Killer Web Site of the Day: Megapixel Calculator
Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:47AM EDT
See Comments (13)
You've got a 800 x 600 pixel image file. How big can you print it out at the highest quality? And how much space will it take up as a JPEG, a RAW file, or a GIF?
All these questions are answered immediately in the Megapixel Calculator, a must-bookmark resource for anyone who frequently works with digital images.
Just click over to the site, enter your image's width and height, and you'll immediately receive a number of pieces of information: The size of the file under a variety of formats, how many of those files you could fit on a variety of memory cards of standard sizes, how much each second of video at that resolution would consume, and—the best feature on the site, if you ask me—how large you can print out the image at screen, "normal," and high resolution. (In the case of my 0.5-megapixel example, that's a mere 2.7 inches by 2.0 inches at high res, which is what I'd recommend you look at if you're considering printing any photos.)
Killer stuff, and it can be a huge help in letting you decide how to set your digital camera based on what you ultimately want to with the images you shoot. (Want to print 8 x 10-inch photos? You'll need at least 7 megapixels or more for high-res printouts.) Nothing to install, and a brain-dead-simple interface. Click the "megapixel resolution chart" link as well for easy access to this information for many common resolutions.
UPDATE: To all who dispute that you need 7MP to produce an 8x10, this is a (painfully) simple math problem: A standard 7.1MP camera produces images that are 3072 pixels wide and 2304 pixels high. At a standard printing resolution of 300 dots per inch, that makes an image that is 10.2 inches wide and 7.7 inches tall at full resolution. If you try to create an image bigger, the printer will have to interpolate and print out at lower than 300dpi. That may indeed make for a passable print depending on the quality of the printer and the shot, but most viewers will notice the difference. That said, my intention with this post was not to dredge up the megapixel debate but to point users to a source where they can do these kinds of calculations easily. I am not affiliated with the linked website.
Comments on Killer Web Site of the Day: Megapixel Calculator
Post a Comment
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
-
2 Posted by smile.kyle on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:28PM EDT Report Abuse
5MP is all you need for a 8x10 full dpi print.
-
3 Posted by tomdchi on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:15PM EDT Report Abuse
kyle, 300 dpi is NOT high res.
-
4 Posted by joelmoore14 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:38PM EDT Report Abuse
"Want to print 8 x 10-inch photos? You'll need at least 7 megapixels or more for high- res printouts." This is absolutely not true. I have a 6.1 megapixel digital SLR and I can easily print out a beautiful 20 x 30. The problem with the small camera craze is everyone is so concerned with resolution, it keeps going up while the lens quality stays the same. It does not matter if you have a 2 megapixel camera or a 10 megapixel camera, if your lens is crap all your left with is a bigger file of crap. Case in point. A couple of years ago, I finally got rid of my first digital camera. It was a 2 megapixel panasonic lumix. It had a Leica lens. That camera would shoot gorgeous pics but could really only blow them up to 5x7. The place where the amount of resolution really matters is in the photo editing world, but the article is not talking about that. I hate editing photos, so I utilize my camera so my pics come out looking good right off the camera. If they don't, then its my fault. I guess what I am trying to say is that if you want to shoot better pics you should look more at the quality and speed of the lens and not the resolution of the camera.
-
5 Posted by kristin_r_snyder on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:53PM EDT Report Abuse
joelmoore14 - it's not so much the LENS that is the problem, but the resolution is being increased and they're keeping the SENSOR - which records the digital image - the same size. Asking more and more megapixels out of the same small sensor will degrade the image quality. This is in reference to the small compacts. For digital SLR, the lens does matter, but most lenses out there (Canon, Nikor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) produce pretty good lenses. If you're into DSLRs, www.fredmiranda.com is a great site for lens reviews.
-
6 Posted by suite92005 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:47PM EDT Report Abuse
I wonder where the so called "experts" get their "knowledge"??? I have been using my Canon PowerShot G5 and FujiFilm Fine Pix S5200 for quite a while. I printed many 8"x10" pictures, cropped and not and they are wonderfully clear and professional looking. I pitty this writer for his shabby knowledge in the field of photography. Stop writing rubbish!!!
-
7 Posted by joelmoore14 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:38PM EDT Report Abuse
kristin_r_snydor, yes, your right, I get so tired of this debate though. I carry around my minolta 5d and people carry around there new little whatever and when I am asked about my resolution, many people assume that there camera takes better pics because the res is higher. The other reviews are absolutely right, don't replace your 5 meg with anything newer. Haven't seen that many people that carry around tiny cameras print 8x10's anyway... thanks for the info, will check out that web sight. Going hiking...
-
8 Posted by m_e_g_b on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:32PM EDT Report Abuse
I worked at a portrait studio for years and we used DSLRs with 6.1 mps. Know how big our largest prints were? 30" x 40". Manufacturers and ad execs are just trying to get people to think they need more megapixels - you don't. Unless you're serious about photography and think you might print photos larger than 8x10, you can stick with 4 or 5 mps. I absolutely agree with the rest of the people on here - I don't know where this propaganda about needing 7.1 mps to print a simple 8x10 came from. Well, actually, it probably came from the corporations who want you to spend that much more money on a "quality" camera with the resolution you "need." Forget it. I'll stick with my Nikon D70s and my 6.1 megapixels.
-
9 Posted by boberts4410 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:10PM EDT Report Abuse
Hey CHRISTOPHER NULL, I think you should either defend yourself here or apologize.
-
10 Posted by tjbusmc1973 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:12PM EDT Report Abuse
300 dpi is more than the human eye can perceive. Any higher detail than that is a waste. Additionally, most professional quality photfinishing labs don't use a printer that has anything to do with 'dpi'. Photoreactive paper run through a chemical processor doesn't have anything to do with a inkjet printer's dpi. I can print a high-quality, suitable for framing, indistinguishable from ISO 200 film, 8x12 print from a 4 MP image, so long as the lens & sensor that captured the image was of good quality.
1 Posted by kristin_r_snyder on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:53PM EDT Report Abuse
"(Want to print 8 x 10-inch photos? You'll need at least 7 megapixels or more for high-res printouts.)" Unfortunately, most of the little digital compact cameras come with this resolution - and higher. But. At a cost that most consumers don't realize. That 10 megapixel point-and-shoot? Has the same size small sensor as it's 7, 5 megapixel predecessor. The cost to consumers? Sure, you can make an 8x10 print. But there is a lot more noticeable noise and grain since you're asking that many megapixels out of such a small sensor.