Megapixel Hype?

Question

Am confused. Hopefully an answer either by Dr.Sam, Tom Tom, ARA 57 or Petra Au. Was rummmaging through some older Consumer Reports last night. And I know a photo is a very subjective thing. But when a testing organization rates the quality of an 8X10 excellent on many occassions it's pretty consistent in what they do.
May'03 issue shows 4 cameras that take excellent 8X10s when enlarged. Canon PowerShot A40 at 2 megapixels, Kodak EasyShare DX3600 zoom at 2.2 MP, EasyShare DX4330DX4330 at 3.1 MP, Fujifilm Finepix 3800 at 3.2 MP and also Finepix 601 zoom at 3 MP.
Nov'03 issue shows an additional two cameras at 3 MP, excellent 8X10s. Also shows 4 cameras at 4 MP, excellent 8X10s.
Question: how can cameras with just 2 and 3 megapixels produce such a great image? If most people don't crop why are the camera companies producing 8,9, and 10 megapixels?

Answer 1

A megapixel is 1 million pixels, and is a term used not only for the number of pixels in an image, but also to express the number of sensor elements of digital cameras or the number of display elements of digital displays. For example, a camera with an array of 2048×1536 sensor elements is commonly said to have "3.1 megapixels" (2048 × 1536 = 3,145,728

Standard display resolutions include:

VGA 0.3 Megapixels = 640×480
SVGA 0.5 Megapixels = 800×600
XGA 0.8 Megapixels = 1024×768 (sometimes called XVGA)
SXGA 1.3 Megapixels = 1280×1024
EXGA 1.4 Megapixels = 1400×1050
UXGA 1.9 Megapixels = 1600×1200
WUXGA 2.3 Megapixels = 1920×1200
QXGA 3.1 Megapixels = 2048×1536
WQXGA 4.1 Megapixels = 2560×1600
QSXGA 5.2 Megapixels = 2560×2048
WQSXGA 6.6 Megapixels = 3200×2048
QUXGA 7.7 Megapixels = 3200×2400
WQUXGA 9.2 Megapixels = 3840×2400

WQUXGA (Wide Quad Ultra Extended Graphics Array) describes a display standard that can support a resolution up to 3840 x 2400 pixels, assuming a 16:10 aspect ratio.

This resolution is exactly four times 1920x1200 (in pixels) and was released as a product in June 2001 by an IBM display panel built into the IBM T220 LCD monitor, IBM T221 (models DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5), Iiyama AQU5611DTBK, ViewSonic VP2290b [1], ADTX MD22292B and IDTech MD22292 (models B0, B1, B2, B5, C0, C2; all other brands are in fact relabled IDTech models, IDTech does not sell these monitors[2]). Most display cards with a DVI connector are capable of supporting the 3840x2400 resolution. However, the maximum refresh rate will be limited by the number of DVI links that are connected to the monitor. 1, 2, or 4 DVI connectors are used to drive the monitor using various tile configurations. Only the IBM T221-DG5 and IDTech MD22292B5 support the use of dual-link DVI ports using an external converter box.

Most systems using these monitors use at least 2 DVI connectors to send video to the monitor. These DVI connectors can be from the same graphics card, different graphics cards, or even different computers. Motion across the tile boundary(ies) can show tearing if the graphics card(s) are not synchronized. The display panel can be updated at a speed between 0Hz and 41Hz (48Hz for the IBM T221-DG5, and IDTech MD22292B5). The refresh rate of the video signal can be higher than 41Hz, or 48Hz, but the monitor will not update the display any faster if graphics card(s) do so.

As of January 2007 none of the WQUXGA monitors are still in production (IBM, Viewsonic, Iiyama, ADTX). The highest-resolution color displays on sale are WQXGA. The first company to ship such was Apple with its 30-inch Cinema HD Display[3] in June 2004; Dell and Samsung followed later in spring and fall 2006 respectively.

Answer 2

It's 3 AM. I should be finishing my preparations for my trip but I'm tired & bored.

Long answer, but indulge me.

Premise 1: You want to print at 300 dpi for excellent prints. Any more, and you can't tell the difference. Any less, and you'll perceive a slight softness - at first only when you inspect prints under a magnifying glass, but as you continue to reduce the dpi setting the loss of image quality will become ever more apparent.

Premise 2: One photosite, or pixel translates to one dot in the final print.

The Canon A40 has a resolution of 1600*1200 pixels. If you print those files at 300dpi, you'll end up with prints that measure just 5.3 * 4 inches. When you enlarge those files to 10.7 * 8 inches, you'll get a print quality of 150dpi. That's newspaper quality. I'm sure the A40 was quite an achievement for a point & shoot in 2002, but it will not produce excellent 8*10 inch prints.

For comparison, the Canon 5D has a resolution of 4368*2912 pixels. This yields 300dpi prints that measure 14.6 * 9.7 inches - it can produce stunning 8*10 inch prints and then some.

Comments about 2 megapixel pictures looking great on a computer monitor are just silly. A computer monitor can only display 72dpi. That's a much lower resolution than the human eye can perceive. (To all you nay-sayers, press your nose to your computer screen and tell me how great your pictures look then.)

The size of the photosites, the quality of the lens and other factors also influence image quality. DPreview and other sources contend that the cheap zoom lenses used on point & shoot cameras only resolve about 8 megapixels worth of information. This implies that you needn't bother with a 10 megapixel sensor in a point & soot camera to begin with. Moreover, who prints larger than 5*7 anyway - for which a 4 megapixel sensor suffices.
And THIS is what's meant by the megapixel hype: wanting more megapixels than you'll ever use in the mistaken belief that more = better.

Answer 3

First of all, megapixels are far from the sole factor in determining the final quality of a pic. Things like lens quality, sensor quality, processing firmware, exposure capability, autofocus capability, etc. all have major impacts on output.

However, these factors do not have an easy to understand rating system. So it is much easier for sales and marketing people to talk about megapixels. Hence the hype...

More MP's do make it more likely to get clear large prints. But if the other factors are bad, so will the pics be bad.

Consumer Reports ratings are done somewhat "on a curve". That is, they compare the output of products available at the time of the test. As products improve, the measure of "excellent" can change.

Manufacturers are producing higher MP cameras because it sells, and the competition is doing it.

But if you are serious about quality output, you need to start learning about evaluating the quality factors too.

Good Luck

Answer 4

Well, an 8x10 is a pretty small photo when compared to the demands of most people today... so the 2 and 3 mp are great for those who just want some photos to put around the house.

In my case I have a 10 mp Sony Cybershot, but i do a lot of photo editing, i like having 10 mp because i crop and do all that good stuff and put them in webpages or whatever i'm working on at the time.

So why are companies producing all those large MP cameras... because people buy them and they can charge them more for them... people buy them because they think that having all those megapixels means that they'll take better pictures, but in reality all that is going to happen is that they take a REALLY BIG crappy picture.

So to conclude this if your looking into the whole MP thing for yourself... just look at what you want to do I'd look at a camera with auto image stability in it mine has that and it is really helpful i hardly ever end up with a blurry picture. or if your just looking to take some pictures of friends and put them on the web or print them and put them around your room or something... 4 MP is awesome, a little more than what you minimally need, but it will produce very good pictures esp. for 8x10.

Answer 5

Hi Vintage.

Oops, I've got to watch out about being too personal, because I was reported for a violation of addressing another member in my question while asking about his camera. (I'm just kidding, but this question is the cream of our section, so I wanted to complain out loud...)

And OMG, what are you doing up!!!

I think the 2 MP images might be a little hairy at probably 160 dpi prints, but that's still acceptable. "For digital," I am sure it was considered excellent just 4-5 years ago. Once you get to 3 MP, you will be dealing with 200 dpi-plus. Anything that improves on that is just gravy. We like to strive for 300 dpi these days. Read the others for the nuts and bolts on this as they have covered it well.

I won't try to add numbers to any of the excellent answers above me, but I'll add my stock "How many pixels" answer, just in case you have not seen it.

If you always plan to compose your pictures perfectly, you don't need a whole lot of pixels. These days, I'd say that 5 MP or even 4 MP is fine for the average snapshooter and this can be obtained without unreasonable expense. If you want to allow for cropping, which means enlarging only a portion of your image, the more pixels the better.

Imagine taking a scenic view and then noticing that the middle 20% of the photo would make an even better picture. Suppose you take a picture of a whole group of people and Aunt Clara really, really looks great in the picture, but everyone else looks lousy. If you have the pixels to work with, you can still make a decent print of Aunt Clara that she would be happy to have. If you buy an 8-to-10 MP camera and don't want to TAKE large photos, you can always set the camera to a lower file size. You can never go the other direction, though.

Unless the cost is a major issue, buy the camera with more pixels. You will never be sorry that you did, but you might one day be sorry that you didn't.

I have a few photos on Flickr to include in a discussion on how many pixels are enough. Go to my page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/ Near the top, click on "tags." In the "Jump to" box, enter the word "Pixels" and then press the "GO" button. Some of the pictures are from a 4 MP or even 3 MP camera, showing you what you might expect without any cropping. I think they are quite acceptable. Some of the pictures are from a 10 MP camera (the swan and the pansies), showing the value of having those large images so that you can crop a smaller image out of the original picture and still end up with a satisfactory image. There is one VGA picture, just to show what you could expect from 640 x 480 pixels - not much.

Having said all that, though, pixels are not the only measure of image quality. The sensor size is important as well as the image processing softare included in the camera. (See http://www.flickr.com/photos/7189769@N04/476181751/
You need to read reviews if you want a critical understanding of image quality for particular cameras. Try http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ for more information on the cameras you are considering.

You can go there and click on "Buying Guide" and then "Features Search" to specify how many pixels you want to look at.

You can also go to http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm and click on "Our reviews," where you will find catagories of cameras arranged by pixel count.

Answer 6

The most important thing about a camera is the lens. Whether it is film or digital, you cannot get a good image if you do not have a good lens.

Larger lens diameters produce better images, so that is an important thing to look at. All these cameras with dime-sized lenses cannot compare to a proper 35 mm or larger lens.

Answer 7

It's a scam. The higher mega cams have more resolution but you when need to blow up the picture so big to benefit from it. A normal user for pics only needs about 3 megapixels. They'll keep making cameras with more because people will continue to buy them thinking bigger is always better.

Answer 8

It IS hype. If you are just taking pictures to put on the web, even with 3mp you'll still end up resizing them smaller so they don't take up the whole screen as a myspace comment.
Megapixels are one of the most over-rated features I've ever seen in any form of electronics.
Contrary to that, if you're blowing photos up to make posters etc, then megapixels are your friend.

Answer 9

because that is what they (people) think they want.
so the companies give it to them.
dr. sam has some good 4mp photos on his flickr site which proves you don't need alot of mp to get a great photo.
type in his name and under his picture of the teeth (???) you will see the flickr link.