Oh my aching pixels
Dec 6, 2015 20:40:06 #
Reinaldokool wrote:
It turns out that this is an outright lie perpetrated by the camera manufacturers.....
"One inch sensors" aren't; they are much smaller than DSLR sensors, although they are bigger than camera phone sensors.....
Nikon, Canon, Minolta and the rest should have their hands slapped for pulling this kind of industry-wide chicanery.
"One inch sensors" aren't; they are much smaller than DSLR sensors, although they are bigger than camera phone sensors.....
Nikon, Canon, Minolta and the rest should have their hands slapped for pulling this kind of industry-wide chicanery.
Class action suit anyone? :-(
Dec 7, 2015 08:55:42 #
AndyT wrote:
Are you saying that I should change the 180 dpi to 300dpi in photoshop? That would degrade the image wouldnt it?
The Canon is showing you a larger inches X inches file in Photoshop's workspace (if you change your rulers to inches instead of pixels) than the other cameras but that's because they chose 180ppi as their number to calculate everything with. I even had a little $110 Canon P&S that was 16MP and its data showed 180ppi as well.
So it's just what Canon does. If you convert that file to 300ppi in Photoshop you're not hurting the file just re-arranging the numbers and you're going to see shrinkage in the inches X inches size on the screen that you supposedly can use to judge the related print size in DPI. You're really not changing anything as far as resolution of the file just how things are being calculated on-screen.
Besides, going from 180ppi down to 100ppi degrades image PPI density when you print the two at an identical size, not the other way around.
It's always possible that their choice of 180ppi was meant to co-inside after conversion to DPI with their brand of printers which have a lower DPI than Epson printers and they feel it is a marketing advantage somehow to cause customers to want their "compatible" printers instead of other brands that seem to be "overkill" resolution.
Dec 7, 2015 13:28:07 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
A 6 x 12 inch image that's 300 PPI is EXACTLY the same size as a 10 x 20 inch image that's 180 PPI. It's a completely meaningless difference.
Note: PPI = pixels per inch... and is the correct terminology referring to a digital image. It is NOT "DPI" or DOTS per inch, which is PRINT terminology. A "dot" may be made up of several pixels, or vice versa.
Now, your Nikon camera has a 1/2.3 size sensor... that measures about 5.6mm x 4.2mm or about 23.5 square mm area. To achieve 12MP resolution with a sensor that size means that there are approx. 500,000 very tiny, individual pixel sites per square mm.
In comparison, the Canon G7X has a 1" sensor that measures approx 12.8mm x 9.6mm, for about 123 square mm (more than 5X larger than 1/2.3 size sensor). To be able deliver 20MP images, this camera has about 163,000 pixel sites per square mm. Since it is so much less crowned, each of the pixel sites can be larger and they don't need to be crowded as close together. All this should make for better image quality and higher usable ISOs (less noise in images).
Yes, DSLR sensors are even bigger... about 15 x 22mm for so-called APS-C and roughly 24 x 36mm with so-called "full frame". These make for even larger pixel sites and less crowding that should make for even better image quality (though it also depends upon the sheer resolution any given size of sensor tries to deliver... such as if it's a 20MP, 36MP or 50MP).
By the way, 300 ppi is somewhat of an overkill for printing purposes. Actually, most inkjet printers cannot use much more than 240 ppi and many print services specify 170 ppi or more.
That said, when prepping images for printing I use 300 ppi most of the time, too. But I do so mainly because the math is faster and easier, if I need to do any calculations.
Note: PPI = pixels per inch... and is the correct terminology referring to a digital image. It is NOT "DPI" or DOTS per inch, which is PRINT terminology. A "dot" may be made up of several pixels, or vice versa.
Now, your Nikon camera has a 1/2.3 size sensor... that measures about 5.6mm x 4.2mm or about 23.5 square mm area. To achieve 12MP resolution with a sensor that size means that there are approx. 500,000 very tiny, individual pixel sites per square mm.
In comparison, the Canon G7X has a 1" sensor that measures approx 12.8mm x 9.6mm, for about 123 square mm (more than 5X larger than 1/2.3 size sensor). To be able deliver 20MP images, this camera has about 163,000 pixel sites per square mm. Since it is so much less crowned, each of the pixel sites can be larger and they don't need to be crowded as close together. All this should make for better image quality and higher usable ISOs (less noise in images).
Yes, DSLR sensors are even bigger... about 15 x 22mm for so-called APS-C and roughly 24 x 36mm with so-called "full frame". These make for even larger pixel sites and less crowding that should make for even better image quality (though it also depends upon the sheer resolution any given size of sensor tries to deliver... such as if it's a 20MP, 36MP or 50MP).
By the way, 300 ppi is somewhat of an overkill for printing purposes. Actually, most inkjet printers cannot use much more than 240 ppi and many print services specify 170 ppi or more.
That said, when prepping images for printing I use 300 ppi most of the time, too. But I do so mainly because the math is faster and easier, if I need to do any calculations.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.