Skip to Content

Relations between Kb and Pixels

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment
User avatar
Josh of the Bushveld
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1510
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: Johannesburg - too far from the closest Sanpark

Re: Relations between Kb and Pixels

Unread post by Josh of the Bushveld » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:04 pm

Yes, white balance is one of the major things one can correct if shot in RAW, that can't be corrected in a JPEG.
The 'mite formerly known as joshilewis

FGASA Level 1 Guide

Glen Reenen TR

15-18 June: Berg-en-dal

User avatar
Kicker Cat
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Relations between Kb and Pixels

Unread post by Kicker Cat » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:18 am

Hi Guys,

For what it's worth - you may well find the answer to this question on one of the Adobe forums - somewhere at www.adobe.com There are some real wizards there and the answers nearly always make sense

Raw is the way to go but you have to commit the time to process into viewable pics

User avatar
Klystron
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:42 am
Location: Ballito, KZN, RSA

Re: Relations between Kb and Pixels

Unread post by Klystron » Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:34 pm

Hi Guys,
I would like to add my 2 cents worth on the matter of pixels in pictures.
A pixel is an abbreviation for Picture Element and is the smallest single bit of colour information that can be displayed by the device in question. In a TV set (the older type with a tube that required warming up) you can see these pixels as a group of three dots or on a Sony Trinitron, three vertical bars, one for each of Red, Blue and Green.

The CCD in a camera is similar except of course for the number of pixels. A TV (not HD) has 640 x 480 pixels (307200) whereas my Canon has 3888 in the horizontal plane and a total of about 10 000 000 (10M). Each of these pixels would have a number of bits allocated to them to represent the brightness of the light on that pixel as discussed earlier in the thread. Normally this would be at least 10^12 (1 followed by 12 zeros) or, as normally stated 12 bits. The amount of information to be stored in this example would be 10M x 12 bits. Most computer systems tend to use 8 bits per byte meaning that an uncompressed picture would be 120megabits divided by 8 giving 15 Megabytes of data. In this case it would not matter if the picture was black, white or any colour in between.

Using a compression algorithm such as JPEG will reduce this considerably with the amount depending on the detail of the picture. A picture with large areas of the same colour would compress much more than one with very small areas of different colours.

I hope this helps a bit.

Fransmargate
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:19 pm

IQ and MP

Unread post by Fransmargate » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:50 am

Hi all camera experts

I have a Canon 40D with a 100-400 lens which I use in Kruger. I enjoy taking photos of birds and if they are far away I have to crop the image quite a bit - I then seem to lose quite a bit of IQ. My camera, as you all know, has just over 10 MP.

My question now is : If I use a Canon camera body with 18 MP ( 60D or 7D) and take exactly the same photo as with my 40D and crop it the same will my IQ be so much better that I as a novice can immediately spot the differance?

I have somewhere read that the important thing is high quality lenses and that the body is not as important as the lense.
Please help : I am confused : :(

Frans

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 14520
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Re: IQ and MP

Unread post by DuQues » Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:02 am

It is a bit of a question as there is more in play between those cameras. It is not just MP, but dynamic range as well.
The lens is the deciding factor mostly, but not entirely.
If you have a look at the gallery linked in my signature you will find many photos taken with the 7D & 100-400 combo. The ones in Kruger 2010 have been made with a 1D mark III, which is also a 10 MP camera.
All the photos carry EXIF information, so you can see what settings and camera I used.

And you do have more focuspoints with those cameras, so the rate of keepers goes up by a mile.
Not posting much here anymore, but the photo's you can follow here There is plenty there.

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

JimS
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:21 am
Location: johannesburg

Re: IQ and MP

Unread post by JimS » Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:38 am

Hi

An interesting question. I shoot with 50D and a 7D, but have never used a 40D. I have found the 7D to produce slightly sharper images than the 50D using the same lens. This however could be because the 7D has a far better AF than the 50D. I have used a 100 - 400 for the last 12 years and found it a very versatile lens but with a few caveats, in my opinion. At 400 the image is softer than at 300, and when shooting distant objects, say over 15 metres the image also is softer than closer objects. The lens also hates any type of filter.

I also use a 400mm 5.6 prime lens which is very sharp at any distance, it is faster focusing than the 100 - 400 and is my standard lens for birds in flight. It may be worth you renting this lens for a few days and comparing the quality rather than buying a new camera. The lens does not have IS but I have not really found this to be a big problem. It does not have close focus so I borrow my wifes 70 - 200 for objects closer than 3 metres.

I also use a 500 4.0 which is incredible for image quality but is not a carry around lens. I think the lens makes the big difference not so much the camera.

Jim


Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Webcam Highlights

Addo
Submitted by Pjw at 14:39:37
orpen
Submitted by Anonymous at 17:56:48
satara
Submitted by Pjw at 14:39:55
nossob
Submitted by Mischief at 17:16:50