Hi,
I have been out of the Airliners.net loop for a while now.
Any cameras I have are just not up to job regarding quality.
Can anyone tell me what is the minimum pixel requirement
now as my last camera I was using was only 10 million pixels.Thinking about buying a Canon 700d or 750d.
Many thanks
Andy
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Minimum pixel quality
Hi Andy,
There are no pixel requirements regarding the MP of a camera. The only limitations we have are that of the final image size. You can find those minimum and maximum sizes here: https://www.airliners.net/photo-upload/upload
There are no pixel requirements regarding the MP of a camera. The only limitations we have are that of the final image size. You can find those minimum and maximum sizes here: https://www.airliners.net/photo-upload/upload
Re: Minimum pixel quality
10mp is still more than enough, since most of the (edited) images you see here aren't even 1mp!
Don't get caught up in megapixels - above about 6mp, it's pretty irrelevant unless you're putting photos on the sides of skyscrapers!
Don't get caught up in megapixels - above about 6mp, it's pretty irrelevant unless you're putting photos on the sides of skyscrapers!
Re: Minimum pixel quality
Thanks a lot.
All of a sudden my acceptance ratio dropped badly a few years ago and a lot of the rejections were because of quality and even fairly recent photos were rejected for same reason even though I have used exactly the same procedures time after time which got me thinking maybe it was time to upgrade.But thanks for the reply.
All of a sudden my acceptance ratio dropped badly a few years ago and a lot of the rejections were because of quality and even fairly recent photos were rejected for same reason even though I have used exactly the same procedures time after time which got me thinking maybe it was time to upgrade.But thanks for the reply.
Re: Minimum pixel quality
Once an image is resized to, say, 1024 pixels, it's irrelevant what the original file's resolution was. a 1024 image can only ever be a 1024 image, regardless of what equipment was used to capture it.
It's easy to blame your gear but in reality it's likely you either did something wrong or the site's standards got higher.
It's easy to blame your gear but in reality it's likely you either did something wrong or the site's standards got higher.
-
- Miguel1982
- Posts: 214
- Joined:
Re: Minimum pixel quality
I think that the original size is not irrelevant, at least not in all cases. A photo that is reduced from 1200px to 1024 will generally show less quality than another that is reduced from 3000px to 1024. I do also think that once you pass a certain threshold, the quality differences are less noticeable. So reducing 4000px to 1024 will not be that different to reducing from 3000 to 1024.
But then at some point it might be even the other way around. Reducing an image taken with any of the really high megapixel camera (those Nikons with 42MP, or Canons with 50MP) from, say, 7000px to 1024, will look hugely compressed. Jaggies will appear everywhere even without sharpening. On the other hand, reducing from 7000 to 1600px might lead to a much better results.
My two cents.
But then at some point it might be even the other way around. Reducing an image taken with any of the really high megapixel camera (those Nikons with 42MP, or Canons with 50MP) from, say, 7000px to 1024, will look hugely compressed. Jaggies will appear everywhere even without sharpening. On the other hand, reducing from 7000 to 1600px might lead to a much better results.
My two cents.
Re: Minimum pixel quality
Miguel1982 wrote:I think that the original size is not irrelevant, at least not in all cases. A photo that is reduced from 1200px to 1024 will generally show less quality than another that is reduced from 3000px to 1024. I do also think that once you pass a certain threshold, the quality differences are less noticeable. So reducing 4000px to 1024 will not be that different to reducing from 3000 to 1024.
Agreed.
More MP can also allow you to crop in without losing as much quality (for those of us who can't afford 800mm lenses).
That said, for A.net requirements, 10 MP should be just fine.
Re: Minimum pixel quality
The more mp the better for cropping is kinda true, to a point. If the detail isn't there to begin with (due to lack of zoom) no amount of cropping will bring it back. Are more mp beneficial under the circumstances? Likely. Will they truly allow you to get a better crop than using the right lens for the job? Debatable, since higher mp cameras produce inherently softer images (or rather, lenses on higher mp bodies do).
A typical argument in Canon circles is the one suggesting a 70-200L is better at 200mm and with a crop than some 70-300s at 300mm. It depends on the lens, the photographer, his editing skills and the individual image.
If you need 300mm, buy a quality lens that delivers at 300mm. Nothing even comes close to having the right tool for the job.
A typical argument in Canon circles is the one suggesting a 70-200L is better at 200mm and with a crop than some 70-300s at 300mm. It depends on the lens, the photographer, his editing skills and the individual image.
If you need 300mm, buy a quality lens that delivers at 300mm. Nothing even comes close to having the right tool for the job.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests