megapixels

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

jonscott11@yahoo.com wrote:

> How many pixels are in a megapixel? I'm looking to buy a Sony
> DCR-DVD301. It is listed as taking 1 mgpxl stills. (???)


Good question. It's either 1,000,000 or 1,024,000

Ken

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

<jonscott11@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108531341.265944.72750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How many pixels are in a megapixel? I'm looking to buy a Sony
> DCR-DVD301. It is listed as taking 1 mgpxl stills. (???)
>

It is pretty easy to determine. It is one google ^ -94th.

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

In article <rFBQd.6947$6p7.3644@news01.roc.ny>, Harvey
<hcohenREMOVE@frontiernetTHIS.net> wrote:

> <jonscott11@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1108531341.265944.72750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > How many pixels are in a megapixel? I'm looking to buy a Sony
> > DCR-DVD301. It is listed as taking 1 mgpxl stills. (???)
>
> It is pretty easy to determine. It is one google ^ -94th.

google is a search engine. googol is 10^100.

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

In article <1108531341.265944.72750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<jonscott11@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How many pixels are in a megapixel?

"Mega" is the SI prefix for a million, as in kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta,
etc.

However, in computer science, it has a slightly different meaning.
Traditionally, it means 2 to the 20th power, or 1,048,576. It has
occasionally been abused and applied to 1000 * (2 to the 10th power), or
1,024,000 (see the so-called 1.44 megabyte floppy disks, which are actually
1.41 megabytes).

For cameras, the SI usage is probably more common, so a megapixel is one
million pixels.

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

<jonscott11@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108531341.265944.72750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How many pixels are in a megapixel? I'm looking to buy a Sony
> DCR-DVD301. It is listed as taking 1 mgpxl stills. (???)
>
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Sony_ [...] ml?tag=tab

1152 x 864

Jim

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

" H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com> wrote in
message
news:{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-95122C.06144916022005@news.giganews.com...
> "P-P. Henneken" <pep@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>> "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
>> news:6VAQd.22891$uc.3091@trnddc02...
>> > No ... it is 1,024 x 1,024
>> >
>> > or 1,048,576
>>
>> Don't think so. That would mean the image taken would be square.
>> My guess is that it's either 1280x960 or 1280x1024.
>
> Your guess is incorrect. The Megapixel metric doesn't mean that the
> area being measured must be perfectly square: its merely a way of
> counting the number of pixels present.
>
>
> <snip totally correct explanation (which I already knew but that's not the
> case, thanks for your time!)>

Okay, if my guess is incorrect, please enlighten me! Call me a few cameras
which HAVE "square resolutions"... A 6Mp camera will most likely NOT be a
6.000.000-squared-res camera (but appr. 3000x2000), a 3Mp camera willmost
likely NOT be a 3.000.000-squared-res camera (but appr. 2000x1500). So the
aforementioned 1Mp camera will most likely NOT be a 1024x1024 (or 1000x1000)
pixels camera but rather something like 1200x800 (the 960 was a
computer-res-based mistake, my bad) or so, THAT was what I was trying to
convey.

Greets,

P-P.

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

Ken Weitzel wrote:

>
>
> jonscott11@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> How many pixels are in a megapixel? I'm looking to buy a Sony
>> DCR-DVD301. It is listed as taking 1 mgpxl stills. (???)
>
>
>
> Good question. It's either 1,000,000 or 1,024,000
>
> Ken
>
However, the difference between the two is not apparent to the eye when
viewing the images, so don't worry about it. It is essentially a
million pixels.

If you are not a math phobe, you can figure what you need with a little
arithmetic. Are you only interested in emailing photos? Or do you
intend to print them? If so, you need at least 200 pixels per inch of
printed picture size (300 ppi is even better).

So an 8x10 printed at 200 ppi would have (8 x 200) x (10 x 200), or 1600
x 2000 pixels, or 3.2 megapixels.

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

A meg of pixels.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

<jonscott11@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108531341.265944.72750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How many pixels are in a megapixel? I'm looking to buy a Sony
> DCR-DVD301. It is listed as taking 1 mgpxl stills. (???)
>

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

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95FFBE891848Cklotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> " H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com>
> wrote in news:{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-95122C.06144916022005
> @news.giganews.com:
>
>> FWIW, its funny how this bothers us in some areas and doesn't phase
>> us the least in others. For example, no one has played this
>> measurement game yet on RAM.
>>
>
> It is not a meassurement game IMHO.
>
> The natural thing to mean with Mega is 1,000,000, i.e. one million.
> And that is what it almost always mean. It is used for disks and for
> digital cameras, watt and whatever. So - if you don't know - assume
> that mega means a million and kilo thousand.
>
> But - direct accessible memory - i.e. ROM and RAM etc, cannot be
> efficiently made in 1,000,000 sizes as the addresses are binary.
> It must be something that is N^2. If N is 10, then you get 1024

Typo - it shall be 2^N of course

> and if N is 20 you get 1024*1024. In order to awoid the awkward
> 1.024 Kbyte - it is called Kbyte. The same for Mbyte.
>
> No one is trying to fool you.
>
>
> /Roland
>

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

P-P. Henneken wrote:
> "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:6VAQd.22891$uc.3091@trnddc02...
>
>>No ... it is 1,024 x 1,024
>>
>>or 1,048,576
>
>
> Don't think so. That would mean the image taken would be square
>
> P-P.
>
>

Why would it mean that?. 1024x1024 does not refer to the length and width. It's
based on megabyte, which is 1024 x 1024 bytes.

> My guess is that it's either 1280x960 or 1280x1024. Probably 960 though...

That is one way to get a megapixel sensor.

What the OP was really asking was are that 1 million pixels or 1,048,576 pixels,
like a megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes, not 1 million bytes.
--
--
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?)

-hh wrote:

> P-P. Henneken wrote:
>
>>Okay, if my guess is incorrect, please enlighten me!
>
>
> FWIW, as others have pointed out, my post was a bit confusing; sorry.
>
>
>
>>Call me a few cameras which HAVE "square resolutions"...
>
>
> True, but so what? The physical geometry of the image device has
> nothing to do with how we choose quantify its effective area. For
> example, an Acre of land is defined as 4840 square yards, and there's
> gazillions of dimensional permutations other than the perfect 208.7ft
> by 208.7ft square. But the fact remains that each and every one of
> them still is an Acre.
>
>
>
>>A 6Mp camera will most likely NOT be a 6.000.000-squared-res
>>camera (but appr. 3000x2000)...
>
>
> True. And a sensor matrix of 3,000 x 2,000 contains the exact same
> number of pixels as does one that's 30,000 x 200 (think panoramic
> applications).
>
> Or even the extreme of a 6,000,000 x 1 sensor (FWIW, if such a thing
> existed, it would be equivalent to a ribbon camera which is used for
> specialized scientific applications)
>
>
> In any event, this doesn't address the underlying question of how many
> pixels are in an "M". The binary answer is 2^20, but the decimal
> answer is 10^6, and there's a 5% difference between the two.
>
>
> -hh
>
I think there is some confusion here between a pixel and a detector
element. The pixel is mathematically defined by the dimensions of an
array. In most digital cameras there is a 1:1 correspondence between
pixels and detector elements, but this is not true in all digicams.
And, in any reduced resolution mode there is only a mathematical
correspondence. A detector element is a physical thing. A pixel is an
attribute of an array of numbers. The photodetector element can be any
shape, aspect ratio, or fill factor.

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

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1108651347.214262.286450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> P-P. Henneken wrote:
>>
>> Okay, if my guess is incorrect, please enlighten me!
>
> FWIW, as others have pointed out, my post was a bit confusing; sorry.
>
>
>> Call me a few cameras which HAVE "square resolutions"...
>
> True, but so what? The physical geometry of the image device has
> nothing to do with how we choose quantify its effective area. For
> example, an Acre of land is defined as 4840 square yards, and there's
> gazillions of dimensional permutations other than the perfect 208.7ft
> by 208.7ft square. But the fact remains that each and every one of
> them still is an Acre.
>
>
>> A 6Mp camera will most likely NOT be a 6.000.000-squared-res
>> camera (but appr. 3000x2000)...
>
> True. And a sensor matrix of 3,000 x 2,000 contains the exact same
> number of pixels as does one that's 30,000 x 200 (think panoramic
> applications).
>
> Or even the extreme of a 6,000,000 x 1 sensor (FWIW, if such a thing
> existed, it would be equivalent to a ribbon camera which is used for
> specialized scientific applications)
>
>
> In any event, this doesn't address the underlying question of how many
> pixels are in an "M". The binary answer is 2^20, but the decimal
> answer is 10^6, and there's a 5% difference between the two.
>
>
> -hh

Wooowww!!!! I must really apologize! I fully misread the OP's question!
There is nothing to be found about resolution and/or ratio's! So your answer
*now* fully makes sense... Hmmmm.... (ashamed!) My rant was totally
unnecessary, please excuse me!!!

P-P. (who must sleep more and react less) ;-)

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

>In any event, this doesn't address the underlying question of how many
>pixels are in an "M". The binary answer is 2^20, but the decimal
>answer is 10^6, and there's a 5% difference between the two.
>
But the eye needs about 20% difference in number of pixels to be able to
tell the difference.