Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #16
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
 
Lowner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
Posts: 12,784
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moppie View Post
Don't confuse print resolution with camera resolution, don't confuse print quality with mega pixels and dont assume more mega pixels means a better quality image.

The 5d2s ability to capture better tonal ranges and more accurately produce colour changes than a 30d has nothing to do with it having more mega pixels.
I don't confuse resolution with the tonal quality I'm referring to. But to an extent the extra MP of the 5D2 DOES have a bearing, along with other atributes, on the tonal range. Accuracy or otherwise I cannot comment about, a "smoothness" of tonal changes is the only way I can explain it.
__________________
Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfolio.com
Lowner is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #17
boerewors
Senior Member
 
boerewors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: South African living in Indonesia
Posts: 1,941
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

ISO performance has a big role to play on the megapixels as well. I would assume an ISO 12800 large print from a 1Dx would look better than an ISO12800 print from a 36mp camera. I also wonder if ISO performance would equal out if the 36mp were downsized to 18mp??
__________________
The most important piece of gear you own, resides in your head and its called your brain.
boerewors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #18
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
 
tzalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
Posts: 12,467
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowner View Post
I don't confuse resolution with the tonal quality I'm referring to. But to an extent the extra MP of the 5D2 DOES have a bearing, along with other atributes, on the tonal range. Accuracy or otherwise I cannot comment about, a "smoothness" of tonal changes is the only way I can explain it.
The smoothness of tonal change of the 5D2 is not because of resolution - it has exactly the same resolution as the 30D. It is because of sensor size - to get an 8x12 print the optical image recorded on the FF sensor is enlarged x8, from an APS-C it is enlarged x13. A 66 MP MF sensor would also have the same resolution, but would produce even greater IQ. When I compare 20 x 30 prints from my 40D and my 5D2, despite the slightly higher resolution of the 40D the difference is obvious.

But the above is OT because the OP asked about comparing prints from same sized sensors and to answer this the technology of printing can't be ignored. Any image sent to a printer will be resampled to the printer's input requirements, unless it is already at that ppi. Resampling reduces IQ; if the amount is small the loss will be difficult to discern, if a lot of resampling is done the loss will be greater. The 1DX will be able to supply an Epson printer with an image that will not need resampling if the print size is 10.2 x 15.3 inches. For the 36 MP sensor it will be 14.28 x 21.42. For a 20 x 30 print the difference between the 2X upres and the 1.4X upres would probably need a careful side-by-side comparison to be seen. For a 40 x 50 the difference between a 4X and a 2.8X resampling would be easier to see.

BTW, the argument that 36 MP files will be too large to be processed seems to me to be ludicrous. We live in our DSLR bubble while outside it increasing numbers of fine art photographers are using 80 MP MF backs.
__________________
Elie / אלי
"If you presume to love something, you must love the process of it much more than you love the finished product." John Irving, 5/2012. "In theory there is no difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is." Yogi Berra
Site

Last edited by tzalman : 21st of February 2012 (Tue) at 10:05.
tzalman is online now   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #19
AJSJones
Goldmember
 
AJSJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: California
Posts: 2,162
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moppie View Post
But only at very large print sizes and close viewing distances.


At the correct viewing distance for a given print resolution you can not tell any difference if more pixels are added at the time the photo was taken.


I shoot with a 5D2 and a 30D, and I'll be damned if I can tell them apart sometimes.
Even had a second shooter with a 1000D the other day, and the prints look exactly the same as they do from my 5D2.
Some photographers (quite a few judging by the popularity of large fine art prints) strive for large prints. A large fraction of people who view these prints view them from a distance to take in the whole image and also move closer to examine the details as they are drawn in to the image (at least the good ones). If you can see the pixel structure or printer dithering, you are probably too close and will step back till it is no longer visible/distracting. In other words, the viewer determines the correct distance to view the print.
I have some very nice 8x10's from my D30 (3MP) They were uprezzed a bit to get there but those huge pixels allowed it. They are almost as good as the 8x10s from my 5D2. At a small enough size, adding more MP doesn't do very much. For anyone who only prints small and thinks 12x18 or 14x20 is a big print, then 12-18 MP is probably sufficient. For those striving for large detailed prints, 36MP is welcome. How big you can print depends on your individual quality standards and technique in taking, processing and printing. There is no "one size fits all" - the best succinct answer so far is "300ppi" - not because 300 is necessarily the "correct" number, but because there is usually a ppi that you will feel meets your own individual quality standards. Then it's arithmetic to calculate the size you can print to
__________________
My picture galleries
AJSJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #20
wimg
Cream of the Crop
 
wimg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
Posts: 6,590
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Quote:
Originally Posted by boerewors View Post
ISO performance has a big role to play on the megapixels as well. I would assume an ISO 12800 large print from a 1Dx would look better than an ISO12800 print from a 36mp camera. I also wonder if ISO performance would equal out if the 36mp were downsized to 18mp??
Actually, no. Based on the same technology, a 36 MP image and an 18 MP image printed or viewed at the same size will show the same amount of noise.

Kind regards, Wim
wimg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #21
wimg
Cream of the Crop
 
wimg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
Posts: 6,590
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

As to prints from images of differently sized sensors, MP-wise: if the prints are the same size, the higher resolution images will look sharper, even if looked from distances where one can't see the individual pixels.

One can try this exercise, by printing the same image, downscaled to print at 300 dpi, and 600 dpi, where the 600 dpi image has 4X the number of pixels of the 300 dpi image. The printer used has to be capable of both, of course.

Even with my bad eyes I can see the difference.

Kind regards, Wim
wimg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #22
mmahoney
Goldmember
 
mmahoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,784
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoo View Post
So, I am debating someone, who says more pixels is always better.

I asume when printing, there is a point where you run out of pixels, and more is better....

For the 1Dx, and an 18 mp sensor, if you did not crop the image, how large of a print could you make before the pixel density started to negatively impact the print?

How about with a 36 mp sensor?
"Well Johnny, I've got a 6 foot by 4 foot print of my old dog Shep hanging on the barn wall and it's so sharp we shear the sheep with it"

This discussion is about as old as the internet forums that host them .. my thoughts are that most photographers opinions on the subject are formed largely by the cameras they own, and their own eyesight (or lack of).

90% of people offering opinions have never worked with really high resolution files from MF backs or drum scans of LF film nor have they ever seen the absolute magic quality that a large print from these files produces.

As a yardstick most print houses suggest 300dpi, and most magazines print at 360dpi .. you can do the math from there but as a general observation more pixels are better.

There is some good reading in the link earlier in this thread (Browning?)
mmahoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #23
h4ppydaze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,320
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hollis_f View Post
The understated utility of smaller pixels - by Daniel Browning, a man whose brain can be quite astounding.
wow, great read. Almost makes me regret purchasing my 1Diii over a 5Dii. Almost.

Focus has a larger effect on image quality than megapixels, so I went 1D . Though I won't deny that more pixels are useful. That's why the 50D is still around. In tightly controlled conditions it'll be slightly easier to coax big prints out of it.

The major advantage of the 5Dii was sensor size. Upping sensor size is the best way to increase 'true' resolution. You just reach a point where the number of pixels isn't what's limiting your image quality the most. Right now, I bet my sensors matches the resolving power of my glass in most situations, like when shooting wide open or past f4-5.6, which I do for most of my shooting.

For truly large prints, I'll stick with 4x5 and up to maybe 8x10 if I'm feeling rich at the moment.

Last edited by h4ppydaze : 21st of February 2012 (Tue) at 13:34.
h4ppydaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #24
lungdoc
Goldmember
 
lungdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
Posts: 2,099
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Quote:
Originally Posted by noisejammer View Post
Per Moppie's comment -

Under absolutely perfect conditions, the exeptional eye can resolve about half an arc-minute (that's about 150 micro-radians.) This corresponds to 0.15 mm at a metre, or 7 pixels per mm (175 pixels per inch.) This suggests that a print with 5000 pixels along the long axis could be 28 inches wide and even people with perfect vision could not resolve the pixels. Printing at higher resolution effectively blurs the pixels so that you can't see blocks (even if there is no increase in detail.)

This brings me to the value of 36Mp. If the lens isn't good enough, then there's no information to print. If focus is not perfect (twice as good as currently achievable) then the benefit is lost. If the lens is stopped down past f/4, then diffraction kicks in and the benefit is (progressively) lost. If the camera shakes by a tiny amount, then the benefit is lost...

I suppose that it may be possible to obtain somewhat better resolution but it seems that even my Zeiss glass will struggle to produce any contrast at the native resolution of the sensor (200 pixels per mm.) It can be argued that the true resolution of a Bayer sensor is closer to half the pixel density - so say 100 pixels with full information per mm... but even that is beyond the resolving capability of my best glass (in this case the 50/2 MP and 100/2 MP, the Canon 100/2.8L is similar.) I assume Nikon is also ruled by the economics of optics and their lenses will be just as limiting.

So here's the rub - even if you record 36 Mp in the image, there's probably no additional information present beyond what might be found on a 21 Mp frame.... in fact assuming the lens can reasonably resolve 60 lp/mm - few can - there's probably very little information present that wouldn't be present in a 12 Mp frame. There will be bigger file sizes, more noise and lots of gee-whiz factor... but not a lot of real difference.
I don't know if this is true - the general ideas sound reasonable but I'm doubting if they apply at the resolutions you describe. If that were the case there should be no advantage of any crop sensor camera with a resolution over about 8 MP, after all the cropped portion of a 5D II image equates to an 8.2 MP APS-C sensor. I think most do find real resolution improvement to APS-C images, albeit under best conditions, from say a 7D sensor which is equivalent to a FF 46 MP sensor, versus say a 30D sensor.
__________________
Mark
My Smugmug Eos 7D, Canon G1X II, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 17-85 IS, Sigma 100-300 EX IF HSM, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Sigma 1.4 EX DG , Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 430EX,
lungdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #25
mafoo
Senior Member
 
mafoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,503
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Thanks everyone for your responses...

I think I am on the wrong side of this argument. I think more pixels might be better. Here is an example with a D3s (12mp), and a D3x(24mp), where they down sampled the higher mp camera to match the lower one. This is a good example, because the higher MP sensor is older, so there is no chance of newer technology influencing the results.

http://heylong.com/d800/d3x_d3x_12mp_compare.JPG

The down sampled image, is clearly better.
__________________
-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II
mafoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #26
h4ppydaze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,320
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoo View Post
Thanks everyone for your responses...

I think I am on the wrong side of this argument. I think more pixels might be better. Here is an example with a D3s (12mp), and a D3x(24mp), where they down sampled the higher mp camera to match the lower one. This is a good example, because the higher MP sensor is older, so there is no chance of newer technology influencing the results.

http://heylong.com/d800/d3x_d3x_12mp_compare.JPG

The down sampled image, is clearly better.
wow! Indeed it is. By a good margin, too. I'd imagine at 100% crop the D3s is suffering from artifacts that are a fact of life when it comes to digital sensors. It's robbing detail and contrast with anti-aliasing. The extra pixels in the D3X must reduce the effect of these artifacts. Now I'm even closer to regretting choosing the 1Diii over the 5Dii
h4ppydaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #27
AJSJones
Goldmember
 
AJSJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: California
Posts: 2,162
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoo View Post
Thanks everyone for your responses...

I think I am on the wrong side of this argument. I think more pixels might be better. .
No, that's the right side. The point is that once you print small enough, you can't see the benefit of the extra pixels - viewing that comparison at 100% is like looking closely at a large print.
__________________
My picture galleries
AJSJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #28
Panoz
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 195
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Pixels have a small factor in print quality as long as you exceed a minimum amount, say 8MP. I have 20x24 images from my old Canon 20D that are tack sharp when you look up close. That was an 8MP camera.

What everyone is leaving out is that the printer driver - the one that pushes data from your file to the printer - has more of an impact on the print quality than the quantity of pixels do. How does an 8MP camera produce a sharp 300dpi print? The driver dithers the missing data. A 20x24 300dpi print would require a 43MP source for 1:1 ratio of pixels to dots. My image only had 8MP but produced a razor sharp print. It's the printer driver's algorithm that expands the missing data for you.

Pixels and long lenses sell hardware. But you don't need them to get a great print.
__________________
Canon G12, Canon 5D MkII, Canon 24-105 L, Sigma 16mm fisheye
Panoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #29
Old Baldy
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South Lyon, MI
Posts: 708
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Reach, reach, reach, reach!!!

Everyone seems to forget the HUGE advantage of greater MP for so MANY types of photography not being discussed here.

Dammit!

Old Baldy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st of February 2012 (Tue)   #30
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
 
Ricardo222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,543
Default Re: 18 vs 36 mp in print...

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingPhotog View Post
SOOC @ 10Mp from a 1DMkIII

Final image generously massaged to about 7.5 Mp via Crop, Up-Res and Sharpening...
I'm looking at a very nice 16x24 of this above my desk printed by Mpix.

(It also won 3rd Place in a world-wide aviation photo contest and was published back in December)
Ahhhhh! In the hands of a master so much is possible. Funny how so many photographers, including me, fuss about what resolution we can achieve and a myriad of other "problems", when we have yet to learn to get the very best out of the gear we have right now.

With the new range of sensors starting to be announced the Can/ikon argument goes on apace yet few of us are TRULY affected because we seldom really challenge our equipment. (To those to whom it DOES make a difference I defer...you are the elite.)
__________________
Growing old disgracefully!
Ricardo222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Printing and multiple print jobs - spooling and the print queue WesternGuy Computers 4 24th of October 2011 (Mon) 03:47
Print question - home print test before sending to lab xepherys RAW, Post Processing and Printing 4 20th of March 2010 (Sat) 19:28
CANON PRINTING QUESTION ...Easy-Photo Print Pro or Print with Detailed Setting oak3x RAW, Post Processing and Printing 1 29th of November 2009 (Sun) 08:33
Print Survey : selecting the right print style for an image jetcode RAW, Post Processing and Printing 1 16th of November 2009 (Mon) 14:26
Problem with print, looks ok on the computer, HORRIBLE in print! PhotoGuru13 RAW, Post Processing and Printing 6 28th of July 2008 (Mon) 16:10


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:29.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.