Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 7, 2004, 4:37 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 38
Default

:roll:I have been using my Canon i550 printer for over 2 years for everything including printing pictures. It seems very good to me but few days ago, I bought a low end new printer from Canon - PIXMA ip 1500, the pictures from this printer is amazingly sharper and color is much much better. So it come back to my previous question that MP is just part or myth of making good pictures, apart from the camera, the printer - like the photo lab. also part of producing good pictures? This new tech. for taking pictures is more and more complicated.
jimmy380 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 7, 2004, 8:33 PM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

There are many factors that influence image quality: Lens Quality, Sensor Quality, Image Processing Algorithms that influence sharpening, contrast, color, saturation, etc. Camera settings also come into play, as do lighting conditions. Most important of all, is the skill of the photographer.

Now, sometimes a higher resolution model may be better (it could have more advanced image processing algorithms, or a better lens, etc.). Sometimes, it may not be better. But, don't think that megapixels is equal to higher quality. You only need more pixels if you need larger prints. Your newest printerappears to print at 4x6". You don't need more Megapixels for this print size.

You said this in the last thread, aftertrying twonewer models:

jimmy380 wrote:
Quote:
May be there is very little difference from 2mp to 3.2mp, you have to go up to 6mp or higher to notice the difference? What do you think?
Why stop at 6mp?Why nottry printingan image from a 14 megapixel model, and compare it to an image printed from a 2 Megapixel Model?

Full Size Image from Kodak DCS Pro 14N (13.85 Megapixels Total, 13.5 Megapixels Image Size):

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...w/C7SG0256.jpg

Full Size Image from a Kodak DCS Pro 720x (1.99 Megapixels Image Size) of the same building:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_...s/928B1843.jpg

Simply right click on the links to download them to your PC using the "save target as" option.Then, print them on your brand new printer if you want to see the detail in print. After that, you can decide which one looks better at that print size, and if it had anything to do with the number of Megapixels.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2004, 1:54 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 38
Default

:roll:Thanks JimC. these two pictures seems to be taken in different time, the 13mp picture seems to be taken in the morning, the sun light directed to the building and the right hand smaller building is darker, on the other hand, the picture taken by the 1.99mp camera, the main building is darker and the small building is much brighter. I print both pictures on an 8x11 paper with the net picture area of 6.5x10, the picture taken by an 13mp seems to be LITTLE SHARPER than the 1.99mp camera.

I have never said l will limitd to 6mp, it just happen at that time my budget to buy a new d/camera was the 6mp E550. anyway, I felt the comparison between an 1.99mp to an 13mp is very extreme. The 13mp camera properly very expense. There is no comparison between these two camera. The printed pictures appear very little difference, unless you are a profesional, I feel there is very few amatures would willing to spend that kind of money to buy an 13mp camera, realistically, an average amature potographer properly buy an d/camera from 3mp to 6 or 8mp at the most. I have never indicated that high pixel camera is the same as the lower pixel camera, what I said , it seems to be very little difference between the 2mp to 3mp. In any case, is it justify the cost to the higher pixel camera?unless you are professional. Thanks again for your advices.




jimmy380 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2004, 9:58 AM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

At a larger size you'll be able to tell the difference. At 6.5x10" size a 3MP imageis a definite improvement in detail over a 2MP image, all else being equal. 2MP is "pushing it" for this size, since you're down to about 150 Pixels Per Inch. But, I don't think you could see the difference at smaller sizes (which is what I thought your new printer was, I looked at the wrong specs).

The reason I picked the two vastly different images of the same subject was to point out that a lot of other factors influence image quality. In the case of the older Kodak, the image processing by the camera was very different from a colors and contrast perspective, with much higher saturation, etc. Lighting was also a big factor.




JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2004, 2:34 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 130
Default

RE: megapixel war.. The general caveat is "If all else is Equal", which of course it almost never it. One of the more interesting examples I found was at www.dpreview.com site where they reviewed the Pansonic FZ3. They did a direct comparison of the FZ3 vs. several cameras with more megapixels.. Its the resolving power that counts + noise + sharpening ... Also, you might want to wander over to www.dcresource.com where there is a "shootout" between FZ3 (3 mp), FZ20 (5 mp) and KM Z3 (4 mp, but old firmware).
wmussatto is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 AM.