If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
3, 4, 5, 8 MP 8x10 printout comparison - Long
Curious about just how many megapixels you need to get a
good 8x10 print, I did a test. I went to http://www.steves-digicams.com and downloaded a similar image from his samples for four different cameras. The cameras we 3mp Canon S30 4mp Minolta Dimage Z2 5mp Canon S60 8mp Nikon 8700 The images were pictures of a shelf in Steve's house containing some photography magazines, an M&M candy statue, a barometer, an orangutan poster, and some other things. The photos were not identical, but are very similar. I loaded up each image in IrfanView and printed each at 8x10 size on a Xerox Phaser 7700. The Xerox is an office printer that is definitely _not_ photo quality, but it still gives a useful color print. I examined the photos on a CRT screen, on the paper printouts, and on the printouts with magnifying lenses. For whatever they're worth, here are my impressions: 3 mp. I own a 3 mp camera and had always been satisfied with the 8x10's I printed from it. Looking at the printouts from two feet away, they looked fine. It was only when I looked at the other printouts that I realized how much the 3 mp was missing. Specifically: The larger object in the image that has little or no fine detail (the M&M statue) looks very good, probably about as good as with the other cameras. However the fine print seen on the Ozium can and the Digital Camera magazine spines is readable, but not sharp and clear. Was the Ozium can not in perfect focus? My guess is that the focus may not have been perfect, but the low pixel count was contributing to the lack of sharpness. The finest print on the barometer is not readable either on screen or on the printout. 4 mp. To me, this looked better than than the 3 mp image, but there was still room for improvement. The fine print on the Ozium can was definitely sharper than on the 3 mp image. The spines of the magazines were slightly sharper, but still not perfect. The fine print on the barometer was still not readable, either on screen or on paper. Even from 2 feet away, the image looked clearer than on the 3 mp camera, though only in the fine detail areas. 5 mp. To my eye, the 5 mp image printout looked very good. The can and the magazines were sharp and clear. I thought the difference was noticeable in comparison to the 4 mp. The image of the digital barometer was clearer on screen than the others. The barometer part of the printout also looked better, but only slightly better than for the smaller pixel count cameras. From two feet away, the image didn't look much better than the 4 mp. If I looked at the details closeup and noted the differences between the images, I could then detect those differences from two feet away. At a casual glance, I did not notice the differences. 8 mp. To me, the 8 mp printout looked only very slightly better than the 5 mp printout. The Ozium can and the magazine images were both very sharp and clear, but I had to look very closely to see any difference between it and the 5 mp image. The characters on the barometer looked slightly contrastier and better defined than on the 5 mp, but only slightly so. From 2 feet away, it was hard for me to say that the 8 mp image was better than the 5. On screen, the 8 mp image was much better than all the others. This tells me that there is detail in the 8 mp image that is lost when printed at "only" 8x10. An 11x14 or 16x20 image would probably show a significant difference as compared to the 5 mp image. Conclusions: 3 mp: To my eye, the 3 mp camera is more than adequate for 4x6 and 5x7 printouts. It is adequate for 8x10s, and possibly even 11x14s, but only for images in which fine detail is not crucial for a good view of the subject. For example, portraits and landscapes, especially when mounted to be seen from more than two feet away, would look quite acceptable to me. If what I want is fine detail, for example to read the signs in the shop windows of that street scene one shoots on an Italian vacation, 3 mp is not enough. 4 mp: 4 mp looks better at fine detail. For me, I believe it's probably worth the extra money to buy. 5 mp: 5 mp looks better still. If I could find a reasonably priced camera that had 5 mp plus all of the other features I wanted (like a long zoom), I'd be willing to pay more for the 5 mp over a 4 mp camera. If I found a 4 mp camera that had all the features I wanted but couldn't find a 5 mp with comparable features without paying a much higher price, I'd be tempted to go with the 4 mp, or maybe to wait for prices on 5 mp cameras to come down. 8 mp: For my purposes, looking at images on screen and printing at up to 8x10, 8 mp seems to be overkill. Extra money paid for the camera wouldn't return noticeably better prints at 8x10 or smaller. If I wanted bigger prints or wanted to be able to crop an image, 8 mp would be worthwhile. But if I don't need that, I don't need 8 mp. Of course if 8 mp didn't cost any more ..., but it does. Finally, I should note that I am not a professional photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always say, your mileage may vary. Alan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Meyer wrote:
Curious about just how many megapixels you need to get a good 8x10 print, I did a test. I went to http://www.steves-digicams.com and downloaded a similar image from his samples for four different cameras. The cameras we SNIP Finally, I should note that I am not a professional photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always say, your mileage may vary. Very interesting reading Alan. -- Ben Thomas Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A very useful contribution. Thanks very much for sharing your conclusions.
- JW "Alan Meyer" wrote Curious about just how many megapixels you need to get a good 8x10 print, I did a test. I went to http://www.steves-digicams.com and downloaded a similar image from his samples for four different cameras. ... [rest snipped] |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Very good indeed, if this was a forum then this should be a 'sticky' always
at the top. So many of us are drawn in by advertising and the claims of the manufacturers, when the truth is, not much difference until you get to twice the number of pixels e.g. 4 mp is twice 2 mp, but from 4mp a significant improvement would have to be 16 mp. So by that reckoning a 50% improvement should be apparent from 4 mp to 8mp which does seem to be the case. Jem "bob" wrote in message ... "Alan Meyer" wrote in news:CMOdnekMGKZPo7DcRVn- : Finally, I should note that I am not a professional photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always say, your mileage may vary. Good disclaimer. I have a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (5mp), and I've been very happy with the results at 8x10. They easily exceede any color prints I ever got from 35mm film (blame the processor, I suppose, if you're a color film bigot). I don't think that an 8mp camera would provide better results at 8x10 than 5mp under most circumstances. If you want to crop, then more pixels is always better. If there are large areas with subtle color variations, then more pixels is better. A printer like the Fuji Frontier is going to handle subtle variations better than the Phaser. Until Fuji puts printers with 14" paper into Wal-Mart, I don't think I need to upgrade my Coolpix. Bob -- Delete the inverse SPAM to reply |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I have a 5MP Canon G5. I use it mainly for uploading images to various
photographic websites. I haven't printed that much stuff on my home printer (not a top of the line photographic printer) but those that I did I was happy enough with. I had assumed that the optimum print size I could get was 8x6. However..... Just this last week I decided to get some test prints done in a photographic lab that uses the Fuji Image Service. I submitted images on a CD-ROM that had been tweaked (levels, curves, sharpening etc) in Photoshop. I used a resolution of 300 dpi and requested 8x6 prints. I was astounded at the clarity, sharpness and colour saturation. They were brilliant! I then got a few enlarged to 12x8 using a resolution of 200 dpi and could see no fall off in quality. Quite frankly, they are as good as ( if not better than) similar size Ilfrochrome prints from 35mm Velvia slides. I know that they shouldn't be ....but they are! I certainly intend to get a lot more such prints done (they are printed on Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper). It may well be that with a top of the line home printer similar results could be achieved. Personally, I am happy to stick to the lab service. Regards John |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Meyer" wrote in message = ... snip Finally, I should note that I am not a professional photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always say, your mileage may vary. Alan ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- I own a 8Mp camera and I feel my own comparisons which happen to differ from yours aren't bias because it can be set to shoot at less than full potential. Looking at strickly just numbers, if you fed a Noritsu printer an image that has an image resolution the same as the printer's capacity, you couldn't do any better than that. People are fickle, prone to pooh poohing what they earlier wished for. They see the pixel count they asked for but now the price makes it undesirable. Tests, just like yours, using non-photographic paper with a laser printer to boot because it's cheaper, using images downloaded from a websight for which you had no control over it's creation, says more about you than what you thought you were trying to accomplish. We used to see many paper longevity posts here (acceleration tests). Some involved putting prints on a dashboard of a car in 150 degree heat for 3 days. Now that 4x6 prints can be had much cheaper from a local CVS than from home I don't see anymore testimonials. See? It's the money, or lack of, that drives the desire for more or less and how we rationalize why we can or can't. mark_ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ilford FP+ 8x10 sheetfilm in PMK Pyro rotary - help! | Chase Martin | In The Darkroom | 5 | August 20th 04 08:18 PM |
How long does unused fixer stay usable? | Richard Knoppow | In The Darkroom | 2 | March 30th 04 11:13 AM |