D800 pixel count

[manaheim]

That, is wrong. You should be making it clearer. The D800 has 3 times more resolution than D700. No matter what, it's still 3 times more resolution. If you're talking about linear resolution, you're still wildly wrong.

He's being obstinate.

He has a perfectly valid (if not terribly exciting) point, which is that the image isn't three times as large in terms of area, but he's chosen to confuse his point by ridiculously declaring that the camera is not three times the resolution.

 

[ph0enix]

No, it doesn't make sense. Contrast may enhance apparent resolution but if the detail is not resolved by the megapixels/lines of resolution, then there is NOTHING to enhance.

skieur

I still don't understand where you got 20%. The difference in just vertical or just horizontal resolution between the D700 and the D800 is around 73%.

I said 20% was doubling the resolution. The difference between the D700 and the D800 is tripling the resolution. Between roughly 3,000 and 4,912 it seems to come to 64% NOT 73% and certainly NOT 300%. However there is another factor involved that I have forgotten which lowers it. It may be the downside to more pixels on the same size chip, but I will see if I can find the info.

skieur

Give me a break. You only got 64% because you didn't use the accurate number of pixels for the D700 which is 2,832, not 3,000 (vertical). Excuse me for doing my homework and calculating ~73% which is a more accurate number.

I recommend gathering all the info before arguing your point. If you don't remember the facts, it's difficult to back up your claims.

 

[ph0enix]

Photos are two dimensional not one, which means in order to double resolution you need to double the amount of pixels horizontally AND vertically, so it takes 4x the pixels to double the resolution.

Also the d800 has exactly the same pixel density as the d5100 and d7000, theyre just spread over a larger sensor. The sensor is 1.5 times bigger, which equates to 1.5 times the resolution.

All the confusion comes from camera makers using area to measure pixel count and linear ratios to measure sensor size.

You're onto something here.
Interestingly enough the resolution of TVs and monitors is usually measued using the vertical and horizontal pixel counts and not megapixels which tells us that camera manufacturers came up with the most advantageous (to their cause) way of measuring camera sensor resolution. It's similar to the way hard drive manufacturers assume 1,000 bytes in a kilobyte, 1,000 kilobytes to a megabyte (an so on...) instead of using 1,024. That's why when you buy a 1TB hard drive, you always end up with less than that in terms of usable disk space.

 

[djacobox372]

That, is wrong. You should be making it clearer. The D800 has 3 times more resolution than D700. No matter what, it's still 3 times more resolution. If you're talking about linear resolution, you're still wildly wrong.

He's being obstinate.

He has a perfectly valid (if not terribly exciting) point, which is that the image isn't three times as large in terms of area, but he's chosen to confuse his point by ridiculously declaring that the camera is not three times the resolution.

Resolution = the ability to resolve detail. In imagery resolution has always been measured "resolvable" lines per inch. This is why TV's are labled 480, 720, and 1080; a 1080p television has more then double the "megapixels" as a 720p television, but it is not marketed as twice the resolution because 1080 is only 1.5 times as many lines as 720.

Think of it this way, if you took identical photos of a picket fence with a 36mp D800 and a 16mp d7000, and then measured how many pixels wide the fence posts were you would find that they would be something like 15 pixels wide on the D800 and 10 pixels wide on the D7000. That's a 50% increase in resolution, not a 300%!

Keep in mind were talking about measurement/math here, it's not a debatable point. There's only one correct definition.

 

[Derrel]

That, is wrong. You should be making it clearer. The D800 has 3 times more resolution than D700. No matter what, it's still 3 times more resolution. If you're talking about linear resolution, you're still wildly wrong.

He's being obstinate.

He has a perfectly valid (if not terribly exciting) point, which is that the image isn't three times as large in terms of area, but he's chosen to confuse his point by ridiculously declaring that the camera is not three times the resolution.

I hate to rain on your parade, but the D800's 36 megapixel sensor will NOT, I repeat will NOT, bring with it "three times the resolution". The D800 has a higher megapixel sensor than the D700, true. But the "resolution" of the D800 will NOT BE, CAN NOT be, "three times the resolution of the D700".

It does not work that way!!!! Megapixel count does not equal "resolution". If you think it does, you are sadly mistaken, and you are mis-using photographic jargon. One needs to QUADRUPLE the pixel count in order to double the resolution. Again, one must QUADRUPLE the pixel count to get double the resolution. The tripling of the pixel count from 12 to 36 million pixels is not even going to double the resolution, and so it will fall far short of offering "three times the resolution".

This principle is well-supported by virtually all imaging professionals. Here is just one of many articles that decalares that in order to double resolution, the pixel count must be QUADRUPLED.

Sensors 3

 

[manaheim]

I hate to rain on your parade, but the D800's 36 megapixel sensor will NOT, I repeat will NOT, bring with it "three times the resolution". The D800 has a higher megapixel sensor than the D700, true. But the "resolution" of the D800 will NOT BE, CAN NOT be, "three times the resolution of the D700".

It does not work that way!!!! Megapixel count does not equal "resolution". If you think it does, you are sadly mistaken, and you are mis-using photographic jargon. One needs to QUADRUPLE the pixel count in order to double the resolution. Again, one must QUADRUPLE the pixel count to get double the resolution. The tripling of the pixel count from 12 to 36 million pixels is not even going to double the resolution, and so it will fall far short of offering "three times the resolution".

This principle is well-supported by virtually all imaging professionals. Here is just one of many articles that decalares that in order to double resolution, the pixel count must be QUADRUPLED.

Sensors 3

You'll note that I said he had a valid point.

My point is that you are both making an accurate statement BUT that you are being obtuse at the same time.

You guys are talking about resolution ... The measure of sharpness as dots per inch. Other folks have said numerous times it's 36mp instead of 12! That's more overall dots to work with by a multiple of 3.

Your argument is academic. Theirs is practical. Both are correct, but you shut the other argument down by saying theirs is wrong because yours is right.

It's sort of akin to telling someone that they're wrong for saying it has four seats because it is a passenger vehicle. It's really weird.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I hate to rain on your parade, but the D800's 36 megapixel sensor will NOT, I repeat will NOT, bring with it "three times the resolution". The D800 has a higher megapixel sensor than the D700, true. But the "resolution" of the D800 will NOT BE, CAN NOT be, "three times the resolution of the D700".

It does not work that way!!!! Megapixel count does not equal "resolution". If you think it does, you are sadly mistaken, and you are mis-using photographic jargon. One needs to QUADRUPLE the pixel count in order to double the resolution. Again, one must QUADRUPLE the pixel count to get double the resolution. The tripling of the pixel count from 12 to 36 million pixels is not even going to double the resolution, and so it will fall far short of offering "three times the resolution".

This principle is well-supported by virtually all imaging professionals. Here is just one of many articles that decalares that in order to double resolution, the pixel count must be QUADRUPLED.

Sensors 3

You'll note that I said he had a valid point.

My point is that you are both making an accurate statement BUT that you are being obtuse at the same time.

You guys are talking about resolution ... The measure of sharpness as dots per inch. Other folks have said numerous times it's 36mp instead of 12! That's more overall dots to work with by a multiple of 3.

Your argument is academic. Theirs is practical. Both are correct, but you shut the other argument down by saying theirs is wrong because yours is right.

It's sort of akin to telling someone that they're wrong for saying it has four seats because it is a passenger vehicle. It's really weird.

He has a valid point about linear resolution, but 20% is not the right number. We corrected him about the 20% but he still tries to defend it - by saying a picture is not square, which is a baseless invalid point.

 

[Derrel]

I hate to rain on your parade, but the D800's 36 megapixel sensor will NOT, I repeat will NOT, bring with it "three times the resolution". The D800 has a higher megapixel sensor than the D700, true. But the "resolution" of the D800 will NOT BE, CAN NOT be, "three times the resolution of the D700".

It does not work that way!!!! Megapixel count does not equal "resolution". If you think it does, you are sadly mistaken, and you are mis-using photographic jargon. One needs to QUADRUPLE the pixel count in order to double the resolution. Again, one must QUADRUPLE the pixel count to get double the resolution. The tripling of the pixel count from 12 to 36 million pixels is not even going to double the resolution, and so it will fall far short of offering "three times the resolution".

This principle is well-supported by virtually all imaging professionals. Here is just one of many articles that decalares that in order to double resolution, the pixel count must be QUADRUPLED.

Sensors 3

You'll note that I said he had a valid point.

My point is that you are both making an accurate statement BUT that you are being obtuse at the same time.

You guys are talking about resolution ... The measure of sharpness as dots per inch. Other folks have said numerous times it's 36mp instead of 12! That's more overall dots to work with by a multiple of 3.

Your argument is academic. Theirs is practical. Both are correct, but you shut the other argument down by saying theirs is wrong because yours is right.

It's sort of akin to telling someone that they're wrong for saying it has four seats because it is a passenger vehicle. It's really weird.

Sorry, Manaheim, but "resolution" is not the same as recorded image size. Correct use of the terminology is what determines right from wrong. You, obviously, do not understand the terms you're throwing around, and calling others "obstinate" or "wrong" because YOU do not understand the language of photography is not all that amusing. You need to take some serious lessons in terminology dude. The 36MP D800 DOES NOT, Will NOT, and CAN NOT, have twice the "resolution" of the D700's 12 MP sensor. Your car and 4-seater analogy is way,way off. Your comment that 36MP versus 12 MP represents "more overall dots to work with by a multiple of 3." proves that you do not have a CLUE as to what "resolution" actually means.

We are not being "obtuse"--I cannot speak for the other poster, but I am being ACCURATE in my use of the terminology as it relates to the term resolution.Why don't you follow the link I provided, or look at the links of other experts in the imaging field? You are confusing recorded pixel dimensions with "resolution". Seriously man, you need to use the terms of photography more appropriately, and stop belittling others who have a better grasp of the subject than you do. Sorry, but stating that 36MP offers "three times the resolution" of 12 MP shows about as much understanding as the people who think that "f/16 is a big hole, and lets in a lot of light, 'cause the number is so,so high!"

 

[manaheim]

Sorry, Manaheim, but "resolution" is not the same as recorded image size. Correct use of the terminology is what determines right from wrong. You, obviously, do not understand the terms you're throwing around, and calling others "obstinate" or "wrong" because YOU do not understand the language of photography is not all that amusing. You need to take some serious lessons in terminology dude. The 36MP D800 DOES NOT, Will NOT, and CAN NOT, have twice the "resolution" of the D700's 12 MP sensor. Your car and 4-seater analogy is way,way off. Your comment that 36MP versus 12 MP represents "more overall dots to work with by a multiple of 3." proves that you do not have a CLUE as to what "resolution" actually means.

We are not being "obtuse"--I cannot speak for the other poster, but I am being ACCURATE in my use of the terminology as it relates to the term resolution.Why don't you follow the link I provided, or look at the links of other experts in the imaging field? You are confusing recorded pixel dimensions with "resolution". Seriously man, you need to use the terms of photography more appropriately, and stop belittling others who have a better grasp of the subject than you do. Sorry, but stating that 36MP offers "three times the resolution" of 12 MP shows about as much understanding as the people who think that "f/16 is a big hole, and lets in a lot of light, 'cause the number is so,so high!"

Derrel, I went and looked my terms up and researched this before I posted. You can bluster all you like but it doesn't change the facts. I'm done with this. It's completely silly.

 

[manaheim]

res·o·lu·tion
Definition of RESOLUTION

: the act or process of resolving: as a: the act of analyzing a complex notion into simpler ones b: the act of answering : solving c: the act of determining d: the passing of a voice part from a dissonant to a consonant tone or the progression of a chord from dissonance to consonance e: the separating of a chemical compound or mixture into its constituents f (1): the division of a prosodic element into its component parts (2): the substitution in Greek or Latin prosody of two short syllables for a long syllable g: the analysis of a vector into two or more vectors of which it is the sum 2 : the subsidence of a pathological state (as inflammation) 3 a: something that is resolved <made a resolution to mend my ways> b: firmness of resolve 4: a formal expression of opinion, will, or intent voted by an official body or assembled group 5: the point in a literary work at which the chief dramatic complication is worked out 6 a: the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object, closely adjacent optical images, or sources of light b: a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image <a resolution of 1200 dots per inch>


It's obviously the last bit there that's the key... part of that bit is subjective and seems not measurable. The other part is. If you have some way to measure "resolution" as defined in a manner other than dots per inch, either I've missed it or you haven't posted it.

Ok, NOW I'm done.




See resolution defined for English-language learners »