# Nikon Vs. Canon, the gloves are off

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 27, 2007.

1. ### Chris DownGuest

Ooops Dave

I nearly made that mistake reading quickly, but then I realised that the OP
was comparing pixel count to printed area and at a given dpi that is a
direct ratio.

The linear lengths of the sides will indeen increase by a factor of about
1.58 but the print area goes up by a factor of 2.5... my only argument with
the OP is that 2.5 is quite a long way from 3 when talking factors.

Chris Down, Aug 30, 2007

2. ### JoelGuest

It's interesting calculation! How about sending me \$20 then I will send
you back \$8 + \$1.58 (or I will round it up to \$2 <bg>). I just don't know
how you come up with 1.58 gain .. and how about a very simple math.

Lets say

8mp = 100%,
20mp = X

or the fomular should be

8MP/100% = 20MP/X

So

X = 100% x 20MP/8MP

X = 250%

---- and even if you change "Percentage" to "Gain" it still come up with
"250x Gain"

Joel, Aug 30, 2007

3. ### KoekjeGuest

Joel enlightened us with:
I can only get close. He's talking about "gain", which is the increase
in print area, hence it's 12mp. The gain, expressed in the factor of
the original is thus 12 / 8 = 1.5. Not my style of calculation, but
it's the only way I could get close. I'm baffled about that 0.08
though.

Koekje

Koekje, Aug 30, 2007
4. ### rayGuest

area is 2.5 - 20/8 = 2.5. hor and vert res factors would be about 1.58 -
square root of 2.5 = 1.58......

ray, Aug 30, 2007
5. ### DBLEXPOSUREGuest

Correct, it is 2.5, (almost 3)... No matter how you cut it, it is an
increase in print area of 2.5X assuming all other things remain equal.

DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 30, 2007
6. ### No OneGuest

No, but perhaps you can find a monkey that will read to you.

No One, Aug 31, 2007
7. ### No OneGuest

And some of those run about \$1,000 per MP.

No One, Aug 31, 2007
8. ### No OneGuest

I believe you need to square that number.

No One, Aug 31, 2007
9. ### dj_nmeGuest

The thing is that most people don't think in terms of area, but rather
in terms of linear size (ie: "It's *this* much longer or wider").
Which is why ray pointed out the linear increase is only 1.58x and not 2.5x.

dj_nme, Aug 31, 2007
10. ### JoelGuest

I can't get the picture, but if it's 8mp vs 12mp then you are right it
should be 150% (or 1.5).

Joel, Aug 31, 2007
11. ### dj_nmeGuest

sqrt 12 / sqrt 8 = 1.58
Getting a simple number for the length of the diagonal in pixels by
pretending the sensor is square and then finding the square root of the
resolution and then divding the bigger by the smaller to find the
increase in linear resolution.

dj_nme, Aug 31, 2007
12. ### DBLEXPOSUREGuest

They do, That's why it is nice to see Canon with a "little" more of a
reasonable price.

DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 31, 2007
13. ### DBLEXPOSUREGuest

We are talking area, it is 20/8=2.5 Okay, 2 and one half of the 8MP image
would be needed to fill the image created by the 20Mp rig. Therfore it it s
2.5 times larger in area.

I don't see why that is so hard to grasp.

DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 31, 2007
14. ### DBLEXPOSUREGuest

I understand that, But really, It is the "area" that is important. When
you buy paint, you don't only think about how long the wall is, You need
to know how much area you need to cover.

When you print, it will take 2.5 times more ink to fill that 20Mp image...

Typically photographs are near 4X3,(or another common aspect ratio), so if
you think about width, the height is assumed.

If we are going to talk about linear dimensions, maybe we should think about
talking about the diagonal length? The TV biz got away with that one for

DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 31, 2007
15. ### KoekjeGuest

Joel enlightened us with:
You can express the relationship between two numbers in percentages in
two ways:

the factor of 8mp : 20mp, or
the factor of 8mp : the difference between 8mp and 20mp.

Koekje

Koekje, Aug 31, 2007
16. ### KoekjeGuest

Joel enlightened us with:
Maybe this helps: an *increase* of 150% results in a resulting print
area of 250% the original.

If you increase 10 by 10%, you get 11. If you increase 8 by 150% you
get 20.

Koekje

Koekje, Aug 31, 2007
17. ### dj_nmeGuest

Not really.
Most peolpe think of pictures as being X inches by Y inches, not as a Z
sqr inch print.
Do you ask for an 8x10inch or an 80 sqr inch photo print?
The point is that going from 8mp to 20mp will only allow the image to be
(slightly less than) 2/3 wider and taller, so it will not be a very
dramatic increase in print size.
Certainly not enough to start a holy pixel war over.

dj_nme, Aug 31, 2007
18. ### Scott WGuest

In reality that is a huge difference, a bit more then the difference
between a 8 x 12 print and a 12 x 18 print. I get a fair number of both
these sized printed and the 12 x 18 inch prints look way bigger then the
8x12 prints.

And if you make a large print, say 20x30, the 20MP image is going to
look far sharper then the 8MP one.

Scott

Scott W, Aug 31, 2007
19. ### JoelGuest

Here I can be able to see those pictures. Example each [] = 1mp

8mp = [][][][][][][][]
20mp = [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
12mp = [][][][][][][][][][][][] of 20-8=12

or

20 12 8
[][][][] [][][][] [][][][]
[][][][] [][][][] [][][][]
[][][][] [][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]

Just by looking (or counting) the [] we can see

20 = 5/5
12 = 3/5 of 20
8 = 2/5 of 20 or 2/3 of 12
__________________________________________
Just incase someone see the length I may create a shorter version with exact
same value

20 12 8
[][][][][] [][][][] [][][][]
[][][][][] [][][][] [][][][]
[][][][][] [][][][]
[][][][][]
________________________

Because we had some cropping talk in some previous talks, so I crop of of
my thought. I just can't image what some other may picture what a Pixel may
look like: circle? square? retangle?, triangle?

[][][][] [][][][] you crop HERE you get 8MP
[][][][] [][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]

[][][][]
[][][][] [][][][] you crop HERE you still get 8MP
[][][][] [][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]

[][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][] [][][][] you crop HERE you still get 8MP
[][][][] [][][][]

[][][][][]
[]
[] <=- you crop HERE it's still 8MP
[][][][][]

[][] [] crop HERE it's still 8MP
[][] []
[][] []
[][] []

Joel, Aug 31, 2007
20. ### DBLEXPOSUREGuest

Here I can be able to see those pictures. Example each [] = 1mp

8mp = [][][][][][][][]
20mp = [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
12mp = [][][][][][][][][][][][] of 20-8=12

or

20 12 8
[][][][] [][][][] [][][][]
[][][][] [][][][] [][][][]
[][][][] [][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]

Just by looking (or counting) the [] we can see

20 = 5/5
12 = 3/5 of 20
8 = 2/5 of 20 or 2/3 of 12
__________________________________________
Just incase someone see the length I may create a shorter version with exact
same value

20 12 8
[][][][][] [][][][] [][][][]
[][][][][] [][][][] [][][][]
[][][][][] [][][][]
[][][][][]
________________________

Because we had some cropping talk in some previous talks, so I crop of of
my thought. I just can't image what some other may picture what a Pixel may
look like: circle? square? retangle?, triangle?

[][][][] [][][][] you crop HERE you get 8MP
[][][][] [][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]

[][][][]
[][][][] [][][][] you crop HERE you still get 8MP
[][][][] [][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]

[][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][] [][][][] you crop HERE you still get 8MP
[][][][] [][][][]

[][][][][]
[]
[] <=- you crop HERE it's still 8MP
[][][][][]

[][] [] crop HERE it's still 8MP
[][] []
[][] []
[][] []

Nice!

DBLEXPOSURE, Sep 1, 2007