• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Objective look... how many Megapixels are these pics? ** NOW UPDATED **

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: pinion9
Wouldn't it be more effective if the pics were of the same place?

Also, there is no way to tell the difference if both pictures have higher pixel count than your monitor. My current resolution is 1280*1024 ~= 1.3 MP. Anything over 1.3 MP will be a waste (picture will just appear large and you will need to scroll.)

Now, print me out an 11x14 on high quality photo paper taken with a 3 MP camera and an 8 MP camera and I'll tell you which is which.
Click to expand...

Not true. A 1280 x1024 LCD has a true 1.3 MP while a 1.3MP camera only gets that resolution using Bayer interpolation. In reality, your monitor is capable of displaying the picture of a much higher resolution camera. How high depends on the picture and how well the subject is represented by the sensor technology.
Click to expand...


Thank you. Now.. moving on to taking a guess.
Click to expand...

What do you want?

It looks like a 2mp picture. If one were to use a current 8mp DSLR to snap that picture and downsize it, it would look a hell of a lot better than your picture. There is pretty obvious grain throughout the picture, although I still say it looks like a crappy film scan.
Click to expand...


I'm not bagging on you, I was thanking you for explaining to the poster you quoted. So you are saying 2MP eh?
Click to expand...

We know that sensors are not created equal. I could show you two 3mp pictures, one from a 3mp DSLR and the other from a 6mp p&s. Yet the DSLR picture will likely still look better. IOW, there is no way for us to guess.

You could be showing us an uprezzed 1.5mp DSLR, a crappy 2 or 3mp p&s or even a crappy film scan of a MF camera.

 
Originally posted by: alien42
this thread is bunk for 2 reasons:

1. the pictures are too different in both subject and lighting
2. the only difference MPs make is when blowing the pictures up. if these pics were printed out poster size then there would be a clear difference
Click to expand...

You are bunk for 2 reasons:

1. You aren't comparing the pictures. They are taken from the same camera.
2. You need to read more about MP.
 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: alien42
this thread is bunk for 2 reasons:

1. the pictures are too different in both subject and lighting
2. the only difference MPs make is when blowing the pictures up. if these pics were printed out poster size then there would be a clear difference
Click to expand...

You are bunk for 2 reasons:

1. You aren't comparing the pictures. They are taken from the same camera.
2. You need to read more about MP.
Click to expand...

Owned
 
Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: rezinn
I guessed 1-2 based on the quality. Seems I was right.
Click to expand...

Why do you think you were right, based on the outcome of the poll? I'm getting closer and closer to proving my theory.
Click to expand...

Your theory as I conclude is this: Take a 2mp picture and see if people can tell the difference without given a higher quality picture taken with a current 8mp. Now after the study group is done tell them it was a 2mp picture and have them go ohh and ahhh and cry out, "Why oh why are the Digicam people telling me to get an 8mp camera when all I need is a 2mp!"

I sold digicams at circuit city, I was hated by the managers because I told the customer "Why are you buying that 5mp camera? Are you going to be printing posters? And they just looked at me.

I told them to put money where the lens came from
Click to expand...


Well, Watson you are a little off on the theory. I'll explain in a bit.
 
Unless my way of cheating is wrong, which it could be. Just looked to me like 1-2 based on better quality pics I have seen.
 
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: alien42
this thread is bunk for 2 reasons:

1. the pictures are too different in both subject and lighting
2. the only difference MPs make is when blowing the pictures up. if these pics were printed out poster size then there would be a clear difference
Click to expand...

You are bunk for 2 reasons:

1. You aren't comparing the pictures. They are taken from the same camera.
2. You need to read more about MP.
Click to expand...

Owned
Click to expand...

owned? you have to be joking

own this

"For example, the chart shows that you can make a 5" x 7" photo quality print from a 3 megapixel camera. Notice that as the print size doubles, the megapixels required increases exponentially. You can make nice 8" x 10" prints with a 6 or 8 megapixel camera, but to make a true photo quality 16" x 20" print, you need between 24 and 30 megapixels. Don't be fooled by manufacturers' claims that say you can make 16" x 20" prints from an 8 megapixel camera. While you certainly can make a print that size, it will not be true photo quality."

 
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: alien42
this thread is bunk for 2 reasons:

1. the pictures are too different in both subject and lighting
2. the only difference MPs make is when blowing the pictures up. if these pics were printed out poster size then there would be a clear difference
Click to expand...

You are bunk for 2 reasons:

1. You aren't comparing the pictures. They are taken from the same camera.
2. You need to read more about MP.
Click to expand...

Owned
Click to expand...

owned? you have to be joking

own this

"For example, the chart shows that you can make a 5" x 7" photo quality print from a 3 megapixel camera. Notice that as the print size doubles, the megapixels required increases exponentially. You can make nice 8" x 10" prints with a 6 or 8 megapixel camera, but to make a true photo quality 16" x 20" print, you need between 24 and 30 megapixels. Don't be fooled by manufacturers' claims that say you can make 16" x 20" prints from an 8 megapixel camera. While you certainly can make a print that size, it will not be true photo quality."
Click to expand...

Your point? Look at the image...its full resolution...look at the quality...guess the megapixel. This has nothing to do with printing the image
 
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: alien42
this thread is bunk for 2 reasons:

1. the pictures are too different in both subject and lighting
2. the only difference MPs make is when blowing the pictures up. if these pics were printed out poster size then there would be a clear difference
Click to expand...

You are bunk for 2 reasons:

1. You aren't comparing the pictures. They are taken from the same camera.
2. You need to read more about MP.
Click to expand...

Owned
Click to expand...

owned? you have to be joking

own this

"For example, the chart shows that you can make a 5" x 7" photo quality print from a 3 megapixel camera. Notice that as the print size doubles, the megapixels required increases exponentially. You can make nice 8" x 10" prints with a 6 or 8 megapixel camera, but to make a true photo quality 16" x 20" print, you need between 24 and 30 megapixels. Don't be fooled by manufacturers' claims that say you can make 16" x 20" prints from an 8 megapixel camera. While you certainly can make a print that size, it will not be true photo quality."
Click to expand...


Damn, quit highjacking the thread with your non-pertinent information. And like I said, read up. Hint, think detail at high aperature weak DOF.

And by the way you are again, bunk. MP isn't the end all be all for resizing.

No, own this.
 
yea without printing enlargments, its not easy. all i can say is the sensor lacks ability to capture fine detail and from my LCD, the color doesn't seem to be as lively as I'd like. and yes, although my LCD is not one you'd use for photo editing, I have seen photos that are vivid and lively. it could be a bad exposure, but its more likely its the sensor that is to blame.
my guess is its a P&S camera and not a DSLR. i also am guessing 2mp because thats seems to be somewhat close to the crappy 2mp Kodak I have. never use that thing because I stick to my 35mm Nikon SLR.

edit:
the argument thats its not possible to decide between a high and a low MP image without making prints, is kind of true. but the thing is, its generally true that with each step up in MP (within a camera category, be it P&S, advanced P&S/DSLR-ripoff, and DSLR), the sensors increase in quality when they increase in pixel quantity. meaning, an 8mp DSLR will have images that will look better, pixel for pixel, than a 4mp DSLR. the sensors are more sensitive to detail and generally have better color accuracy. there are still examples that won't hold to that theory, but its a general realization and is proved when each new generation of camera is released. again, some models that are older will be better, but thats only when a company makes a new generation of sensors that is actually worse than the previous generation, albiet with greater pixel count. this is general not true but has happened on occasion. but that happens a lot, it might be the camera and the electronics inside and not the sensor itself, as generations of film cameras aren't always better than the last, even though the medium does not change.
 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Off of a recent discussion I wanted to post two pics to see if anyone could tell how many MPs the camera is that took these shots.

Yes there is a way to cheat, but please if you know how don't post the answer and don't vote, I want to see if the average person has an eye for these things.

Pic 1

Pic 2


What do you think?

These are taken with the same camera and are the same megapixels. What I'm looking for is your guess on what MP size they are.
Click to expand...

Is this straight out of the camera, or did you resize the image? I can't tell you unless I know that.
 
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: alien42
this thread is bunk for 2 reasons:

1. the pictures are too different in both subject and lighting
2. the only difference MPs make is when blowing the pictures up. if these pics were printed out poster size then there would be a clear difference
Click to expand...

You are bunk for 2 reasons:

1. You aren't comparing the pictures. They are taken from the same camera.
2. You need to read more about MP.
Click to expand...

Owned
Click to expand...

owned? you have to be joking

own this

"For example, the chart shows that you can make a 5" x 7" photo quality print from a 3 megapixel camera. Notice that as the print size doubles, the megapixels required increases exponentially. You can make nice 8" x 10" prints with a 6 or 8 megapixel camera, but to make a true photo quality 16" x 20" print, you need between 24 and 30 megapixels. Don't be fooled by manufacturers' claims that say you can make 16" x 20" prints from an 8 megapixel camera. While you certainly can make a print that size, it will not be true photo quality."
Click to expand...

I have an 8.2MP Canon 20D and I make 16x20 prints of my landscapes all the time (actually 16x24 native size) and they look excellent. You will not be able to see the difference between that and a 24MP camera, at viewing distance. Sure if you get real close and inspect them you will find some differences - but at typical viewing distance for a 16x20 print, it will look great. I know, I have about 6 of them hanging up around here.
 
im guessing 5-6 just for the simple fact if your trying to prove mp isnt everything the best way would be to post crap pictures from low-quality high mp cameras.
 
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Off of a recent discussion I wanted to post two pics to see if anyone could tell how many MPs the camera is that took these shots.

Yes there is a way to cheat, but please if you know how don't post the answer and don't vote, I want to see if the average person has an eye for these things.

Pic 1

Pic 2


What do you think?

These are taken with the same camera and are the same megapixels. What I'm looking for is your guess on what MP size they are.
Click to expand...

Is this straight out of the camera, or did you resize the image? I can't tell you unless I know that.
Click to expand...

Guess I'm not going to hear your guess then. I already know the answer, I'm not looking for you to tell me. I'm looking for your assesment of the image as you see it. If I tell you if it has been resized or not, you could know the MP size instead of guessing. That blows the whole point of the thread.

I will say this though, I pulled the EXIF data so if I did that then I might have thought to resize it so you couldn't tell the MP size by doing the conversion. But if it was resized, it was resized down, not up (any digital cam I've seen can shoot 1600 X 1200) and the dpi and detail would have all stayed as it came out of the camera. (No pixels per inch lost).



 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Off of a recent discussion I wanted to post two pics to see if anyone could tell how many MPs the camera is that took these shots.

Yes there is a way to cheat, but please if you know how don't post the answer and don't vote, I want to see if the average person has an eye for these things.

Pic 1

Pic 2


What do you think?

These are taken with the same camera and are the same megapixels. What I'm looking for is your guess on what MP size they are.
Click to expand...

Is this straight out of the camera, or did you resize the image? I can't tell you unless I know that.
Click to expand...

Guess I'm not going to hear your guess then. I already know the answer, I'm not looking for you to tell me. I'm looking for your assesment of the image as you see it. If I tell you if it has been resized or not, you could know the MP size instead of guessing. That blows the whole point of the thread.

I will say this though, I pulled the EXIF data so if I did that then I might have thought to resize it so you couldn't tell the MP size by doing the conversion. But if it was resized, it was resized down, not up (any digital cam I've seen can shoot 1600 X 1200) and the dpi and detail would have all stayed as it came out of the camera. (No pixels per inch lost).
Click to expand...

Going by simple pixel count it's a 2MP image. But I don't think that the resolution of a 2MP camera would produce these images.

The other problem is that the pictures aren't exactly very good.
 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: fishface313
1,920,000 pixels = 1.92MP i win!
Click to expand...

A megapixel count is determined by the number of photodetectors, not by the number of pixels in the file produced.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you phrased your question incorrectly. You asked, "how many Megapixels are these pics?". The answer to that poorly phrased question would be 1.92.

It's hard to guess the megapixel rating of the image sensor of the camera that took the pictures without knowing a few things first, such as...

- Were the pictures in question resized in any way, either by logic on the camera or software on a computer?
- Were the images compressed by anything other than the camera?
- What type of camera was it? Without specifying the megapixel rating, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top