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=-

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

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

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

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

TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
 

In article > ,
Wolf > wrote:

> 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

Right you are, HTH. Should have said "from it". I send them into a
local camera chain which prints them on a much bigger and better printer
than I can afford.

Maybe I should hang onto that medium format camera.....

Dave

TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
 

or you could stitch images together and blow away the resolution of even
large format cameras...



"Dave Moorman" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> Wolf > wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> Right you are, HTH. Should have said "from it". I send them into a
> local camera chain which prints them on a much bigger and better printer
> than I can afford.
>
> Maybe I should hang onto that medium format camera.....
>
> Dave

TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
 

11-Jan-2007, wrote 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

Exactly. Pogue's going to be wearing egg on his face if they air that show
in February. I wouldn't be surprised if he's publishing his assumptions
early to determine whether or not he should be airing it at all. It is a
valid question, but I'd like to see MythBusters take on this kind of
comparison of sensors under exactly the same conditions.

--
Z~


..

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
 

In article >,
"Bob Botts" > wrote:

> or you could stitch images together and blow away the resolution of even
> large format cameras...

True!

TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
 

I went I read, What a lot of Rectumite. It seems that he is an idiot that likes to treat
his audience/readers like idiots.

"Episteme" > wrote in message


> 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=-
>