1 3 megapixels what resolution. How many megapixels does it take to make good photos? There is a choice of different configurations

© 2015 site

It is noteworthy that even a slight increase in linear resolution is accompanied by a significant increase in the number of megapixels. This is similar to calculating area. To double the number of megapixels, it is enough to increase the linear resolution by 41%, and doubling the linear resolution leads to a fourfold increase in the number of megapixels. It is for this insidious property that megapixels are so dearly loved by marketers, since it allows them to present very moderate progress as something revolutionary.

In fact, a twofold increase in the number of megapixels is not a revolution at all, it is just the minimum after which the increase in detail becomes noticeable for most people, and only if the detail was limited solely by the number of pixels, and not at all by lens aberrations or misses focusing, camera vibration and poor editing. Moreover, the contribution of the matrix resolution to the overall sharpness of the image rapidly decreases as the number of megapixels increases. Up to 10 megapixels, this contribution is very significant, from 10 to 20 megapixels it is no longer so significant, and with a resolution above 20 megapixels, the quality of the optics and the skill of the photographer unconditionally come to the fore.

Is excess megapixels harmful?

In general - no, it is not harmful. I just consider it necessary to emphasize that there is not much benefit from it. In my opinion, the only truly negative effect associated with an increase in resolution is a proportional increase in the volume of files, which rapidly fills memory cards, devours disk space and slows down the computer during post-processing.

It may be objected that cameras with higher resolutions are also noisier at high ISO values. This is true, but only when comparing images pixel by pixel, i.e. at 100% magnification. With an equal scale, the noise level will be approximately the same (other things being equal, of course). For example, if a picture taken with a 36-megapixel camera is reduced to 16 megapixels in Photoshop, then in terms of noise level it will practically not differ from a similar picture originally taken with a 16-megapixel camera. In this case, the reduced image may even look somewhat sharper, since reducing the image (decimation) to a certain extent neutralizes the loss of sharpness that is inevitable with Bayer interpolation.

Thus, high resolution actually allows the camera sensor to collect more information about the scene being photographed and potentially provide better detail in the photo. Another question is, will you be able to take advantage of this potential, or will it only translate into extra gigabytes occupying your hard drive?

To understand what number of megapixels will be necessary and sufficient for you, you just need to remember what end use you find for your photos? Do you view them on a computer monitor or perhaps using a digital projector? Do you print your pictures, and if so, what is the maximum print size? Do you share your pictures online? Do you subject your pictures to any processing, or are you content with what comes out of the camera?

Viewing photos on a computer monitor

The most common screen resolution among visitors to my site is 1920x1080 (Full HD), which roughly corresponds to two megapixels. For laptops, the most popular resolution is 1366x768 (WXGA), i.e. one megapixel. Rare visitors use monitors with a resolution of 2560×1440 (WQXGA), which is less than four megapixels. There are so few iMacs with Retina displays that they can be ignored.

The conclusion, it seems to me, is obvious: in most cases, 2-4 megapixels are enough to view photos on a personal computer monitor. And this is if the picture is expanded to full screen, and not huddled in a small window.

Projectors

Mass models of modern digital projectors have a resolution of 1920x1080 (Full HD) or even less, which means trying to demonstrate to the public anything more than a couple of megapixels with their help is pointless. Projectors with a resolution of 4096x2160 (4K) are simply not affordable for most photographers, but even less than nine megapixels is not that much by modern standards.

Printing photos

The resolution of a print, regardless of its size, is usually measured in dots per inch (dpi). For example, when printing at 300 dpi, there will be 300 dots per linear inch (2.54 cm), which corresponds to 118 dots per linear centimeter.

A resolution of less than 150 dpi is considered low, from 150 to 300 dpi is acceptable, and from 300 dpi and more is high. High resolution means that the individual points that make up the image are virtually indistinguishable to the naked eye. Typically, moderate-sized prints (up to A3 inclusive) are made with a resolution of exactly 300 dpi. For larger prints it is acceptable to use a lower resolution.

Much depends on the distance from which you are going to view the photo. Small cards are viewed closely and their resolution should be as high as possible. Large canvases are hung on the wall and admired while standing at some distance, and therefore even a relatively low resolution will not hurt the eye. This also applies to photo wallpapers. Huge billboards that people look at from tens of meters away can be printed at 32 dpi and they will still look good.

The table below shows how many megapixels are required to take and then print photographs at both 150 and 300 dpi resolution at various print sizes.

When was the last time you printed your photos on A3? Let me remind you that the most popular print size among amateur photographers is A6, i.e. 10×15 cm.

Internet

The Internet doesn't like big photos. Firstly, large photos take a long time to load, and secondly, most people are simply not interested in looking at the microscopic details of other people's photos. The only exception is specialized photographic forums. As for social networks, your multi-megapixel images will in any case be reduced when uploaded to the server, regardless of your consent, and the quality of decimation will not be the highest.

If you send photographs to relatives and friends by e-mail, then it is necessary to reduce them, at least for reasons of basic decency. Who wants to wait for huge files with flowers and kittens to download?

In a word, here, too, literally a couple of megapixels will be enough for you.

Of course, all this applies exclusively to amateur photography and does not apply to images intended for commercial use. It all depends on the specific situation. If the customer demands 20 megapixels at all costs – so what? – we’ll send him exactly 20 megapixels, but whether he really needs them is no longer our concern.

Image processing

When editing photographs in Adobe Photoshop or another graphics editor, some excess resolution is not only tolerable, but also highly desirable. Firstly, many SIM cards need cropping, i.e. in trimming edges, and it’s good when you have the opportunity not to save pixels. Secondly, proper image reduction is the best way to hide or at least minimize image defects such as noise, chromatic aberrations, moderate movement, interpolation artifacts, etc. In other words, a photo taken at high resolution and then downsized almost always looks better than one originally taken at low resolution.

However, it should be noted that the resolution of modern cameras is so high that there is almost always a supply of megapixels that can be sacrificed when editing.

Conclusion

You and I have talked for too long about something that shouldn’t be talked about at all. Let us finally sum up the results.

To satisfy the needs of the vast majority of amateur photographers, ten megapixels will be enough, although even this number seems somewhat excessive. It's rare that an enthusiast will be able to fully realize the potential of twenty megapixels, but such people usually know what they want. Those photographers who may objectively need higher resolution, and who know how to handle it, are unlikely to read this article.

Considering the fact that the resolution of more or less serious cameras today averages about two dozen megapixels and continues to grow, I consider further discussions on this topic simply unnecessary. The number of megapixels is no longer a parameter that you should seriously pay attention to when choosing a camera.

Thank you for your attention!

Vasily A.

Post scriptum

If you found the article useful and informative, you can kindly support the project by making a contribution to its development. If you didn’t like the article, but you have thoughts on how to make it better, your criticism will be accepted with no less gratitude.

Please remember that this article is subject to copyright. Reprinting and quoting are permissible provided there is a valid link to the source, and the text used must not be distorted or modified in any way.

Modern digital security cameras provide resolution measured in millions of pixels per square inch of image, i.e. megapixels.

Such high resolution is also provided by HD video cameras that use coaxial cables to transmit uncompressed video streams.

The 1.3 megapixel resolution is the lowest in the megapixel range and is 1280x1024 pixels.

Among the advantages of megapixel resolution that simple analogue cannot provide:

• obtaining images with high detail while maintaining the required viewing area;
• the ability to enlarge images of small objects in order to identify them;
• high speed of image formation;
• ability to customize display formats – 4:3 or 16:9.

1.3 MP: IP or HD-SDI?

However, a higher resolution of the generated video implies a significantly larger volume and the need to store huge data archives. Network video cameras are more preferable in this case.

When processing a video stream, the IP camera processor compresses video data using M-JPEG, MPEG-4 and the most advanced H.264 compression codecs. They help to significantly reduce the load on the network and save disk space intended for storing video data.

Network camera support for PoE technology allows you to use fewer cables when creating a system, because Receiving power and transmitting the signal occurs over the same twisted pair cable via Ethernet.

News

Select year: Select month:

In Moscow, 3MP cameras are in demand both among commercial companies that require the protection of retail facilities, sensitive places, and high-traffic institutions, as well as among private buyers. 3 megapixel video cameras are purchased for street monitoring, security of parking lots, garages, summer cottages, and work as part of a powerful video surveillance system.

Widespread demand is also facilitated by increasingly affordable prices for cameras with a resolution of 3 megapixels. A particularly large selection of configurations and prices can be found in the online store. It’s easy to buy a 3-3.2 MP video surveillance camera on it, at a price of 2,000 rubles with fast delivery directly to the address specified in the order.

There is a choice of different configurations:

• CCTV camera with 3 MP resolution;
• 3 USB camera;
• camera 3.2 megapixels

and other options are available right now at the best possible price. In order for the device to fully meet all the requirements for quality, safety and performance, you need to evaluate the technical characteristics when choosing.

Here is a sample list of them:

• Shooting angle.
• Possibility of manual, remote control of the lens position, automatic rotation of the lens towards a detected moving object.
• The presence of night illumination provides normal shooting without any additional lighting.
• Manufacturing materials, device strength, protection from moisture, dust, mechanical damage, vandalism.
• Possibility of remote connection to the broadcast via the Internet, remote control of functions and settings.
• The method of installing the camera on site, the ability to install and connect independently without the help of specialists, following the instructions.
• Exact dimensions and weight of the device without packaging.

All important information is indicated on the store's website. There are also reviews from other buyers, from which we can draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of the selected 3 MP camera model in similar conditions.

Artem Kashkanov, 2016

Since the advent of digital photographic equipment, there has been a kind of “megapixel race” between different manufacturers, when a new camera model invariably receives a matrix of higher and higher resolution. The pace of this race changes from year to year - for quite a long time the “vertical” limit for cropped DSLRs was 16-18 megapixels, but then once again some innovations were introduced into production and the resolution of cropped cameras approaches the 25 megapixel mark.

To begin with, let us remember that pixel- this is a basic element, a point, one of those from which a digital image is formed. This element is discrete and indivisible - there are no such concepts as “millipixel” or 0.5 pixels :) But there is a concept megapixel, which means an array of pixels in the amount of 1,000,000 pieces. For example, an image measuring 1000*1000 pixels has a resolution of exactly 1 megapixel. The resolution of the matrices of most cameras has long exceeded the 15 megapixel mark. What did it give? When the resolution of digital cameras was 2-3 megapixels, every extra megapixel was a really serious advantage. Now we are observing a paradoxical situation - the declared resolution of the matrices of amateur DSLRs has become such that it makes it possible to make prints of acceptable quality in almost A1 format! While most amateur photographers rarely print photos larger than 20 by 30 cm, 3-4 megapixels are enough for this.

Is it worth replacing an old camera with one of the same functionality, but with “more megapixels?”

Let's take two cameras as an example - the “simple” amateur Canon EOS 1100D and the “advanced” Canon EOS 700D. The first has a matrix resolution of “only” 12 megapixels, the second has “as much as” 18 megapixels. The difference is 1.5 times. The first thought that many amateur photographers have is something like this - “By changing the 1100D to 700D, I will get 1.5 times better detail! Now absolutely all the nuances will be visible in the photographs - I missed this so much with my old camera!” This installation is actively supported by advertisers. An amateur photographer who has convinced himself that he absolutely needs a new camera breaks his piggy bank and goes to the store.

Let's take a calculator and calculate what the actual increase in photo resolution will be when moving from 12 to 18 megapixels. The 18-megapixel sensor of the same 700D produces an image with a width of 5184 pixels, while the maximum image width of the 12-megapixel 1100D is 4272 pixels (data taken from the technical specifications of the camera). Divide 5184 by 4272 and get a difference of only 21%. That is, with an increase in matrix resolution by 1.5 times, the photograph increases in size by only 1.21 times. If you depict this graphically, you get the following comparison.

The difference is surprisingly small! It turns out that the differences between 12 and 18 megapixels are not so significant. Conclusion - rumors about the significance of megapixel growth are greatly exaggerated. Going from a 12- to 18-megapixel device (or from 18 to 24-megapixel) only in the hope of getting a significant increase in detail in photos is falling into the trap of marketers.

An increase in megapixels in some cases reduces sharpness even when using good optics!

It would seem that this generally looks like nonsense! However, let’s not rush to conclusions... It is logical that as megapixels increase while maintaining the size of the sensor, the area of ​​each individual pixel decreases. You may know that reducing the pixel area leads to a decrease in its real sensitivity, and, consequently, to an increase in the noise level (purely theoretically). However, thanks to the constant improvement of technologies and signal processing algorithms, new matrices, even despite a noticeable reduction in pixel area, have a very low noise level. But danger may lurk on a completely different side...

I have already talked about such a thing as diffraction. Without going into details, let me remind you that this is the property of a wave to bend around an obstacle, slightly changing its direction. When a beam of light passes through a narrow hole, this beam has the property of being sprayed, as it were, like a spray (may physicists forgive me for such a comparison:)

In our case, the aperture (diaphragm hole) acts as a hole. The tighter the diaphragm is clamped, the greater the angle at which the spray is “sprayed.” As a result, the “perfectly clear” point after passing through the aperture turns into a blurry speck. The smaller the aperture diameter, the greater the blur. Now let’s add a small piece of the matrix with pixels to this picture and try to roughly imagine what this “perfectly clear” point in the photograph will look like...

Naturally, the illustrations given do not pretend to be absolutely accurate; many nuances are not taken into account - at least the fact that when an image is formed, neighboring pixels are interpolated and much more. The point is to show that as the pixel area decreases, the working range of aperture numbers decreases. If the matrix has a very high resolution, you should not clamp the lens aperture too hard, as this will lead to the appearance of diffraction blur. Matrices with a small number of megapixels allow you to clamp the aperture almost to f/22 and there is no significant blurring.

Did you buy a modern carcass? Make sure you have good optics!

The matrix resolution of most modern amateur cameras with interchangeable lenses is between 16 and 24 megapixels. Over time, this range will inevitably shift towards larger values. As a rule, the optics that come with the camera are also improved. Modern kit lenses, although they have significantly improved quality, are still “compromise” options. Most often, they are not able to draw a picture in all the nuances to capture it on a 24-megapixel matrix (or they are capable, but in a very narrow range of settings, for example, only in the range of 28-35 mm with aperture 8). If you are looking for an uncompromising option, you will need high-quality and therefore expensive optics. The cost of a lens that is similar to a kit lens in functionality, but has better resolution, is several times higher than the cost of a kit lens:

Widget from SocialMart

By the way, it is not a fact that the “advanced” version will be guaranteed to “draw” the picture - perhaps the lens was designed at a time when matrices with such resolutions were not known. For the same reason, it is not recommended to use kit lenses from very old cameras. I had experience using an old kit lens from Canon EOS 300D (6 megapixels) on a 550D (18 megapixels) - I once borrowed it from a friend to play with for the evening. The old 18-55 did not shine with picture quality at 300D, but at 550D it simply killed it on the spot! It seemed like there was no sharpness anywhere.

By the way...

Fixes(i.e. fixed focal length lenses) are an excellent alternative to budget zooms. They will be very useful if a kit lens does not provide the desired detail, but there is no extra $1000-1500 to buy a “cool” lens. The most popular primes are “fifty kopecks” (50 mm), or rather their younger versions with f/1.8 aperture. At a cost comparable to a kit lens, they significantly surpass it in image quality, but have less versatility - you have to pay for everything.

A pocket point-and-shoot camera with 20 megapixels is beyond insanity!

As sad as it is, there will soon be no other choice. Most compact cameras have a matrix measuring 1/2.3", that is, approximately 6 * 4.5 mm - 4 times smaller than that of a “cropped” camera and 6 times smaller than that of a full-frame camera. The resolution is, as a rule, no less 20 megapixels It's easy to imagine how absurdly small each pixel is. The miniature point-and-shoot lens has a very small aperture, which increases diffraction blur. As a result, the picture looks very "soft" when viewed at 100% zoom.

On the left is a 100% crop taken with a 16-megapixel Sony TX10 point-and-shoot camera with a 1/2.3" matrix. On the right, for comparison, is a similar view taken on a DSLR. Please note that the picture from the point-and-shoot camera looks very dirty - there is no real detail, there is only software an attempt to emphasize the contours. And this is in the center of the frame! At the edges of the frame, detail decreases even more and often looks like a misunderstanding:

And this is how most modern compact point-and-shoot cameras shoot. For example, here, which shows 100% crops from a Panasonic DMC-SZ1 camera (closer to the end of the article). The question arises: why install matrices with such a high resolution in such devices? These megapixels have no practical value, but from a marketing point of view they sound very convincing - in a camera the size of a matchbox there are as many as 20 megapixels.

So how many megapixels should a camera have?

Let's return to the main issue that the article is devoted to. It all depends on the type of camera, the size of the matrix and the capabilities of the optics. Personally, I think a reasonable number of megapixels is:

• For devices with interchangeable optics with a kit lens - about 12 megapixels. With a higher matrix resolution, the “working” range of focal lengths and apertures narrows. If you want to get the most detailed image, try not to shoot at “extreme” focal lengths, set the aperture to 8.
• For devices with interchangeable lenses with primes or professional zooms, there is no such obvious limitation, the main thing is that the lens can draw all these megapixels. The absence of a low-pass filter provides a certain advantage, but there are a number of disadvantages - we’ll talk about them below. and even as megapixels increase, the maximum “working” aperture number decreases. Try not to shoot under normal conditions with an aperture larger than 11-13 - there will be a noticeable decrease in sharpness due to diffraction blur.
• For soap dishes with a matrix of 1/1.7" and smaller, a reasonable limit is 10-12 megapixels. Anything more is a marketing ploy that has nothing to do with detail.

What matrix characteristics are more important than the number of megapixels?

Firstly, the physical size of the matrix. As already written above, 20 megapixels on a 1/2.3" matrix and 20 megapixels APS-C or FF are completely different things. Large matrices Always provide better color reproduction, wider dynamic range and richer hues than smaller ones.

Secondly, the structure of the matrix plays a role. The vast majority of modern cameras have a Bayer matrix with an anti-aliasing low-pass filter. One image pixel is formed by interpolating a group of 2*2 matrix pixels (2 green, 1 red, 1 blue). The low-pass filter slightly blurs the image, but prevents the appearance of moire on objects with a regular repeating pattern (for example, fabric). Recently, there has been a tendency to abandon the low-pass filter in Bayer matrices. Moire is suppressed by the camera's built-in software.

It is also worth noting X-Trans matrices (used in Fujifilm cameras), which, compared to the buyer, have a more “chaotic” structure of the arrangement of RGB color sensors; they use groups of 6 * 6 pixels of the matrix for interpolation - this eliminates the formation of moire and allows you to do without a low-pass filter, which, as mentioned above, improves image detail.

In the end, the novelty of the technology and its class play a role. No matter how perfect the camera’s matrix is, an equally important role is played by the processor and in-camera software that processes the signal received from the matrix. As a rule, expensive high-end equipment with the same filling (matrix-processor) as amateur cameras gives better picture quality - a slightly larger dynamic range, a slightly higher operating ISO. The manufacturer does not disclose the reasons for these differences, but it is easy to guess that the main reason is the in-camera software. It often happens that the younger and older models have the same matrices, but the picture quality is different. This is explained by the fact that cheap models process the signal using a more stripped-down algorithm, so they are inferior in picture quality to older models. But this loss is really noticeable only in difficult lighting conditions, for example, when shooting at ultra-high ISO.

By the number of megapixels you can accurately determine the resolution. To do this, look at the table below. And then we’ll figure out what’s what.

• One megapixel contains one million pixels. In this case, the resolution of the image is determined solely by the number of pixels of which it consists.
• As a rule, as the resolution increases, the detail of the picture also increases. However, additional factors such as noise reduction, as well as light sensitivity settings and focusing also have an impact here. A large number of megapixels in itself does not guarantee high image detail.
• In addition, amateur photographers in most cases cannot reap additional dividends from ultra-high resolutions. Modern Full-HD monitors, for example, offer a resolution of only 1920x1080 (that is, a little more than 2 megapixels). Individual details here will become visible only when you zoom in on the image.
• For those who want to print their photos, on the contrary, a larger number of megapixels can be very useful. In this case, you have room to crop photos and print certain parts of them without serious losses in quality.

For an amateur photographer: 7 megapixels is enough

Canon PowerShot A710 IS with 7 megapixels

Amateur photographers should also be able to edit their work without much hassle. This is why you should consider a small "buffer". For printing, 5 megapixels will be enough. Therefore, if you give preference to 7 megapixels, you can’t go wrong.

• This will allow you to shoot photos at approximately 3072 x 2304 pixels. This way, you'll have plenty of wiggle room to crop out unwanted objects at the edges of the frame or zoom in on certain parts of the image. In this case, there should not be a noticeable deterioration in picture quality.
• With this resolution, you can even print your photos without any problems: prints in postcard format (10x15 cm) or even the size of an A4 sheet will look quite clear. Only when printing posters (for example, A3 size) may a slight blur be observed.
• With an “average” resolution of 7 megapixels, the files with each individual image will be of medium size: in uncompressed form, the image will take about 20 MB on the memory card. In JPEG format, one photo will require only 4 MB of disk space. For comparison: with a resolution of 12 megapixels, an uncompressed photo already “weighs” 35 MB.
• The cost of the corresponding cameras starts from 4 thousand rubles.

For those who love details: 12 megapixels and more

Canon Ixus 255 HS with 12 megapixels

Those who really want to capture every detail of the world around them may well resort to using a camera with a large number of megapixels:

• Starting from 12 megapixels, you can scale the resulting images over a fairly wide range without loss of quality. Nice fun, but ultimately unused for most images.
• Additionally, here you will have to pay more attention to other factors such as noise reduction or focusing speed. You will find out which cameras combine these qualities well from our rating.
• Due to the high cost of the cameras involved, you should first think carefully - do you really need a large number of megapixels? Cameras with a resolution of 20 megapixels or more, even among professional photographers, do not have a special priority.