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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 23, 2005, 7:07 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I would agree with the previous comments.

MegaPixels (MP) is really just a count of the number of pixels that the resulting image will contain. so a 2000 by 1500 pixel image would have 3,000,000 pixels or be a 3MP image.

MegaBytes (MB) is a measurement of size. It denotes how much space an image takes on disk or in memory. And has almost *nothing* to do with the MP of the image. (for people that want to argue against that last sentence, just think about color depth. A 16-bit image takes up twice the space as a 8-bit image. Well take this to rediculous proportions and you could have a image with 1 pixel but 3,000,000-bit color depth. That would be a 1-pixel image but a 3 MB file.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2005, 7:14 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
SlapNTickleJr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 151
Default

Eric said:

I would agree with the previous comments.

MegaPixels (MP) is really just a count of the number of pixels that the resulting image will contain. so a 2000 by 1500 pixel image would have 3,000,000 pixels or be a 3MP image.

MegaBytes (MB) is a measurement of size. It denotes how much space an image takes on disk or in memory. And has almost *nothing* to do with the MP of the image. (for people that want to argue against that last sentence, just think about color depth. A 16-bit image takes up twice the space as a 8-bit image. Well take this to rediculous proportions and you could have a image with 1 pixel but 3,000,000-bit color depth. That would be a 1-pixel image but a 3 MB file.)

Eric


Very nice point...perfect example.

I did this scan of a print for a friend that wanted a 30" x 40" from an 8" x 10". I scanned the image at 2400dpi and the resulting 16 bit file was around 650MB, a 16 bit file really wasn't needed for the print so I converted it to 8 bit and the fileSIZE was cut in half. Another good one would be grayscaling an image. Anyway, I'm sure we all get the point here.


SlapNTickleJr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2005, 11:43 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
jpistone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 28
Default

So would it be accurate to say that if a camera user controlling parameters manually sets a camera for the same color depth (say 12 bit) for every shot, then MB and MP would relate in some mathematical fashion? But if I change settings that result in different depth, then the relationship changes? Color depth would be the only variable then??
jpistone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2005, 3:58 PM   #14
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

Even then it's not strictly true. Most compact cameras use the JPG file format which is compressed. How much it is compressed depends on the actual image. A photo with a large area of clear blue sky should compress to a smaller file size than a complex image with lots of detail in every area and that is assuming the same level of compression. Even RAW files can be compressed so very slightly in size. If you were to save the images as uncompressed TIF files then the sizes should be the same.
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2005, 6:05 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 182
Default

My only complaint as a good photographer and businessman is the useage of the flash. I would have good enough lenses where I didn't have to disturb the ceremony (if I'm a pro, I should have pro quality lenses, f2.8 or lower) and the shots just look like direct flash was used.

If she was using an external flash she should of bounced the flash if possible and fill the room with light, instead of just creating harsh, flat exposures.

Just my two cents and humble opinion.

This is my work, http://tmillerphoto.com

Thanks!

-tlmiller10
Tim Miller Photography
http://tmillerphoto.com
tlmiller10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2005, 9:51 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Or a soft box could have been used, if the photographer was close enough.

My problem is with the outdoor images. The lighting is so harsh from the back that the hilights are brutal. I wouldn't be pleased.

But I have very high standards.

Eric
eric s 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 4:10 PM.