so it occurred to me that we have entered into a megapixel race of sortz and it reminded med of the megahertz race we are in right now (which I would argue is slowing down). The question is, are they the same?
The way they are similar to me is that for both we are quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns. It?s the point where people don?t really need the newer/faster/better technology, but will simply buy it because it falls into their price range; and at this point the race slows because many will sit happy with what they have.
True there?s more to computer performance than mhz, more to picture quality than megapixel, and more to car performance than horse power, but these do make generally good overall indicators.
Several others and I have posted about the questionable need for more mhz. although most want more, generally it?s agreed that the limited need is for either gaming, encoding, or professional apps. Since gaming is slowly going way of console from pc, there is even less appeal to general public for more mhz.
But is megapixel the same? I tend to think so, and would like to hear how people would disagree. The magic number of 300dpi is considered film quality. For standard 4x6 print, you need about 2 megapixels to reach that dpi. And that?s the size most people print at. But suppose people want 8x10 prints. That would need about 7 megapixels. Right now 2 megapixels is minimum you can buy, becoming 3 this year. I would say in 3-5 years 7 megapixels will become the minimum. And what then? Sure with higher megapixel, you will at the same time get better innards and lenses and stuff, as well as more breathing room to crop or zoom, but will the same thing that?s happening to computers happen to megapixels. After cpu?s reached 1ghz as the minimum speed (desktop not laptop), the need for speed dwindled and dancing intel lab suits lost favor (surely centrino ads won?t be as effective).
What do you think
The way they are similar to me is that for both we are quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns. It?s the point where people don?t really need the newer/faster/better technology, but will simply buy it because it falls into their price range; and at this point the race slows because many will sit happy with what they have.
True there?s more to computer performance than mhz, more to picture quality than megapixel, and more to car performance than horse power, but these do make generally good overall indicators.
Several others and I have posted about the questionable need for more mhz. although most want more, generally it?s agreed that the limited need is for either gaming, encoding, or professional apps. Since gaming is slowly going way of console from pc, there is even less appeal to general public for more mhz.
But is megapixel the same? I tend to think so, and would like to hear how people would disagree. The magic number of 300dpi is considered film quality. For standard 4x6 print, you need about 2 megapixels to reach that dpi. And that?s the size most people print at. But suppose people want 8x10 prints. That would need about 7 megapixels. Right now 2 megapixels is minimum you can buy, becoming 3 this year. I would say in 3-5 years 7 megapixels will become the minimum. And what then? Sure with higher megapixel, you will at the same time get better innards and lenses and stuff, as well as more breathing room to crop or zoom, but will the same thing that?s happening to computers happen to megapixels. After cpu?s reached 1ghz as the minimum speed (desktop not laptop), the need for speed dwindled and dancing intel lab suits lost favor (surely centrino ads won?t be as effective).
What do you think
as for mhz, can't get enough for games atleast.
Facebook
Twitter