The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

G3 shooting in 4MP?

J

JanJordan

Guest
Hi,

i am a firm beliver that real 4MP resolution would be quite sufficient for most of my photos. So i toy with the idea of setting the G3 (if i do buy it) to 4 MP resolution most of the time and enjoy an even faster camera with 20fps continuous mode.

I wonder though if the image quality of those 4MP images is equivalent to shooting 16MP images and resizing them later, or would i lose quality because the G3 does not take the full sensor resolution into account?

thanks a lot!
Jan
 
J

JanJordan

Guest
hot, i hope you agree that there is more to the G3 then MP?

You know this one? Its a bit outdated though...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html

First, a 4MP image downsampled from a 16MP sensor is considerably higher quality then a 4MP image fro a 4MP sensor (because of the bayer pattern). Thats why i asked that question.

Second, i take photos to be viewed as a whole not to be pixel peeped. The human eye has an average resolution limit of 2 arc minutes.
(http://www.audioholics.com/education/display-formats-technology/1080p-and-the-acuity-of-human-vision)
If my math is correct then a 2300 pixel wide image would need to cover more then 80 degree of my field of vision for me to be able to discern individual pixels. For a 3 foot wide poster to cover that much fov, i need to get closer then 2 foot. Not the way i look at photos...

cu
Jan
 

ggibson

Well-known member
The 20fps mode on the G3 seems to reduce the quality below a normal 4mp shot. See dpreview, they talk about it in their review.
 

bradhusick

Active member
One of my favorite photos I took with a Nikon D1 in 1999. That camera had a 2.74 megapixel sensor, albeit with large photosites. I have an 11"x14" print that permanently hangs on my wall. It's a fair question to ask about using cameras at less than maximum resolution.
 

bradhusick

Active member
I also regularly shoot my Canon 1Dm4 in "medium" JPEG mode for sports. The photos are for online use and don't require 18MP. It makes my entire workflow faster.
 

JGH

New member
HI all,
This is an interesting question and one i was trying to think about recently but couldnt get me head round. So what if you have a camera of 16MP and the sensor resolution is more than the lenses you fit to it can comfortable handle. If you reduce the sensor resolution to say 7MP will the image appear sharper with the reduced resolution? I think it will but so far i have not found anything on the net to confirm this.
But this begs the question. Why buy a 16MP camera if you fit lower quality lenses to shoot at a lower resolution? might as well buy a cheaper lower res camera in the first place and then the cheaper lenses will resolve ok on the cheaper camera.
This is one of my arguments i have with myself when im thinking about switching to Nikon from Olympus but i really like the lenses i have for my E520 and i get sharp results from them. I too sometimes reduce the res down to MSF if i know there will be alot of pics to take as this saves some time in PP as the images dont need much, if any sharpening so i guess this in itself answers my own question... mmmm ok, ignore this, was just me thinking aloud :D J
 
J

JanJordan

Guest
HI all,
But this begs the question. Why buy a 16MP camera if you fit lower quality lenses to shoot at a lower resolution? might as well buy a cheaper lower res camera in the first place and then the cheaper lenses will resolve ok on the cheaper camera.
...
I too sometimes reduce the res down to MSF if i know there will be alot of pics to take as this saves some time in PP as the images dont need much, if any sharpening so i guess this in itself answers my own question... mmmm ok, ignore this, was just me thinking aloud :D J
Note that i did not ask for a cheaper camera but for best quality downsized images. Altogether i want to improve my images. Because of the bayer pattern a 16MP camera only has 4MP effective resolution in Red/blue channels anyway. I hope to eliminate some demosaicing problems and reduce noise.

I do not think downsizing the images relives you of sharpening. after all sharpening is not the removal of bluriness but the increase of microcontrast to fool the human brain.

In the end, the final image resolution should always be based on the medium you show the images on. If you show images on FullHD tv, feeding it with 16MP images will result in less then optimal image quality and possibly long loading times.
 

ggibson

Well-known member
Don't forget, it's nice to shoot in full resolution for the ability to crop. Sometimes I'll cut out a good bit of the shot.

But I agree, in a lot of cases, 16mp is unnecessary. I'm perfectly happy with my GF1's 12mp.
 
J

JanJordan

Guest
yes, for hdtv or postcard prints i resize to ~2MP. For poster prints to higher resolutions. Whatever fits the target resolution. Is this surprising?
 

mark1000

New member
Hi,

i am a firm beliver that real 4MP resolution would be quite sufficient for most of my photos. So i toy with the idea of setting the G3 (if i do buy it) to 4 MP resolution most of the time and enjoy an even faster camera with 20fps continuous mode.

I wonder though if the image quality of those 4MP images is equivalent to shooting 16MP images and resizing them later, or would i lose quality because the G3 does not take the full sensor resolution into account?

thanks a lot!
Jan
Hi,

I took a couple of shots when i read your post to see what the difference in quality would be, did a full rez full size 16mp image and then a 4mp image of the same scene, at normal viewing size ( i don't pixel peep ) on my 52 inch HD tv i could not see any difference at all, i did a burst test too, @ 20fps there is a loss in detail, @ normal burst rates the quality is on par with single frames.

Mark.
 
J

JanJordan

Guest
Thanks a lot Mark,

i feared that. That makes the 20fps burst kind of useless. Would have been too nice.
Jan
 
Top