lol
10mp pic will be bigger on a moniter than a 3mp pic as the pixels are a fixed size on the moniter.
when it comes to printing then the pics will both be the same size (6x4) but the image quality will be better on the 10mp pic than the 3mp pic.
surely you can't say that a 10mp pic will fit to a 6x4 piece of paper, it would need to be cropped a fair bit and resized hense loosing some pixels to get the size down for the pic to fit on a 6x4 but without distorting it...
If you have a 7mp camera and a 3mp camera and you take a picture of a c0ck, take them both to a photo place and have them printed out on 6x4 photo paper, the 7mp image will have more detail, as the camera has captured over double the amount of pixels, and has to fit them on the paper.
Surely??
Surely??
BMW M4; S1000 RR
Can we call it a thread now ?
BMW M4; S1000 RR
Yes, the only way to measure on a PC screen is pixels. So if you were viewing a 10mp picture on a screen, you'd most likely have to zoom out to actually see it all.
Clart
ClioSport Club Member
so why is every other person in the thread arguing that it can?
I think there's some confusion.
On a computer screen, of course a 10mp image is going to be bigger than a 3mp image, because the screen displays a certain number of pixels per square inch.
On a 6x4 print (in the real world, it does exist) then the ppi increases the higher mp the image. So a 10mp 6x4 print will have more pixels per inch than a 3mp 6x4 print, therefore having better quality. But it also depends on the printer's capabilities.
On a computer screen, of course a 10mp image is going to be bigger than a 3mp image, because the screen displays a certain number of pixels per square inch.
On a 6x4 print (in the real world, it does exist) then the ppi increases the higher mp the image. So a 10mp 6x4 print will have more pixels per inch than a 3mp 6x4 print, therefore having better quality. But it also depends on the printer's capabilities.
Trophy #267
ffs @ some of these replies.
Negating the fact that lenses / shutter speeds etc make a massive difference between models, pixels are fixed sized squares. therefore any digital picture is made up of X*Y squares. These are displayed at certain 'standard' resolutions (as in number of dots per inch) on screen and also a 'standard' resolution on paper (not same standard as on screen). Normal text is PRINTED @ ~ 300dpi photo printers on photo paper on max resolution can doo 1200 nps which means 12000 dots per inch == v small dots !
Now why peaople refer to taking pictures in 6x4 as in inches is beyond me as its nonsense. By far the best method of producing a print is to capture at the very highest quality and then resize down. with a good printer you get a very high DPI printed and very good results.
However, a 10MP image isnt always as good as a 3MP image for various reasons. Biggest being shutter speed. 10MP == fair amount of data to be captured in an instant hence why shutter lag is an issue for fast moving images. This is less of an issue with lower resolution cameras as less data need to be transferred hence faster shutter speeds. I have taken possibly one of the best pictures i have seen on my lad throwing a small ball at me perfectly in focus and centred in a snapshot with a cheap 3mp camera.
Negating the fact that lenses / shutter speeds etc make a massive difference between models, pixels are fixed sized squares. therefore any digital picture is made up of X*Y squares. These are displayed at certain 'standard' resolutions (as in number of dots per inch) on screen and also a 'standard' resolution on paper (not same standard as on screen). Normal text is PRINTED @ ~ 300dpi photo printers on photo paper on max resolution can doo 1200 nps which means 12000 dots per inch == v small dots !
Now why peaople refer to taking pictures in 6x4 as in inches is beyond me as its nonsense. By far the best method of producing a print is to capture at the very highest quality and then resize down. with a good printer you get a very high DPI printed and very good results.
However, a 10MP image isnt always as good as a 3MP image for various reasons. Biggest being shutter speed. 10MP == fair amount of data to be captured in an instant hence why shutter lag is an issue for fast moving images. This is less of an issue with lower resolution cameras as less data need to be transferred hence faster shutter speeds. I have taken possibly one of the best pictures i have seen on my lad throwing a small ball at me perfectly in focus and centred in a snapshot with a cheap 3mp camera.
tiTTy & SV650
think of 6X4 as a ratio of horizontal to vertical as opposed to a length and a width i.e. it's not 6" x 4"
the bigger the megapixel camera the bigger the image but with the same proportions. Not rocket science.
More pixels doesn't necessarily = better picture, depends on the quality of the lens and camera itself.
the bigger the megapixel camera the bigger the image but with the same proportions. Not rocket science.
More pixels doesn't necessarily = better picture, depends on the quality of the lens and camera itself.
Audi TT Stronic
DK is not right !!
Resize an image down to 6x4" in a photo editor, now resize the image back up to the size it was before.. notice something ? yep its pixelly as f**k !
Thats because in order to go smaller you had to loose a load of the pixels.
An example if you like !
Original 640x480
image scaled down (as it would be by a printer app)
that image scaled back up to 640x480 ! I may be wrong but it looks like some of the detail was lost ??
They're still the same size though, shot yourself in the foot there !
When you resize the image back up the photo editing software fills in the missing pixels by duplicating surrounding pixels etc. hence the image doesnt look sharp anymore.
LMAO, what a brilliant thread, this is like the aeroplane trying to take off on a rolling road travelling at the same speed thread, will it take off..........
Brilliant, just brilliant.
I think the confusion is between viewing images on screen and printed out, its a whole different kettle of fish.
KDF, really not sure I know what you are talking about as why would you reduce the size of it and then make it bigger? Thats not really proving any point, it was probably done in paint too which is why that happens.
your argument seems to be geared towards viewing on a computer screen whereas when we are talking about a 6x4 picture, thats the size of a printed photo, jsut like 5x7 is too.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
I think the confusion is between viewing images on screen and printed out, its a whole different kettle of fish.
KDF, really not sure I know what you are talking about as why would you reduce the size of it and then make it bigger? Thats not really proving any point, it was probably done in paint too which is why that happens.
your argument seems to be geared towards viewing on a computer screen whereas when we are talking about a 6x4 picture, thats the size of a printed photo, jsut like 5x7 is too.
Punto/Clio GTT
get out more
Audi TT Stronic
Resize it down to mimik the resizing down done when printing to something like 6x4 from a high MP image.
Paint ? peeeelease.. I don't do "windows". I used GIMP which is a very good photo editor. The point Im trying to make is.
An image is resized down for printing and a lot of the pixels are lost, hence when you size it back up it looks s**t, thereby proving that detail is lost and that a 3mp and 7mp will look almost identical when printed in 6x4.
The only advantage of High MP images is their ability to be printed at much bigger sizes.
Non RS : (
yeah a guy here got the sack i run Pree press now and work artowork and imposition , its a hard job . Film work was really skilled much more than saying Plate and it going from rip to image setter to processor lol , Also this thread is very boring lol ppl are all trying to be the winner:rasp:
ok, so how do you explain the fact that my dad and I took the same pic and had them both printed out, admittedly about a year ago and I have a 8mp camera, he has a 3mp camera and both were developed at boots and the photo from my camera looks considerably better quality in printed form, no jagged edges etc.
The photos look a different resolution in printed form, both are the same size paper?
like i said, both the same size, probably 6x4 or 5x7 ncan't remember and I don't think a Boots photo processing printing press will have a problem with resolution, doubt you could trouble it, its no HP deskjet!
Ok, so a probably a high resolution printer.
Your image will have more detail in it (i.e bigger) than your fathers which is why it appears better when printed.
As your fathers image smaller (less pixels) then it'll probably have to scale up which will mean creating detail from existing pixels, i.e what KDF showed above.
If the printer was only 300dpi then they'd probably look identical printed. (give or take the difference in quality between the cameras)
VX220 Turbo
am I right in thinking the following:
the megapixel figure refers to how many pixels per square inch (or something similar) on the cell.
therefore a 5megapixel camera phone only has a small cell are and therefore wouldnt be as good quality as a 5 megapixel image taken by a camera with a larger lense / camera body and cell?
i could have got all this wrong but I think i'm right in thinking this??
the megapixel figure refers to how many pixels per square inch (or something similar) on the cell.
therefore a 5megapixel camera phone only has a small cell are and therefore wouldnt be as good quality as a 5 megapixel image taken by a camera with a larger lense / camera body and cell?
i could have got all this wrong but I think i'm right in thinking this??
Similar threads
