? is it really 3 megapixel?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It could be a lower quality CCD or as you say, it could be "cheating".

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Looking at your image at 1:2 is generally good enough to decide if it
is sharp, so if they look ok at that level, then it's probably nothing
to worry too much about. Bear in mind it takes two pixels to resolve
the edge of something - even more if it is right on the line. If you
keep zooming up until you can actually see individual square pixels,
you should, on a clearly focussed sharp image from a good lens, be able
to see objects resolved down to one or two pixels. Eg a winter tree
with lots of tiny twigs is a good test.. It should not be
interpolating (although some evil, cheap manufacturers, eg `Megxon` do
in fact claim their cameras are, say, 10 Mp when they actually use a
5Mp chip). But do check your settings - are you working at the highest
quality level available?

Many lenses, even on the `better` name-brand cameras, are barely
capable of the resolution of the CCD, or they may even be quite a way
short.. And in fact there are technical reasons why too much lens
resolution can actually be a bad thing.. well, sort of.. Look up
`anti-aliasing`.

And you are right, bad focus, camera movement, etc are all relevant. To
really test it - tripod, high shutter speed, brightly lit scene with
lots of complex detail.. Visit www.dpreview.com for lens resolution
tests that you can compare with..

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

NadCixelsyd wrote:
> I have a Nikon 995 which allegedly is 2048 x 1536 pixels. Whenever I look at a
> picture full size (one-for-one, with only 1/3 of the photo on my screen), it
> doesn't look sharp. Do they really have 3 megapixels, or are they
> interpolating every-other pixel? Or could there be another reason (bad
> autofocus, bad photographer, etc).
> When I look at the photo reduced 2:1 (Paint Shop Pro), everything looks sharp.

Your screen is only 72 dpi. The photo won't look sharp on your screen if you are
zoomed in as much as you say you are.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"NadCixelsyd" <nadcixelsyd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050124214120.17703.00000269@mb-m07.aol.com...
> I have a Nikon 995 which allegedly is 2048 x 1536 pixels. Whenever I look
at a
> picture full size (one-for-one, with only 1/3 of the photo on my screen),
it
> doesn't look sharp. Do they really have 3 megapixels, or are they
> interpolating every-other pixel? Or could there be another reason (bad
> autofocus, bad photographer, etc).
> When I look at the photo reduced 2:1 (Paint Shop Pro), everything looks
sharp.

hw is it when you look at it at 100%?

sid

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

sid derra wrote:
> "NadCixelsyd" <nadcixelsyd@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20050124214120.17703.00000269@mb-m07.aol.com...
>
>>I have a Nikon 995 which allegedly is 2048 x 1536 pixels. Whenever I look
>
> at a
>
>>picture full size (one-for-one, with only 1/3 of the photo on my screen),
>
> it
>
>>doesn't look sharp. Do they really have 3 megapixels, or are they
>>interpolating every-other pixel? Or could there be another reason (bad
>>autofocus, bad photographer, etc).
>>When I look at the photo reduced 2:1 (Paint Shop Pro), everything looks
>
> sharp.
>
> hw is it when you look at it at 100%?
>
> sid
>
>
Look at the specs carefully. Some companies put in the word 'effective'
pixels. This probably indicates interpolation in hardware.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:20:03 GMT, Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate>
wrote:

>NadCixelsyd wrote:
>> I have a Nikon 995 which allegedly is 2048 x 1536 pixels. Whenever I look at a
>> picture full size (one-for-one, with only 1/3 of the photo on my screen), it
>> doesn't look sharp. Do they really have 3 megapixels, or are they
>> interpolating every-other pixel? Or could there be another reason (bad
>> autofocus, bad photographer, etc).
>> When I look at the photo reduced 2:1 (Paint Shop Pro), everything looks sharp.
>
>Your screen is only 72 dpi. The photo won't look sharp on your screen if you are
>zoomed in as much as you say you are.
>
>
getting back to the 72 dpi myth ? .. it should be PPI for starters bur
screens have no PPI utmost they have a dot pitch ... and if it is a
TFT it probably has 133 PPI .. so ... ?
... but funny enough my 3072x2304 pictures look absolutely sharp on my
old Sony CRT even viewed at 100% aka 1:1 .. and that involves a lot of
scrolling :-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
> Look at the specs carefully. Some companies put in the word
> 'effective' pixels. This probably indicates interpolation in
> hardware.

The Nikon 995 does not use interpolation.

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

NadCixelsyd wrote:
> I have a Nikon 995 which allegedly is 2048 x 1536 pixels. Whenever I
> look at a picture full size (one-for-one, with only 1/3 of the photo
> on my screen), it doesn't look sharp. Do they really have 3
> megapixels, or are they interpolating every-other pixel? Or could
> there be another reason (bad autofocus, bad photographer, etc).
> When I look at the photo reduced 2:1 (Paint Shop Pro), everything
> looks sharp.

There is no interpolation in the Nikon 995 - just the Bayer processing
which matrixes the RGB pixels to full-colour (most digital cameras have
this).

How do the images compare with the samples at:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp995/

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <20050124214120.17703.00000269@mb-m07.aol.com>,
nadcixelsyd@aol.com (NadCixelsyd) wrote:

>I have a Nikon 995 which allegedly is 2048 x 1536 pixels. Whenever I look at a
>picture full size (one-for-one, with only 1/3 of the photo on my screen), it
>doesn't look sharp. Do they really have 3 megapixels, or are they
>interpolating every-other pixel? Or could there be another reason (bad
>autofocus, bad photographer, etc).
>When I look at the photo reduced 2:1 (Paint Shop Pro), everything looks sharp.

Of course it does. Sharpness is how small an angle it takes from your
perspective, to change from a certain brighness level to another. Most
digital cameras take 2 or 3 pixels to go from white to black, for
instance, so if you have a 1:1 pixel representation on the screen, it
takes twice the angle to go from black to white as it does when you view
at 2:1.

so, instead of:

1 black
2 black
3 black
4 grey
5 white
6 white
7 white
8 grey
9 black
10 black
11 black

.... you might get ...

1 black
3 black
5 white
7 white
9 black
11 black

The tranditions in the latter 2:1 view go straight from black to white
on the screen, and look sharper.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><