Terrible and misleading video that comes to a totally erroneous conclusion.

First of all, he seems to have no idea of the difference between pixel count and resolution. He repeatedly and incorrectly refers to cameras with comparable resolution (roughly 20 MP). The MP count IS NOT the resolution. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of optics or signal processing knows the difference. Oddly, he does reference pixel density at the end of the video but seems to have no clue that this is the deciding factor. - NOT pixel count. OF COURSE a crop sensor camera with the same number of pixels is expected to have higher resolution (all else being equal) than a full frame camera. It has a greater sensor RESOLUTION due to the smaller pixels (again, assuming all else being equal). This is a total waste of time and shows nothing.

A crop frame camera has NO BENEFIT to a cropped full frame camera providing the pixel density is equal (again assuming the sensors are equivalent).

Of course, in the real world, all else is never equal. Two sensors manufactured with different sized pixels are never going to respond exactly the same. Hard to guess a priori which will be 'better'. But realistically, a far greater difference is likely to be in the lenses. It's pretty crazy to use fx lenses on a dx body (to use Nikon's terminology) so you're probably going to be using dx lenses on a crop sensor body. At least in the Nikon world the top fx lenses are much sharper than the top dx lenses. If you really want to compare dx results with fx results in a meaningful way, shoot a D850 with a top of the line lens against a D500 with a comparable dx lens and look at the results. Of course, any conclusions you draw will only be valid for stationary subjects. Now try the same test with various subjects constrained to move in the same way. Does the autofocus perform equivalently?

Aaargh, sorry for the venting, but I just hate to see crap spewed about on the internet where innocent (naive?) minds can stumble across it. Oh, and by the way, even the comparison I suggested doesn't really compare sensor sizes, it compares two camera SYSTEMS. Questions like "Is a crop sensor camera better than a cropped full frame camera?" are MEANINGLESS. You have to compare specific cameras to get any meaningful results.

At that size one pixel on the sensor maps to one dot on the print (under ideal conditions where the printer puts out square dots of perfectly aligned ink). That is all the information available in the file.
If you print bigger, then an algorithm is employed to extrapolate the data to the larger size (effectively inventing data). As I mentioned previously, there are some very good algorithms available for doing this. So, would you NOTICE a degradation? I doubt it if you don't push the extrapolation too far.

Remember though, this thread started out in basically the opposite direction. That is, how many pixels are really needed for a given sized print? Many people seem to think that more is better. It's not. Any time you print SMALLER than the native resolution an algorithm is employed to throw away data so you gain nothing, and in fact risk degradation due to the algorithm employed to downsample.

Now, just on the unlikely chance that someone else has followed the thread to this point, let me emphasize that these resolution questions are all theoretical. Will you actually NOTICE a difference if you print a bit larger or small than optimal? Very likely not. Oh, and one last (technical) point, the term 'resolution' does NOT refer to the number of pixels in a sensor. However, everyone I've ever read on this forum treats them the same (including me) so I will continue with that sloppy practice unless someone call me out on it.

A standard sensor has an aspect ratio of 3:2
For a 45 MP sensor that is roughly 8216x5477 pixels (5612x3742 for 21 MP).

Divide those numbers by the printer's DPI and you get 34.2x22.8" for 45 MP and 23.4x15.6" for 21MP at 240DPI, (22.8x15.2" and 15,6x10.4" respectively) at 360DPI.

A 24MP image with no up or downsampling printed at 240 dpi is roughly 15x23".
A 45MP image with no up or downsampling printed at 240 dpi is roughly 23x34".

These are reasonably large for most people.

Good upsampling algorithms support somewhere around a factor of 3 without (very) noticeable loss of quality. The larger the print, the larger the viewing distance (in general) so the differences become moot.

Glad to be of some help. If I may add to what I wrote before... When considering resolution there are really three things to consider, 1) The input resolution 2) the display resolution 3) the optics resolution.

The overall resolution is limited by the lowest resolution in this chain. So, no matter how many pixels your sensor has, if the lens can't provide the corresponding resolution, you have again wasted your money.

That said, I now shoot with a D850 (moving up from a D7100) and the improved resolution is dramatic. However, that is due to a combination of improved sensor and improved lenses. Does this show up in a reasonable sized print? Absolutely not (which you should know if you've been paying attention). However, I now have the option to make larger prints without resampling as well as cropping significantly if I need to, so there are some advantages.

And by the way, there are some very good algorithms available for upsampling (I'm thinking specifically of 'Perfect Resize') so if you want to print larger than the native resolution, you can do so with very little concern for lack of sharpness.

Just make sure all the units are consistent.

DPI = dots (pixels) per inch
Area of course is actually measured in square units. But just make sure the linear measurement is consistent (in this case, inches).

For the record, I think you are likely to get MORE distortion from stitching than from a single shot, especially if you are rotating the camera.

I also prefer having more flexibility in post (and hence more pixels), but if jastewart is happy with his method and the size he is printing, then there is no reason to either increase the number of pixels or to stich images together.

Sounds like what you're doing is fine, provided you can get the scene entirely within the frame. To summarize, you have basically turned your 21 MP camera into a 10MP camera with a 2.74:1 aspect ratio.
Printing at 240 dpi allows for a print of roughly 22x8" at native resolution (that is, without down or upsampling). Really the only downside I see is that you have limited your reframing options later in post.

One thing your post emphasizes is the lack of understanding of many members of this forum regarding resolution. They don't seem to realize that extra resolution does absolutely no good if the print resolution times the area is less than the image size (in pixels). I can only shudder at the thought of how much money is wasted on higher resolution cameras, unneeded panos, etc. due to a basic lack of understanding of this very simple issue.

Now, before anyone slams me for not knowing what I'm talking about, please make sure you understand the claim I am making. Any time your display (computer monitor, television, etc.) is lower resolution than the input image, you are wasting that resolution. Now, there may be other reasons for having higher resolution images, like extra latitude in cropping for instance, but when all is said and done, if you have a mismatch between input and output then you are fooling yourself about any gains.

Ooops. I imagine that this post is directed at me. I just reread what I wrote and realize that I never finished my original thought.
What I meant to say was - Your original post implies that you know very little about digital photography. I suggest you do some research and learn the relevant issues.

I stand by that (amended reply). I tried to give dino21 some helpful information, but there is only so much a person can do for someone who doesn't seem to have a grasp on even the most basic principles.

Tim

dino21
Please don't be offended, but your question implies that you know very little about digital photography. I have neither the time nor the inclination to give a complete answer to your question, but here are some salient points that you can use to start.

1) If it's an important photo, always shoot RAW.
2) The number of pixels you need depends on how large you intend to print, how far away the viewer will be and the amount of important detail in the image. Your question really cannot be answered without this information. For most practical purposes 24 Mb is plenty for even very large prints.
3) You state that you are planning to shoot a panorama. That typically means you are going to shoot multiple images and stitch them together. If so, whatever program you use for the stitching will be able to save the output to whatever format you need. The only way to increase the number of pixels is to stitch more images together.
4) You say you know how to shoot RAW but don't know how to save to JPEG. How is this possible? What application do you use to view your RAW images? Whatever it is, it will certainly have a way to save in other formats.
5) You should contact the printer and ask what they require before you process your image.
6) Before sending to the printer and spending a lot of money, I suggest you print a smaller version so you can fine tune your processing.
7) Ignore the replies that tell you what lens to use. The lens choice is a function of what image you are trying to create. Panoramas can be made with any lens.
8) A tripod is useful but usually not critical. If a tripod is not needed for any individual image, then, with good technique, it is not needed or the panorama. (Though it's always better to have one if possible)

Hope this helps.

Tim

If I understand this correctly, you are comparing a jpeg file to an unprocessed RAW file and think the jpeg version is sharper. If this is the case, there is no mystery. The jpeg file has already had processing done to it in the camera (including sharpening), the RAW file hasn't. If you simply load a RAW file into Photoshop and save it as a jpeg you haven't done anything to change the sharpening, you've simply degraded the image. RAW files are intended to be processed post-capture, jpegs really aren't.

Looking at the two pictures you posted, I really can't tell any difference in sharpness, but that may be because I'm not viewing them side by side. What I CAN see is a loss of detail (as expected) in the jpeg. Look closely at the sign, for instance. So, unless I'm misunderstanding something, everything seems to be behaving as expected.

Wrong again. The image information contained in either file is a set of RGB values at each pixel. How that information maps to the original scene is what varies. This mapping is degraded (i.e. there is an information loss relative to the original scene) in JPEG files due to the processing and file compression that is performed. Oh, and of course there is also an information loss, relative to the original scene, in the RAW file, it's just less.

OK - that's it for me. No more posts on this thread. You're welcome.

ir·rel·e·vant
əˈreləvənt
adjective
not connected with or relevant to something.
synonyms:beside the point, immaterial, not pertinent, not germane, off the subject, unconnected, unrelated, peripheral, extraneous, inapposite, inapplicable

I have no idea what 'relatively irrelevant' would even mean.

Once an image is saved the tonal manipulation is independent of file type. JPEGs contain less information than raw files. That is the difference that is relevant to this discussion. However, that distinction is irrelevant to the discussion of ISO.

A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. While you are correct that ISO is simply an amplification of the available signal, you are ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT when you claim that the ISO a photograph is taken with is irrelevant. The ISO dictates the histogram. If the ISO is too high the bright pixels will be pushed into saturation, too low and the shadows will go to zero. No amount of processing will bring back either the blown highlights or the lost shadows. This is the case whether the photo is RAW or JPEG. Now, if a given histogram does not extend across the full dynamic range of the sensor, then it can indeed be moved around in post processing. Again, that is independent of image type (raw or jpeg).

I have a Canon Pro100 that I'm happy with. My only complaint is that it doesn't handle roll paper so I'm selling it (it's in brand new condition). Asking $100. PM me if interested. I see you're in Cali. I live in NorCal but often travel to SoCal and across through Bakersfield so I'm pretty much all over the state and might be able to deliver it if you're interested.

Tim

Sorry but I don't know how to find the original post. Could you repost or sideband me at frisbeedog02@yahoo.com.

Thanks.