How many pixels do we really need?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 MP is still plenty nowadays for web use. 18x24 cm prints can get by with  less than10 MP. 150 PPI is plenty for most users.

[Steve Ricoh]

So 16MP should be fine for everyday needs. Pixel area is probably important too. A 16MP FF sensor is likely to have more post-processing ‘photo plasticity’ than a 16MP 1” sensor.

A Micro 4/3 sensor should be more than adequate for most serious photography, even the earlier 16MP devices.

 

Edited January 22, 2024 by Steve Ricoh

[M11 for me]

But there is no 16 MPix camera to buy any more in our days 😇

[Steve Ricoh]

3 hours ago, M11 for me said:

But there is no 16 MPix camera to buy any more in our days 😇

I’ll sell you one. 😉

[Lax Jought]

On 1/22/2024 at 9:34 PM, jaapv said:

6 MP is still plenty nowadays for web use. 18x24 cm prints can get by with  less than10 MP. 150 PPI is plenty for most users.

Still is yes.  I was just talking about why it was suggested as such back then.

I would still happily shoot with my 10.1MP M8.2 today as one of my everyday-carrys if the sensor wasn't broken.

[ironhorse]

9 hours ago, Lax Jought said:

Still is yes.  I was just talking about why it was suggested as such back then.

I would still happily shoot with my 10.1MP M8.2 today as one of my everyday-carrys if the sensor wasn't broken.

I keep looking for a reason to replace my M8 but I am happy with the output. I don't see many photos here from newer cameras that i couldn't take with the M8 and now with the enhanced feature in Lightroom to increase the file size for printing, I don't see any reason to.

[Lax Jought]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, ironhorse said:

I keep looking for a reason to replace my M8 but I am happy with the output. I don't see many photos here from newer cameras that i couldn't take with the M8 and now with the enhanced feature in Lightroom to increase the file size for printing, I don't see any reason to.

Honestly, if my M8.2 with improved ISO performance, I'd be pretty happy with it today.

I continued shooting pretty significant professional paid gigs with my M8.2 until maybe 2014.  

Edited January 29, 2024 by Lax Jought

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

How many pixels do we really need?

It depends on how you intend to use the image file.

If all you are ever going to do is share images online, you don't need many megapixels - perhaps around 6mp as Jaapv stated above.

For making large exhibit quality prints you need more.  Using my M-P240, I have had exhibit quality images printed to 24x36 inch size at around 200ppi.  I would suggest that if you intend to print at 24x36 inches or smaller, 24 megapixels are adequate.

If the extrapolation holds up, a 100mp camera could make exhibit quality prints at 8x12 feet.  Not sure where you would hang a print that size, though.

Edited February 14, 2024 by Herr Barnack

[250swb]

On 2/14/2024 at 1:56 AM, Herr Barnack said:

It depends on how you intend to use the image file.

If all you are ever going to do is share images online, you don't need many megapixels - perhaps around 6mp as Jaapv stated above.

For making large exhibit quality prints you need more.  Using my M-P240, I have had exhibit quality images printed to 24x36 inch size at around 200ppi.  I would suggest that if you intend to print at 24x36 inches or smaller, 24 megapixels are adequate.

If the extrapolation holds up, a 100mp camera could make exhibit quality prints at 8x12 feet.  Not sure where you would hang a print that size, though.

Did nobody made large exhibition prints before 24mp was possible? If they did where are they now, deleted because they are 'inferior'? And anyway given viewing distance is an element in any exhibition there is the argument that you don't actually have to print as large as possible just because your camera says so. Haven't artists always worked within the canvas they have and the art is not diminished by it?

[Herr Barnack]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Did nobody made large exhibition prints before 24mp was possible? If they did where are they now, deleted because they are 'inferior'? And anyway given viewing distance is an element in any exhibition there is the argument that you don't actually have to print as large as possible just because your camera says so. Haven't artists always worked within the canvas they have and the art is not diminished by it?

You make some very good points.

Cartier-Bresson had no megapixels, yet people pay a lot of money for prints of his images.

A photograph has to have a "message" for lack of a better term.  If there is no message when printed at 8x10 inches, there will be no message when it is printed at 4x6 feet.  Or 8x12 feet.  Visual yelling is an exercise in futility.

Content reigns supreme; always has, always will.  In the words of David Vestal,

Quote

“Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes. As technology increases our possibilities, we use them less resourcefully. The one thing we’ve gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception.”

 

Edited February 19, 2024 by Herr Barnack

[hepcat]

On 1/6/2024 at 4:07 PM, anonymoose said:

If you do, you should also be able to see a difference with 4x the capture resolution...

You've hit on the crux of this argument, and indeed, the crux of ALL discussions of this topic.  OF COURSE you can see the difference in the resolution between a 4mp capture and a 40mp capture.  But is it important in viewing the image itself?   Do you question, or indeed even care when you look at an image what sensor was used to produce it.  If it's an image that captures your attention, I'd suggest that the issue is moot.  

Here's an image I made in 2007 with an Olympus E-1 5mp camera.  Would this image, at this size, benefit from having been made with a 50mp sensor?  I'd suggest that for most viewing it, it would not. 
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[hepcat]

On 2/19/2024 at 3:25 PM, 250swb said:

Did nobody made large exhibition prints before 24mp was possible? If they did where are they now, deleted because they are 'inferior'? And anyway given viewing distance is an element in any exhibition there is the argument that you don't actually have to print as large as possible just because your camera says so. Haven't artists always worked within the canvas they have and the art is not diminished by it?

By way of example, and just to make a point...  I'll post one more here (just because I can.  😉)

I have this image hanging in my living room above my piano in a 24x30" print.  You can tell here that is a heavily-modified file, but in 24x30" at a normal viewing distance I've had many positive comments about this print over the years.  I made the original image with a 10mp Olympus E3.  Yes, people printed large before 24mp and the results are more than "adequate."

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[WineDesign]

On 2/23/2024 at 2:51 AM, hepcat said:

You've hit on the crux of this argument, and indeed, the crux of ALL discussions of this topic.  OF COURSE you can see the difference in the resolution between a 4mp capture and a 40mp capture.  But is it important in viewing the image itself?   Do you question, or indeed even care when you look at an image what sensor was used to produce it.  If it's an image that captures your attention, I'd suggest that the issue is moot.  

Here's an image I made in 2007 with an Olympus E-1 5mp camera.  Would this image, at this size, benefit from having been made with a 50mp sensor?  I'd suggest that for most viewing it, it would not. 
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

With all due respect, the low resolution is clearly visible here and in the cropped headshot shot further on in the thread.

I work with and/or make images professionally every day and agree that 99% of the time resolution is overstated in importance vs. content, but there’s real life limits too. 

I’ll add my $0.02 - for most purposes where an image needed to go to commercial print as well as digital, the arrival of 30-something MP was the last noticable practical leap forward in sensors I’ve seen. Since then resolution hasn’t been an issue in day to day work. Before then it came up regularly.

There’s some studio photography and fine art exhibition prints in particular styles that can eke out a practical benefit of higher res these days, but it’s all small increments now. The visible quality differences in 99% of images I see now are all factors external to the camera.

AI is nice, denoising is very useful now for higher ISO shots, but there’s still a real limit to that too. Creating resolution brings noticable artefacts. As somebody already posted, gentle interpolation often gives a nicer more natural result.

 

 

 

 

[hepcat]

10 hours ago, WineDesign said:

With all due respect, the low resolution is clearly visible here and in the cropped headshot shot further on in the thread.

I work with and/or make images professionally every day and agree that 99% of the time resolution is overstated in importance vs. content, but there’s real life limits too. 

If you actually read my posts though, does the low resolution impact the presentation of the images?  Does it impact the message?   In both of the images I posted, I don't believe that an increase in resolution would have "improved" the image (as presented in a forum environment) at all.   And quite frankly, the abstraction of the eye and hand looks better printed on canvas at 24x30" and viewed at appropriate distance than it does displayed here.    I have it hanging in my living room at that scale.

I suspect that, if you think that higher resolution may have improved the images for you,  you're more interested in technology than photography.   Honestly in high-resolution images, particularly mundane high-resolution images, the detail can become a distraction from the subject and intent of the image.  That's partly why film has never gone away.  Sometimes using our tools appropriately to obscure detail is as important to the image as including fine details in high resolutions.    The bottom line here is that high resolution is just another tool in the toolbox that you need to know how to select or de-select as the image calls for it.  

When the subject calls for high resolution, then it's appropriate.  When it doesn't it's unnecessary, and when the subject demands detail be obscured, it can be a hindrance.  It's up to the photographer to know the difference and choose accordingly.   It's good to have choices.

[jaapv]

The only reason that we have 60 mp sensors is that ASML is rolling out their 3 nm EUV wafer steppers to produce high-resolution chips. If you invest hundreds of millions in tools, one wants to amortize them by selling the products. Fortunately the public will always fall for a higher number, regardless of usefulness, so yes, high mp cameras sell, fortunately for the production chain.

[pgk]

On 2/22/2024 at 4:10 PM, hepcat said:

Yes, people printed large before 24mp and the results are more than "adequate."

Some of us still do! And despite having much higher MPixel cameras as well. In my experience the times that I actually would like higher resolution and do use higher MPixel cameras, other, external factors are usually responsible for neutralising the extra pixels .....

[BWColor]

Old thread and a topic that serves as a reminder that many project don’t require high pixel count, but AI enhanced resolution is not the best approach to printing big.

Have you ever carefully composed an image while shooting, but found a preferable cropping during post?  High pixel count allows for the occasional crop and storage is inexpensive and fast.

Edited July 11, 2024 by BWColor
‘?’ Not ‘.’

[WineDesign]

On 5/1/2024 at 10:55 PM, hepcat said:

If you actually read my posts though, does the low resolution impact the presentation of the images?  Does it impact the message?   In both of the images I posted, I don't believe that an increase in resolution would have "improved" the image (as presented in a forum environment) at all.   And quite frankly, the abstraction of the eye and hand looks better printed on canvas at 24x30" and viewed at appropriate distance than it does displayed here.    I have it hanging in my living room at that scale.

I suspect that, if you think that higher resolution may have improved the images for you,  you're more interested in technology than photography.   Honestly in high-resolution images, particularly mundane high-resolution images, the detail can become a distraction from the subject and intent of the image.  That's partly why film has never gone away.  Sometimes using our tools appropriately to obscure detail is as important to the image as including fine details in high resolutions.    The bottom line here is that high resolution is just another tool in the toolbox that you need to know how to select or de-select as the image calls for it.  

When the subject calls for high resolution, then it's appropriate.  When it doesn't it's unnecessary, and when the subject demands detail be obscured, it can be a hindrance.  It's up to the photographer to know the difference and choose accordingly.   It's good to have choices.

Yes, at the kind of visible pixel level you’re proposing here, the resolution affects the images to an extent the general public would see. I mean, it’s clear even here this context.

Friends and family aren’t going to comment on that. I wouldn’t use an image blown up like that professionally myself, that’s all. I would expect to hear about it from colleagues/clients if I did for commercial images.

You’re way off target if you think I’m one of the usual ‘technology over good looking results’ crowd. Normally I’m on your side of the argument. It’s just that there’s limits when it concerns paid work. If it’s ‘art’, or making images for personal enjoyment, then anything goes and nothing technical matters, full stop. Nor for incredibly compelling news reporting, of course.

 

Edited July 14, 2024 by WineDesign

[F456]

It's funny how so many will 'trade up' to ever higher megapixel cameras because they want more sharpness. Because as has been said on this forum before, the moment the word 'sharpness' is mentioned without consideration of its components such as resolution, contrast, flare, veiling glare etc one gets the feeling that the buyer is searching in the dark or just following the herd. (I realize the extra pixels are useful for cropping if you are happy to work that way.)

Personally — at a slight tangent — I have recently been enjoying collating some albums with small enprint sized pictures taken with Superia 400 colour negative film on a Nikonos-V camera, on land not underwater but including some very wet weather shots and others taken from a kayak years ago in the English Lake District when leading or taking part in school adventure trips.  I can view them easily from my lap rather than have them blown up to exhibition size with the resultant need to have to stand well back to view them on already limited wall space or in large unwieldy portfolios. Discovering these pictures has brought back a lot of the joy of photography and involves no pixel peeping, just joy in the composition, well-exposed colour and the human and landscape interest.  They are easily stored too.

I'd like to think that once the shot is taken it doesn't matter what it was taken with; it's the atmosphere, the colours or tones, the light and the people themselves that count.  And yet somehow I still have too many cameras and lenses and am not ready to cull the collection. Funny to think that if i could only keep one it might now be the Nikonos and twiddly-knob focus and aperture setting 35/2.5 W-Nikkor lens.  This from someone who still loves and uses Leica cameras, but finds them less versatile in British weather.  For these reasons the megapixel race is one aspect of GAS that doesn't affect me! 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2024 by F456
minor improvements

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[acalmplace]

On 10/30/2023 at 4:54 PM, dennersten said:

So the question is: How many pixels do we need in these AI days? Is the pixel race over? 

Some have commented on the quality of AI output, which is in large part contingent on input resolution, so inasmuch as input gets improved, out put should as well.

Others have also noted cropping options provided by larger resolutions, which to me goes back to the same 'better input leads to better outputs.'

Finally, there is the fact that few manufacturers uncouple sensor resolution from other technological advancements. For instance, if for you it's high ISO improvements that matter, then following that trend forces you to a great extent into larger resolutions territory.

So back to the OP's question: my view is that it reduces the pressure to chase, because AI provides other means to improve output, but doesn't stop the race, because you might be chasing other things than resolution.