D800 pixel count

[mjhoward]

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

The idiot factor?

 

[manaheim]

Skieur, are you working off some weird definition of "resolution" that I am unaware of? It seems like you're arguing symantecs.

12 MP x 3 = 36 MP, therefore D800 has 300% of the pixel count that a D700 has. No?

BTW, you all sorta missed that OP asked about the D90 vs the D800 ... D90 is partial frame, D800 is full. Granted with that many pixels it's almost irrelevant, but it does have an impact on the calculation in answering his/her question.

 

[KmH]

The APS-C/full frame sensor size issue was addressed early on in the thread.

 

[manaheim]

The APS-C/full frame sensor size issue was addressed early on in the thread.

I must have missed it.

 

[KmH]

Post #2.

 

[skieur]

Skieur, are you working off some weird definition of "resolution" that I am unaware of? It seems like you're arguing symantecs.

12 MP x 3 = 36 MP, therefore D800 has 300% of the pixel count that a D700 has. No? QUOTE]

Only if the photo was perfectly SQUARE which is NOT the case.

skieur

 

[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

The idiot factor?

Yup, those who talk 300% and don't realize that a photo is NOT SQUARE.

skieur

 

[APHPHOTO]

From what I understand, the more pixels the more noise at higher ISO. The two cameras have differant sensors. How can you have the same sensor with differant pixel count?
And the D800 is a full frame camera. I would either go with the D3S or the D4 because I like to shoot action.

 

[manaheim]

Skieur, are you working off some weird definition of "resolution" that I am unaware of? It seems like you're arguing symantecs.

12 MP x 3 = 36 MP, therefore D800 has 300% of the pixel count that a D700 has. No? QUOTE]

Only if the photo was perfectly SQUARE which is NOT the case.

skieur

Skieur, that makes absolutely no sense. The shape of the image has nothing to do with the number of pixels or the multiple of same.

36MP is three times as many pixels as 12MP, period.

Wait... Are you trying to refer to how a 3x gain in pixels does not make the dimensions 3x as large? Like shown on this chart?

Design215 megapixels comparison and maximum print size charts

If so, ok... but that wasn't really clear from what I read of your posts.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

top~

 

[djacobox372]

Skieur, are you working off some weird definition of "resolution" that I am unaware of? It seems like you're arguing symantecs.

12 MP x 3 = 36 MP, therefore D800 has 300% of the pixel count that a D700 has. No?

BTW, you all sorta missed that OP asked about the D90 vs the D800 ... D90 is partial frame, D800 is full. Granted with that many pixels it's almost irrelevant, but it does have an impact on the calculation in answering his/her question.

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.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Yes.

Resloution is 300% of what a D700 will be. .

I don't thing so! Where did you come up with that?

Oh, I see, you are NOT aware that 2X the megapixels only means a 20% improvement in resolution, so 3X the megapixels does NOT equal anywhere close to a 300% improvement in resolution.

skieur

Where did you come up with that? The D700 indeed has 3 times lower resolution, though the real resolution will be determined by the AA filters and lenses. Don't mislead others with your own out-of-no-where-baseless statement.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

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

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.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

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

Resolution cannot be enhanced if there is no contrast. That's why there's so many lines on the MTF chart. Read up before arguing/misleading others.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

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

The idiot factor?

Yup, those who talk 300% and don't realize that a photo is NOT SQUARE.

skieur

Ah, smart boy. Aspect ratio have been kept at 3:2 for ages. So 300% of each side 3:2 = 9:6 which equals to 3:2. As long as the aspect ratio is kept the the same, the increase in resolution or linear resolution of will be the same.