Megapixels for Stop-Motion

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

Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each frame)would
suffice for use in stop-motion photography?

(I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition" for
display on the big screen).

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

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

<Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:1127350302.619627.12120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each frame)would
> suffice for use in stop-motion photography?
>
> (I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition" for
> display on the big screen).
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.
>
Well, the new movie "Corpse Bride" was done with Canon 1Ds mkIIs, 16mp.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:

>> Well, the new movie "Corpse Bride" was done with Canon 1Ds mkIIs,
>> 16mp.

>I was under the impression that it was the 8+MP 1D Mark II...not the 1Ds
>Mark II.

>For stop motion, you do NOT need anything even CLOSE to that high a
>resolution.
>The only reason to use more would be if you plan to do extensive cropping.

It depends on your output format. HDTV is only 1920x10800 pixels, but
if you're writing the images to 35 mm film for theatrical release,
you'll get the best quality from images that are 4K (4096) pixels
wide. Film recording equipment is commonly set up to handle either
2048 or 4096 pixels across the width of the film.

>HDTV is only around 1024pixels or so.

No, it's 1920 pixels wide in 1080i mode. Even 720p is 1280 pixels wide.

Dave

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

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>
> >> Well, the new movie "Corpse Bride" was done with Canon 1Ds mkIIs,
> >> 16mp.
>
> >I was under the impression that it was the 8+MP 1D Mark II...not the 1Ds
> >Mark II.
>
> >For stop motion, you do NOT need anything even CLOSE to that high a
> >resolution.
> >The only reason to use more would be if you plan to do extensive cropping.
>
> It depends on your output format. HDTV is only 1920x10800 pixels, but
> if you're writing the images to 35 mm film for theatrical release,
> you'll get the best quality from images that are 4K (4096) pixels
> wide. Film recording equipment is commonly set up to handle either
> 2048 or 4096 pixels across the width of the film.
>
> >HDTV is only around 1024pixels or so.
>
> No, it's 1920 pixels wide in 1080i mode. Even 720p is 1280 pixels wide.

Thanks.

Can you tell me what would be the corresponding camera resolutiuon for
4096 pixels would be?

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

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

By george, you are right, discussion on the EOS mailing list indicated it
was the 1Ds mkII, and I didn't re read the article linked below...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2005 15:15:18 -0700, Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:
>
> > Can you tell me what would be the corresponding camera
> > resolutiuon for 4096 pixels would be?
>
> If the sensor has the common 4:3 aspect ratio, that would be a
> resolution of 4k x 3k pixels, or a 12mp sensor.

Well, I guess that is out of the question.

I'll have to stick with the 4mp camera and display the results on the
TV or PC monitor.

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

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

Searcher7@mail.con2.com writes:

> Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each frame)would
> suffice for use in stop-motion photography?
>
> (I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition" for
> display on the big screen).

Well, a 2MP camera exceeds the HDTV standard resolution.

For the "big screen" you need more than that, though.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

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

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>
>>> Well, the new movie "Corpse Bride" was done with Canon 1Ds mkIIs,
>>> 16mp.
>
>> I was under the impression that it was the 8+MP 1D Mark II...not the
>> 1Ds Mark II.
>
>> For stop motion, you do NOT need anything even CLOSE to that high a
>> resolution.
>> The only reason to use more would be if you plan to do extensive
>> cropping.
>
> It depends on your output format. HDTV is only 1920x10800 pixels, but
> if you're writing the images to 35 mm film for theatrical release,
> you'll get the best quality from images that are 4K (4096) pixels
> wide. Film recording equipment is commonly set up to handle either
> 2048 or 4096 pixels across the width of the film.
>
>> HDTV is only around 1024pixels or so.
>
> No, it's 1920 pixels wide in 1080i mode. Even 720p is 1280 pixels
> wide.
>
> Dave

I didn't have the impression he was referring to a high quality film target,
but a TV--or at best--an HDTV.

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

Skip M wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:iSLYe.24524$sx2.10856@fed1read02...
>> Skip M wrote:
>>> By george, you are right, discussion on the EOS mailing list
>>> indicated it was the 1Ds mkII, and I didn't re read the article
>>> linked below...
>>
>> Hmmm... You said the 1Ds Mark II again.
>> I was saying it was the 1D (non-s) Mark II.
>> So whatchu tryin' ta say, Skip?
>>
>>
> Nope, just trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to explain my
> incorrectness. The article indeed says 1D mkII, not the 1Ds mkII.

Doh!
I got it...

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

Searcher7@mail.con2.com writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > Searcher7@mail.con2.com writes:
> >
> > > Can anyone give me an idea of how many megapixels(for each frame)would
> > > suffice for use in stop-motion photography?
> > >
> > > (I'd like to create something along the order of "high definition" for
> > > display on the big screen).
> >
> > Well, a 2MP camera exceeds the HDTV standard resolution.
> >
> > For the "big screen" you need more than that, though.
>
> What would you consider way more than that?

Well, first, I didn't say "way more", just more.

> For "Corpse Bride" that site says that the camera would shoot 4k, but
> the images were manipulated at 2k "because that would be the final
> output of the Arri Laser".

I'm not sure I understand how the CGI people talk about resolution.
4k by what, and 2x by what? Is that the vertical resolution in 16:9
aspect ratio? So 4k means 4k x 7.1k, roughly? Or 28MP. And 2k means
2k x 3.5k, or about 7MP? (And a 4x difference is as expected since
the numbers are 2k and 4k numbers are linear resolution and the MP
numbers are area resolution, which goes as the square of linear
resolution.)

So, it sounds like the consumer digicam range neatly covers the range
of resolutions from HDTV to big-screen for stills.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

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

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:

>I'm not sure I understand how the CGI people talk about resolution.
>4k by what, and 2x by what? Is that the vertical resolution in 16:9
>aspect ratio? So 4k means 4k x 7.1k, roughly? Or 28MP. And 2k means
>2k x 3.5k, or about 7MP? (And a 4x difference is as expected since
>the numbers are 2k and 4k numbers are linear resolution and the MP
>numbers are area resolution, which goes as the square of linear
>resolution.)

2K and 4K are the long dimension of the image - the width in pixels.
The vertical pixel count depends on the aspect ratio, which varies from
film to film. But pixels are usually square, so you can calculate the
vertical height in pixels by dividing the width by the aspect ratio.
HDTV is 1.78 (16/9) while non-anamorphic film is probably 1.66 or 1.85,
or maybe 1.33 to make later transfer to video easier.

So at 1.33 aspect ratio (full frame, more or less), a 2K image is
2048x1536, while a 4K image is 4096x3072 - 3 and 12 megapixels
respectively.

>So, it sounds like the consumer digicam range neatly covers the range
>of resolutions from HDTV to big-screen for stills.

Yup.

Dave