If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
Some may find this interesting?
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ E. .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
In article >,
"Episteme" > wrote: > Some may find this interesting? > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ > > > E. I think he's right. I use a 5 MP camera and have made very good-looking 18x24 prints with it. Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
In article >,
"Episteme" > wrote: > Some may find this interesting? > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ > > > E. I think he's right. I use a 5 MP camera and have made very good-looking 18x24 prints with it. Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
"Episteme" > wrote i
> Some may find this interesting? > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ It sure does show how things are not simple and straight forward. Ron |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
"Episteme" > wrote i
> Some may find this interesting? > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ It sure does show how things are not simple and straight forward. Ron |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
"guest" > wrote in message ... > "Episteme" > wrote i >> Some may find this interesting? >> >> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ > > > It sure does show how things are not simple and straight forward. > > Ron Actually - no, it doesn't. Not very well. Wasn't a very well-run test. Try this: Static subject, same lighting, same exposure, same lens - not just the same model, but the SAME lens - and then hook to that lens, in turn, a Digital Rebel (6MP) Rebel XT (8.2MP) Rebel XTi (10.7MP) 5d (12.5MP) and 1Ds MkII (16.7MP). Then, print both an 8x10 and 20x24 from all 5 sources - on the BEST printer you can find. THEN, crop the center quarter of those images & blow that crop up to both 8x10 & 16x20. THEN, let's see if you can tell the difference between chips. As much else being equal as we can manage. I'd really like to see the results of that test. I'd be willing to bet you could tell which shot came off which chip. ESPECIALLY the cropped shots. Just for fun - take an EOS 1 with a roll of Velvia or Kodachrome in it & take the same shot. Sounds like an interesting experiment to me. Who's up for it? -Kevin in Indy {Recently traded a Minolta X-700 for a Canon 30D} |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
"guest" > wrote in message ... > "Episteme" > wrote i >> Some may find this interesting? >> >> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ > > > It sure does show how things are not simple and straight forward. > > Ron Actually - no, it doesn't. Not very well. Wasn't a very well-run test. Try this: Static subject, same lighting, same exposure, same lens - not just the same model, but the SAME lens - and then hook to that lens, in turn, a Digital Rebel (6MP) Rebel XT (8.2MP) Rebel XTi (10.7MP) 5d (12.5MP) and 1Ds MkII (16.7MP). Then, print both an 8x10 and 20x24 from all 5 sources - on the BEST printer you can find. THEN, crop the center quarter of those images & blow that crop up to both 8x10 & 16x20. THEN, let's see if you can tell the difference between chips. As much else being equal as we can manage. I'd really like to see the results of that test. I'd be willing to bet you could tell which shot came off which chip. ESPECIALLY the cropped shots. Just for fun - take an EOS 1 with a roll of Velvia or Kodachrome in it & take the same shot. Sounds like an interesting experiment to me. Who's up for it? -Kevin in Indy {Recently traded a Minolta X-700 for a Canon 30D} |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
Episteme wrote:
> Some may find this interesting? > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ > > > E. Yeah, well, Pogue's test doesn't prove what he claims it proves, since he used resized images from the same camera, instead of images from three different cameras. So he actually tested the resizing software and the printer quality, not the camera resolution. But using three different cameras wouldn't prove much either, since they would also differ in lenses, in exposure calculation software/hardware, and in CCD quality. The only valid test answers the question: Does this camera enable you to do what you want to with it? Megapixel count is only one factor to consider, and even though Pogue's test is invalid, it does make a valid point: higher megapixel counts don't mean much for the vast majority of people. Actually, the fact that most cameras come with several resolution settings, defaulted to the worst so that "you can take up 160 pictures" causes more disappointment than anything else. HTH |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
Episteme wrote:
> Some may find this interesting? > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ > > > E. Yeah, well, Pogue's test doesn't prove what he claims it proves, since he used resized images from the same camera, instead of images from three different cameras. So he actually tested the resizing software and the printer quality, not the camera resolution. But using three different cameras wouldn't prove much either, since they would also differ in lenses, in exposure calculation software/hardware, and in CCD quality. The only valid test answers the question: Does this camera enable you to do what you want to with it? Megapixel count is only one factor to consider, and even though Pogue's test is invalid, it does make a valid point: higher megapixel counts don't mean much for the vast majority of people. Actually, the fact that most cameras come with several resolution settings, defaulted to the worst so that "you can take up 160 pictures" causes more disappointment than anything else. HTH |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
Dave Moorman wrote:
> In article >, > "Episteme" > wrote: > >> Some may find this interesting? >> >> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ >> >> >> E. > > I think he's right. I use a 5 MP camera and have made very good-looking > 18x24 prints with it. > > Dave Sorry, Dave, but you didn't make the print with your camera, but with your printer. That's not a quibble. The printer received imaging data from your imaging software and translated it into data it could use to print that 18x24 image. These two elements in the process have a lot to do with how well your prints turned out. Fact is that up to a point smoothing algorithms can compensate for the limited information in a small image file. Your printer software is built to do just that, since it's designed to make larger than usual prints. You will find that if you print an image with very small detail (such as the leaves of trees in the background) that the limitations of the 5MP camera (and its lens as well) will begin to show. But since we rarely look at a picture with a magnifying glass, these limitations will usually not affect the appearance of the image "at normal viewing distance". You will still have a pleasing print, so enjoy! HTH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cameras to watch the cameras. | Brent P[_1_] | Driving | 111 | January 31st 07 10:56 PM |
C4 Digital Dash | edsplacecars | Corvette | 1 | September 20th 06 11:59 PM |
CCTV CAMERAS | [email protected] | Driving | 0 | August 25th 06 06:35 PM |
E36 digital clock | mcquarrie | BMW | 12 | April 18th 06 03:33 PM |
FreeFlatScreenGuide (Site to get free ipods, digital cameras, more) | Stinkbud | BMW | 0 | November 5th 04 03:27 PM |