That's not entirely correct, unless you equate resolution to quality.

For instance, this picture was taken with a 20mp camera, and the native resolution is 5184x3426 at 300dpi. However, the purposes of screen resolution, it's been converted for the web to 92 dpi.

This one is taken with a iPhone and the resolution is 3264 x 2448 again converted to 92dpi

For web purposes the resolution's irrelevant because it's downsized so dramatically.

For printing purposes, the megapixels are irrelevant because each camera has a different sensor size...The iPhone is a 4mm sensor, and the 1Dx has a 34x26mm sensor. consequently, you will inherently get a higher quality photo print from a lower mega pixel full frame sensor than you will from a larger mp micro 4/3 or APS-C compact sensor.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Korkstand

Member since Nov 2003

28738 posts

Posted on 12/6/14 at 7:00 pm to lsuconnman

quote:
That's not entirely correct, unless you equate resolution to quality.

It is entirely correct, megapixels are the same as resolution where both cameras and screens are concerned.

Your dpi argument is simply a roundabout way to say that quality is better than quantity of pixels, given that the quantity of pixels is sufficient. Obviously, the size of a given screen or sensor, and the scale of a given image, matter when viewing a particular image on a particular screen. But so what? We are talking about camera quality factors vs screen quality factors, NOT the dynamics of viewing an image taken with a particular camera being displayed on various screens vs printed, etc.

Also, you state that megapixels are irrelevant for printing purposes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as I've said already, the number of pixels (or dots or points) is the main determinant of quality, up to the point that it doesn't matter as much as other factors, depending on the display device/media, viewing distance, etc.

1 ...

Report Post

Tech Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board