- This topic is empty.
The megapixel myth
-
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
An interesting reading for the techno-maniacs :D
Not that I want to argue with Ken,
but his job is to promote Ken Rockwell-At least half of that article is grossly over-simplified, inaccurate, or plain wrong.
His point, that more pixels are unnecessary if you employ sloppy technique,
or view a print at arms length, is broadly correct,
but his arguments unravel when you question the detail-There’s a lot of good information about resolution and printing available on the internet, but this isn’t it-
In my opinion.
every opinion is appreciated j, especially the one of highly experienced photographers like you.
but you would agree with me that sometimes information has to be simplified for beginner folks like me it’s a good way to make you starting on a topic and then you can always look for more detailed info.
can you point me out those info you are mentioning? (just if you have them bookmarked somewhere on your computer, otherwise forget it :P )
i will look at them by self anyway.Well, I’m not that interested in the resolution of particular sensors,
but I find the comparison between different optical systems interesting.If you’re only interested in pictures for the internet, or 6×4’s from the chemist,
then Ken is absolutely right, and there’s no need to go any further.If you’re interested in the subject for its own sake,
or because there’s a chance you’d like to know what’s gong on at the far end of the scale from what Ken is talking about,
there are a couple of lively conversations here-
although the subject matter is quite dry and technical.http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=44797″ onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=51959″ onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
In particular, the analysis by ‘bglick’ about the combined resolution of optical systems,
that is, the resolution of the lens, sensor, and print, taken together, is very interesting,
and raises a few heckles amongst some people who would consider themselves experts in the field of scanning-
that is, those who define resolution by counting pixels…Here’s another example- a picture this time. http://doeringphoto.com/temp/testimage.jpg” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
There have been lots of discussions about resolution and enlargement, even on this very forum,
back in the good old days.Any picture can be enlarged by any factor,
and it will be good enough as long as you stand back to view it at the same distance as the diagonal of the frame.
But what if the picture draws you in?
You can only be attracted into a picture to the point where you begin to lose detail;
as soon as the picture begins to blur, you’re stopped there, and that’s as close as you can go.
Some people accept the Ken Rockwell argument,
and claim that there’s no need for any more resolution than the number of pixels they have access to.So there’s no right or wrong, just a sliding scale about what you find to be acceptable.
There are compromises and trade-offs between different methods of capture and presentation,
and to a large extent, and to most people, it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, matter at all.In fairness, to Ken, (and I must admit that I didn’t read the linked page) I would draw attention to his “about” page.
For example:
“While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it’s all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as the work of fiction. This site it is the product of my own imagination, not fact.”
or
“The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion.”
or
“I started this site as a joke….”I hope I haven’t taken these too much out of context, I quote them more to encourage reading his about page than to suggest any direct inference. I think his “about” page is, more than most, essential reading.
I myself tend not to read his stuff, I see it as info-tainment, and as the great man says himself “Caveat Lector!”.M
jb7: thanks for the urls and for the long comment.
btw, i’m not a fun of that guy!!! just to point this out, i’ve just landed on his page googling around. please do not bite me :D
No bite intended :D
He is often quoted, and seems to be liked by many for his advice.
I was going to click the link posted by pallo’ but decided to read
the comments first . . .After reading JB7’s comments there is no need to click the link !
After reading Martin’s comments I want to click the info page . . .
I certainly wont be visiting his site even for a bit of whatever-tainment.
:roll:
Ken Rockwell may be oversimplifying matters and plain wrong in several details, but he does have a point:
Megapixels are, when you look in shopfronts, THE camera feature most advertised to “compare” cameras.
However, the valued consumer will not be able to tell which camera is actually better based on that piece
of mis-information alone. Megapixels per-se don’t mean much, unless you’re comparing DSLRs from the
same manufacturer and with the same sensor design. Even then are they at best a minor factor to judge a camera by.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
