Cutting Down Pixel , Improves Image Or Not?

[THAIPHUKET]

I believe this article is still true, which says 6 million pixel for a medium sized print are enough.

Many pocket cameras offer much in excess.

My question= putting the pixel setting at 6 or slightly above million, does such cutting away of unneeded pixel make a quality difference? (about 2000x3000)

Or..... does the cut have no influence over the pixel density?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/technolo...ogue-email.html

[The Vulcan]

Interesting article. The science of it all bewilders me at times.

Most people agree that for a medium print 1200 x 1800 is more than sufficient. As such, anything around 2 megapixels, let alone 6, will suffice. Reducing the pixel count for (say) a 6x4 print would not degrade or indeed improve the final print.

However, what if you should ever require a larger print?

Storage is cheap these days and there's no doubt that more pixels equals more detail equals larger printing ability

Just image capturing that once-in-lifetime shot and the best you could do was print it at 6x4

[LBrt]

Setting your 10 MP camera to 6 MP will (imho) not make the image quality better, the sensor will still be a 10 MP sensor.

The problem is that camera manufacturers cram too many MP on a small sensor.

But you can do a test and shoot the same image on a high MP and a lower MP setting and printing both.

[astral]

Interesting article. The science of it all bewilders me at times.

Most people agree that for a medium print 1200 x 1800 is more than sufficient. As such, anything around 2 megapixels, let alone 6, will suffice. Reducing the pixel count for (say) a 6x4 print would not degrade or indeed improve the final print.

However, what if you should ever require a larger print?

Storage is cheap these days and there's no doubt that more pixels equals more detail equals larger printing ability

Just image capturing that once-in-lifetime shot and the best you could do was print it at 6x4

Mr Average never goes beyond the 6 x 4 print.

But if you are a serious photographer then it does matter,

just the same way we looked for fine grain film.........

LBrt makes a good point about pixel density.

With small format cameras noise is the bugbear.

[kopiosatu]

i don't usually print my holiday photos, 600 x 400 is good enough for me. haha

[hughden]

The camera specs on DPreview are a good guide. They tell you the number of pixels per square centimetre for a particular camera. Everything else being equal, the fewer pixels per square centimetre, the better the resulting image. Fewer pixels per square centimetre means bigger pixels, means better detail capture and less noise at higher ISOs.

For example, the previous model Canon 5D had 12.7 megapixels and 1.5 MP/cm² pixel density.

The latest Canon Powershots have 12.1 megapixels and 43 MP/cm² pixel density. That's a ridiculous number of pixels to squeeze onto a sensor.

The 5D takes gorgeous photos which can be blown up to large sizes. The Powershots take very average photos which do not capture enough detail to allow them to be blown up to large sizes. I would guess that 5 MP on a Powershot size sensor would produce better looking images at any size you cared to print them than 12.7 MP.

The megapixel race is a marketing stunt which has resulted in inferior cameras.

[Kaojai]

I believe this article is still true, which says 6 million pixel for a medium sized print are enough.

Many pocket cameras offer much in excess.

My question= putting the pixel setting at 6 or slightly above million, does such cutting away of unneeded pixel make a quality difference? (about 2000x3000)

Or..... does the cut have no influence over the pixel density?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/technolo...ogue-email.html

I just received this in a monthly email from Olympus:

Pixel Mapping

The more pixels your camera’s imaging sensor (CCD) is made of, the more likely some of them may fail. Think of the lights on a Christmas tree. When the string is smaller, the lights usually fire without incident. But the longer the set of lights, the higher the probability one or more individual lights will need repair. These “stuck,” “dead,” or “hot” pixels, as they are often called, can cause the quality of your images to be compromised. Nearly every digital camera, regardless of the manufacturer, includes a sensor that experiences this to some degree. The issue may not be severe enough to be noticed, but if you do notice this phenomenon to occur, look into Pixel Mapping.

Some digital cameras come with an Automatic Pixel Mapping function right inside the camera that helps prevent faulty pixels from affecting image quality. The feature can be manually selected from the camera’s menu and takes approx. 10-30 seconds to complete, depending on the camera model. By doing so, the location of the faulty pixels will be determined and stored to memory so the camera will automatically compensate for the missing information or incorrect data in subsequent exposures. It is recommended that this function be used at least once a year and if so, your camera should enjoy a much longer period of high-performance.

Check your digital camera's instruction manual to see if the Pixel Mapping feature is included. If not, you may be able to send it in to an authorized Olympus factory service center to have it done. Either way, your camera and the pictures you take using it will be better for it in both the short and the long run.

[JetsetBkk]

I believe this article is still true, which says 6 million pixel for a medium sized print are enough.

Many pocket cameras offer much in excess.

My question= putting the pixel setting at 6 or slightly above million, does such cutting away of unneeded pixel make a quality difference? (about 2000x3000)

Or..... does the cut have no influence over the pixel density?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/technolo...ogue-email.html

What a strange, slightly immature rant in that article . It's almost as if the author has only just realised that there is a difference between linear measurement and area measurement.

He complains that going from 5 megapixels to 10 megapixels means going from a 11x14 inch print to only a 15x 20 inch print, at 180 DPI.

Well, guess what - 11x14 is 154 square inches and 15x20 is 300 square inches. So doubling the number of pixels has doubled the area.

Maybe he should use the square root of the MP count in future when calculating size increase. A doubling of the pixel count from 5 MP to 10 MP is the same as 2.23 squared to 3.16 squared, a difference of 1.41 on each side of a square print - not double the length and double the height as he appears to think it should - that would require quadrupling the pixel count. Maybe he was away sick when they taught geometry at school.

He may have a valid point about cramming too many pixels into the sensor making them more susceptible to failure, but really that's up to the manufacturer to get right.