Re: Nikon Coolpix with swiveling lense?

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:48:31 -0500, CharleiD <spammenot@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



In case he or others can't tell, I'll break it down for them:

Avg. 6mpx = 2816x2112 (brands may vary slightly)
Avg. 8mpx = 3264x2448 (brands may vary slightly)

8mpx gives you an extra:

452 horizontal pixels
336 vertical pixels

This isn't even up to the resolution in an extra 640x480 image border on only 2
sides.

An extra 226 pixels on each side
An extra 168 pixels on top and bottom

That's not even enough room to tilt the frame more than 6.5 degrees before you
get a 6mpx image, after cropping for horizontal and vertical borders again.

Overall resolution increase = sq.rt.6 to sq.rt.8 = 6.5% increase. This of course
depends if the extra pixels are providing useful image data and are not just
providing extra noise or softer details. If, when going from 6 to 8, the image
quality goes down you have lost, not gained a thing, just more debt.

Don't kid yourself with megapixel numbers. To get a 100% increase (2x) in the
resolution of a 5mpx camera you'd have to go up to a 20mpx camera. For a 100%
increase in resolution in a 6mpx camera you'd have to go to a 24mpx camera. If
8mpx then 32mpx. 6 to 8 is nearly meaningless. The megapixel marketing-wars is
a war of diminishing returns FOR THE BUYER. Quite the opposite for the
manufacturers.

TO ALL MANUFACTURERS: Impress me with a 24mpx camera for $100 more than I am
paying for a 6mpx camera right now and I might take notice. Until then, shove
your meager megapix increases for $200-$800 more each year that usually provide
poorer image quality. I can double the excellent resolution of my camera just by
zooming in a bit and taking 4-6 frames and stitching them. 30 seconds of my time
for an important shot, the time it took me to frame the subject in the first
place. Instead of foolishly giving you money for a paltry 6.5% increase in
resolution. I repeat, shove your meager pixel quantity advancements. Impress me
with something that I can't already do in 30 seconds with the cameras that I
already have.

Well, if you are going to put it that way then I may as well stick
with my current Olympus 2020Z at 2.1mp and just take a series of shots
and stitch them together. On second thought, maybe I won't even bother
with a DC seeing as you are saying they are basically a rip off. I'll
just spring for a medium format camera and get a decent scanner if I
want to digitize the prints. Sounds to me like DC's are for amateurs
and naffy mag photographers.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is 16x9 really 16x9?
    ... > NTSC DV video is 720 x 480. ... > camera technologies have square pixels, ... > resolution assumes rectangular pixels. ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: DPI
    ... The pixel originates in your camera. ... There are roughly eight million Pixels on the sensor in your camera. ... resolution discernable by the human eye. ... Printer resolution is how many dots of ink the ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: How many pixels?
    ... This assumes that the camera is parfocal with the oculars (which can ... It will not increase the number of resolved elements ... 1000x1000 elements or pixels is accurately imaged onto a CCD ... more than one resolved element and the resolution achieved for ...
    (sci.techniques.microscopy)
  • Re: A beginner question
    ... object on a terrestrial camera, I had no scale to equate this to daytime ... I don't even know how to work out the exposure etc ... presumably also the point source can easily spill over into adjacent pixels. ... There is only one noise source that is pixel dependent, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: dumb question
    ... Then there is the number of pixels in the sensor - the more ... The compression performed by the camera ... cameras with either no compression or lossless compression. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)