What are the minimum megapixels required to post adequate pictures. I am considering a camera or upgrading to a cellphone with a camera. I'm knowledgable about film cameras but new to digital.
Megapixels Required To Post Photos?
- Thread starter mswofford
- Start date
Hi,
You only need about 2 megapixels to fill the largest computer screens on a pixel per pixel basis. When using a DSLR, I resample down from the native number of pixels to 1280 pixels on the long side and save the result as a JPEG at the lowest compression, keeping the 1.5:1 aspect ratio.
Stan
You only need about 2 megapixels to fill the largest computer screens on a pixel per pixel basis. When using a DSLR, I resample down from the native number of pixels to 1280 pixels on the long side and save the result as a JPEG at the lowest compression, keeping the 1.5:1 aspect ratio.
Stan
If you attach images to your post the forum software will limit the image size, of jepgs, to 800px x600px. If your images are bigger than that the forum software will resize them when you attach them.
Here are some other file size limits from the attachment window.
If you link to images from an outside host, Flickr, Imgur, Photobucket. The forum software limits the size to 1024px wide or tall. At least it use to, I haven't tested it with the new site design.
Here are some other file size limits from the attachment window.
If you link to images from an outside host, Flickr, Imgur, Photobucket. The forum software limits the size to 1024px wide or tall. At least it use to, I haven't tested it with the new site design.
FYI I am very knowledgeable about digital photo equipment..... not trying to sound arrogant, but just telling you that this is not just some random, uninformed opinion.
That being said, IMO megapixels are WAY overblown in importance to the point of them being used purely as marketing gimmicks to sell cameras. There is no digital camera sold today that doesn't have enough MP to post online. Likewise for making nice, small prints.
Now, let's say you want to print a photo 20x30 inches. I'd say that in this case, you would probably want at least 6 or 7 MP. Keep in mind that very few people ever print anything larger than that. This is why the MP marketing is such insanity..... everyday people are worried about getting a 16 MP camera vs a 14 MP camera, or even a 12 MP camera, when they will almost certainly NEVER even come close to using that added functionality.
Also remember that MP ratings are defined by area. That means that to double your resolution, you must QUADRUPLE your MP rating. This further gets at why the difference between a 10MP and 14MP camera, for example, is negligible
There are many many things that affect the quality of a camera and the images it produces. But as long as you have more than, say 5 or 6 MP, I really don't think that MP's are a significant one of them.
- END OF RANT -
- Badger Bill
That being said, IMO megapixels are WAY overblown in importance to the point of them being used purely as marketing gimmicks to sell cameras. There is no digital camera sold today that doesn't have enough MP to post online. Likewise for making nice, small prints.
Now, let's say you want to print a photo 20x30 inches. I'd say that in this case, you would probably want at least 6 or 7 MP. Keep in mind that very few people ever print anything larger than that. This is why the MP marketing is such insanity..... everyday people are worried about getting a 16 MP camera vs a 14 MP camera, or even a 12 MP camera, when they will almost certainly NEVER even come close to using that added functionality.
Also remember that MP ratings are defined by area. That means that to double your resolution, you must QUADRUPLE your MP rating. This further gets at why the difference between a 10MP and 14MP camera, for example, is negligible
There are many many things that affect the quality of a camera and the images it produces. But as long as you have more than, say 5 or 6 MP, I really don't think that MP's are a significant one of them.
- END OF RANT -
- Badger Bill
For use on the web anything will work, even the oldest most out of date technology as the rez requirement is low.
I try to size my forum posts to 640 x 480 (pixels wide by tall). That seems to be about the best as far as compression and load speed.
I try to size my forum posts to 640 x 480 (pixels wide by tall). That seems to be about the best as far as compression and load speed.
When submitting articles for one of my hobby magazines they set a minimum number of megapixels, but they are turning around and printing two page spreads in a magazine. B&B does no such thing. I have been submitting photos of various sizes from one of the cheapest camera phones on the market. The weak link with those photos is that I have no talent for photography, not the limits of the camera.
Most cell phones and cameras have more than enough megapixels for most posting. The really super high are only required by professional submissions.
- Thread starter
- #8
I was looking at the Apple I Phone 3gs 16 gb which has a 3.15 megapixels. The next one up is the Apple I phone 4s 16 gb which has 8 mg. Upgrading to the 4s 16 gb would cost me $100 more than the 3gs 16 gb. Is it really worth it?
Personally, and I emphasize personally, I wouldn't pay the extra $100 just for that camera. But, if you want some of the other features of the newer phone, that's a different story.
- Badger Bill
- Badger Bill
Hi,
My main cameras are ancient 6 MP units. Slow ISO of 80 to boot. Large and heavy. One is a Nikon F5. The other a Canon EOS 1N. Both have Kodak digital backs. The quality of those 6 MP allow for beautiful 24 x 36 inch prints, though. I keep them around because Kodak used Kodachrome dyes for then Color Filter Arrays on the imager chip. The Nikon and Canon versions all all about using many various lenses on them.
It is not all about the number of pixels. That is just the easy way to market digital cameras.
Stan
My main cameras are ancient 6 MP units. Slow ISO of 80 to boot. Large and heavy. One is a Nikon F5. The other a Canon EOS 1N. Both have Kodak digital backs. The quality of those 6 MP allow for beautiful 24 x 36 inch prints, though. I keep them around because Kodak used Kodachrome dyes for then Color Filter Arrays on the imager chip. The Nikon and Canon versions all all about using many various lenses on them.
It is not all about the number of pixels. That is just the easy way to market digital cameras.
Stan
Just as a little example to illustrate what others have correctly said.
Right click and select view image then click to zoom in to see original size/resolution.
Image from 1.2 Mp Canon video camera:-
And one from a 3.2 Mp Minolta XT
Its all about the optics and how the sensors are made that matters more than numbers !.
Right click and select view image then click to zoom in to see original size/resolution.
Image from 1.2 Mp Canon video camera:-
And one from a 3.2 Mp Minolta XT
Its all about the optics and how the sensors are made that matters more than numbers !.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #12
Bill; I didn't know that. Along with the rest of your post is good information, not a rant. Thanks! And the rest of you, your timely responses are very enlightening also and I read them all. I'm grateful, guys!Also remember that MP ratings are defined by area. That means that to double your resolution, you must QUADRUPLE your MP rating. This further gets at why the difference between a 10MP and 14MP camera, for example, is negligible
- END OF RANT -
- Badger Bill
Last edited:
I agree wholeheartedly Bill (used to take pictures at quinceaneras, bodas, bautismos, etc. weekends in the US) and really the only reason dor more megapixels is for someone that does a lot of heavy cropping. I used a Nikon d70 until it decided to do a suiide jump off the dresser and busted open, got a d80 body then (several years ago) and it's now not working (I know what the problem is, just waiting to go back to the US to get it fixed). But I will not upgrade from a d80 body unless it completely dies on me or commits suicide as did the d70.
I used to have a canon i9900 13 x 19 printer and never had need to print any bigger, never had a problem with megapixels and even printed a couple from a coolpix 990 (or was it 995) that were perfect.
I used to have a canon i9900 13 x 19 printer and never had need to print any bigger, never had a problem with megapixels and even printed a couple from a coolpix 990 (or was it 995) that were perfect.
Last edited:
Are you not due for an upgrade. Right now AT&T with new (or renew) 2 yr contract. An iPhone 4s is free and a 5c is $99. If you are buying with out a new contract PM me. I have a 32 gb iPhone 4 I will be selling in the next week or two.
- Thread starter
- #15
My son has a Canon Rebel SLR 10 megapixel camera I can use but it's more convenient for me to have my own. He' trying to upgrade also!
