On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote: > > So now we laugh at the idea that 1.3MP cameras can take photo-quality > > 8x10's, but we brag about how great our 6MP's are at 11x14's and 16x20's. > > And yeah, they're probably not too bad. But when 14MP cameras become > > affordable, all of a sudden we'll have a different frame of reference and > > we'll start seeing the flaws in our 6MP enlargements that we ignored or > > just didn't see earlier. > > Well, first of all the original suggestion was "obsolete within a year". > I really don't see 14MP sensors as being affordable in that timeframe.
Agreed. I was taking issue with the attitude that digital cameras *never* become obsolete. Sounds good in theory, not so much in practise. > I also think you'd be hard put to tell the difference between an 8x10 > print made from a 6MP camera and one from a higher-resolution sensor. > You can, to some extent, test that claim even now. Take a scan from a > 35mm slide. That will give you anything from 10MP to 20MP depending on > scanner resolution, and genuine 3-color samples at each position. Take a > print from the full-resolution image, and a print from another version > of the image downsampled to 6MP. Try and tell them apart. In fact it's > been my experience that most people are unable to tell the difference > even when the low-resolution print is produced from a 3MP image. The big > breakpoint seems to be around 200 pixels per inch. Below that and the > prints look OK in isolation, but definitely soft when put beside the > higher-resolution prints. Once you get beyond 200 ppi, though, it can > be pretty hard to tell the difference, even if you know what to look > for. One of the nice things about working in a camera store is that I get to play with expensive toys and make test prints all the time. 3MP and 4MP prints are pretty obvious at 8x10. 5MP prints have fooled me occasionally into thinking that they're 6MP, but not that often. I haven't tried it with a scan yet, but the scanner introduces another level of interpretation, so I wouldn't be surprised if the quality wasn't noticeably better than a first-generation 6MP DSLR print. To be fair, I'd have to try it with a high-res DSLR like a 14N, which I also haven't done yet. That being said, I doubt if I could tell the difference at 8x10 between a 6MP and a 14MP. You can output a 2000x3000 pixel file to an 8x12 print at 250ppi, which, as you say, is good enough for most people. I was referring to the 11x14's and 16x20's that I mentioned, though I suspect that the 8x10's will have a bit smoother tonal range. > And finally, of course, in order to be able to show detail equivalent to > more than 6MP you need to get it onto the sensor in the first place. > If you're hand-holding the camera (especially at slow to moderate > shutter speeds) the extra detail just won't be there. I don't agree. If you're holding it at slow to moderate speeds, then a blurry photo will definitely have problems. But that's independent of image quality... you'll still get a better-quality blurred shot from a 14MP than you would from a 6MP. :) I wouldn't expect a handheld 14MP shot to match a tripod 6MP shot, but that's getting unfair. Handhold them both, or put them both on a pod, and the difference should still be noticeable. I can see a difference between my 35mm and 6x7 prints, even when handholding both. chris
