Megapixel - what is it and how many should there be? Megapixels in cameras are not so important, and here's why Is it worth replacing an old camera with the same functions, but “more megapixel?”

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 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) - great alternative 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). IN Lately There is 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 hardware (matrix-processor) as amateur cameras provides 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 intracameral 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 conditions illumination, for example, when shooting at ultra-high ISO.

Lagging behind the company at the initial stage Sony Ericsson In introducing phones with a strong photographic component, Nokia has been very active in catching up the gap. In 2005, the company's products could not boast of innovation in this area, which created a certain niche for competitors. In 2006, we are seeing practical parity, and a number of Nokia developments are already taking the company ahead in the “arms race.” The flagship of phones with a photographic component is the Nokia N73 model, and not the one announced simultaneously with it Nokia phone N93. Why exactly the model with the junior index has become the flagship, you will find out after reading this review. Let me make a reservation that we will start with an unusual structure of the material, namely, we will talk about the camera and only then move on to other aspects of the phone.

It is no secret that Sony Ericsson, due to its small market share at the time of its appearance, was forced to become a revolutionary and move the market from a dead point. The camera on the phone was perceived solely as an unnecessary add-on that has no practical value and will not have it in the foreseeable future. A number of conservative users even declared themselves modern-day Luddites and advocated a complete abolition of the use of cameras. The strongest argument was the better quality of existing digital cameras, unnecessary overpayment for a function, and the quality of implementation, which was not very good. Having successful experience in the Japanese market, where hybrid devices are popular and widespread, Sony Ericsson gave impetus to the development of the market, today we see the consequences of this step. I'm afraid to cause another wrath from fans of this or that company, but it was Sony Ericsson who first used dual mode in Europe, that is, taking photographs in a horizontal position, placing function keys on the sides and repeating the interface of digital devices. That is, he suggested that users not relearn, but use existing experience. At first this made me smile, given the quality of the cameras, but today this is the approach most manufacturers use.

Nokia company was no exception and adopted the best of Sony Ericsson's experience. I’ll make a special curtsey to the die-hard fans: learning from a competitor and borrowing successful ideas is normal, if the company ignores them, then this is where the problems begin. Borrowing does not mean direct copying and creation of one hundred percent similar products using its own element base; this is not the Nokia way, unlike one of the companies that is now losing the market at a catastrophic speed.

What conclusions were made by Nokia based on the experience of both its own and other people’s sales and products?

• A dual camera-phone interface is in demand (rather, a horizontal arrangement of the device is in demand, but this is not so important);
• Users like the lens to be covered with something so that dirt does not get on it and it does not get scratched;
• Photos should look high quality both on the phone screen and on the PC;
• The shooting mechanism should be automatic (pointed, photographed), but for “advanced” users separate settings are required various parameters;
• The final device does not have to be gigantic.

The S60 platform was taken as the basis for creating photographic solutions; it allows you to quickly create complex products, integrate various camera modules, while maintaining identical settings and a unified interface. It is impossible to assume that Nokia has approached the realization of users' aspirations without creativity - the company has very creatively implemented a number of solutions in the Nokia N73.

Firstly, here for the first time a dual mode was used to such an extent, that is, on the one hand, it is a phone, on the other, a camera. Among S60-based smartphones, there are no analogues to this device in terms of camera control ideology. The previous photographic flagship Nokia N90 had a different form factor and, as a result, did not have many control keys, the practical value for consumers was low, and there was no relevant experience that came from using other devices. Everything is different here. On right side There is a paired key that performs both the role of zoom in camera mode and the role of volume control. To the right side is the shutter key, it protrudes, and a little to the left is the gallery access button. The location of the gallery key and the shutter button is not optimal - your finger automatically rests on the gallery button when you try to use it when shooting. Sony Ericsson products take this point into account; the shutter key is located exactly where the gallery button is in the Nokia N73. Considering that the location of the keys, their layout and principle of operation came from Sony Ericsson devices, there was no need to philosophize, but it was only necessary to repeat existing developments. Try to take the device with one hand and see where your finger lies and how you feel more comfortable. I think the conclusion that these two keys need to be swapped comes naturally.

The keys have a luminous blue border, this is a nice addition that allows you to work comfortably with them even in complete darkness.

The camera is located on the back surface, it is covered with a sliding shutter, which prevents the lens from getting dirty. The shutter is active; opening it automatically turns on the camera. The disadvantages of the S60 platform include some “heaviness” and low operating speed. The time from moving the curtain to the moment from which you can start shooting is about 4 seconds, about the same time is spent on focusing and shooting. In the best case, it turns out that one shot takes about 7-8 seconds. IN regular phones this time is about 4-5 seconds.

The technical characteristics of the camera are interesting: 3.2 megapixel matrix (CMOS) using a mechanical shutter (speed from 1/1000 s to 2 s). The focal length of the lens is 5.6 mm, the lens is Tessar from Carl Zeiss. There is autofocus, and the stated focusing distance is from 10 centimeters to infinity. There is no optical zoom in the camera, while there is digital zoom (x20).

At first glance, the camera lens and technologies used seem to be equal to those used in the Nokia N93. In fact, the Nokia N73 model is much more interesting, since it brings together both the technological aspects of the cameras and big job on image processing taking into account consumer perception.

Nokia has been using a very interesting algorithm for processing the resulting images for several years: the image is analyzed and the main color zones are identified in it. Then, for the brightest colors, the phone brightens the picture and increases saturation. This is similar to the Saturation filter in graphic editor. An example of such work is a photograph depicting a bright yellow Mazda car. In the case of Nokia N73, we see that the color is not very natural, the car comes off from other objects on the street, and looks neon. It feels like the car is made in a children's coloring book, the color doesn't match the world around it.

In the photo of the church, you should pay attention to the sand; for the Nokia N73 it has an unreal yellowish tint with shadows. In Nokia N93 this effect is observed, but to a lesser extent.

For bright, colorful urban flowers, the result was predictable - we have spot shading of the flowers, which makes them look very sharp, highlighted against the background. For some reason, autofocus did not work for this photo in the Nokia N93, although everything was fine on the screen. An analogy from life can be the colored contact lenses that girls use. The color turns out bright, but its unnaturalness in some cases catches the eye, it is too clearly visible, and so it is here.

Another example would be a photograph of a memorial plaque; it is golden in color; the other colors in the sulfur photograph do not stand out. As the main, brightest color of the composition, it is drawn out in the Nokia photo; in the case of Sony Ericsson K800i, Samsung D900, the board looks more realistic, but not so catchy. What is more important for the average consumer? In my opinion, the brightness and catchiness of the picture, albeit sometimes to the detriment of its realism. There are not so many severe failures, as in the case of a car; in all other situations, realism or approximation to it is preserved.

Possible disadvantages of Nokia's approach include the difficulty of working with photographs in a graphics editor (the same Saturation filters) - the colors change too dramatically. At the same time, images from other cameras are processed better; here is an example of a photo from the K800i with changed Saturation values. It was made in 20 seconds, didn’t play much with colors, just the task was to raise the perception of the picture, make it bright (the yellow channel was raised to emphasize the corresponding flowers).

It’s interesting that in Nokia N73, the developers for the first time brought the color change mode to the general public and made it available in the settings. If you look at the section color settings image, then the last item after all the effects is Vivid. Life colors or, more precisely, the color matching algorithm described above is still the same Saturation filter, but with larger values. That is, if you photograph, for example, grass, it begins to look bright green, a kind of carpet. It's funny that the icon for this mode shows a larger number of colors, when in fact the number of colors is reduced and the shades disappear. A possible analogy with various settings on European and Japanese televisions, in the latter, grass and nature look too bright, sometimes unnatural. Some may like it, others may not. This is purely a matter of taste.

Considering that today all manufacturers process the resulting images, and this process is isolated from users, it is not yet possible to obtain the most realistic photos on phones. Thus, the Sony Ericsson K800i uses a noise reduction system that makes pictures smooth, but small details are lost; images at maximum zoom look a little blurry (there was no such photo processing on the K750i). No manufacturer produces the image in the form in which the sensor captures it; photo post-editing includes filters that could be applied on a computer with exactly the same or better results. An alternative, as in digital point-and-shoots in the form RAW format, is absent (in point-and-shoot cameras and JPEG is not processed so much), this is a minus of all modern solutions on phones.

The optimal option in the future seems to be the possibility of obtaining the most “real” photos, which, if desired (for example, the default setting) will be processed by the phone. You can create different sets of settings (similar to what we have now for scenes). This is the correct approach when the user has a choice. At the moment, each manufacturer decides for us what is best for us. IN digital photography companies have already weaned themselves from this bad habit.

As subtotal we can say that photographs from the Nokia N73 may lose fine details due to the colors being pulled out. Errors in perception are possible in some cases and only that gives us approximate parity with photographs from the Sony Ericsson K800i. The same applies to the Nokia N93, but here the advantage of the Nokia N73 is obvious due to not only the image processing algorithm, but better focusing and the presence of a larger focusing area. Here are comparative photos with Nokia N73, Nokia N93, Sony Ericsson K800i, Samsung D900. In most cases, we see leadership from either Nokia or Sony Ericsson products.

To check how ordinary people, who are consumers of such products, perceive photographs from them, prints, we conducted a small study. 10 photographs were printed from each of the devices (you saw them above). It was proposed to arrange each photograph in descending order of quality (comparison of 4 photographs of the same type). You can see the results of comparing prints in the table (printing on an HP 8153 printer with the best photo paper and maximum quality). Let's make a reservation that 22 people took part in the survey, as a result - the percentage is calculated between all answers and is calculated from the total. We also rounded the percentages for better understanding.

	Best image quality (first place)	Good quality(second place)	Average quality (third place)
Sony Ericsson K800i

The result is significant and demonstrates that consumers prefer a bright picture over its duller counterpart, but with natural color reproduction. At the same time, such a strange position of Samsung in comparison is due not so much to the actual quality of the images (it is comparable between all cameras), but to the not always good elaboration of background details, a close approximation of the image in a number of cases (it was commented in such a way that fewer details fit in the image) . I think the result obtained is very eloquent and contradicts the generally accepted opinion among professional journalists (for the most part, at least) about the superiority of Sony cameras Ericsson K800i. The consumer votes for a colorful picture.

We carried out a similar comparison for pictures on a PC, here the picture was approximately the same. To simplify the task, we also carried out paired comparisons, when it was proposed to evaluate not all 4 images, but only two. In a pair of Nokia N73 and Nokia N93, the Nokia N73 won in 85 percent of cases. An excellent indicator that is not so obvious to many. In a pair of Sony Ericsson K800i and Nokia N73, the choice of photos from Sony Ericsson was in 40 percent of cases. This figure is clearly higher than what we obtained when comparing prints. But even here the product from Sony Ericsson was unable to achieve a clear advantage.

The Nokia product uses a diode flash, which is clearly inferior to the xenon flash in terms of power, in any case, from this many conclude that the Sony Ericsson K800i is superior at night. Here it is necessary to make a reservation that the xenon flash in the K800i is low-power; installing a full-fledged flash, at least at the level of digital point-and-shoot cameras, is impossible with current batteries. As a result, the effective flash range is up to 2 meters, which is too short for landscape photography, but quite sufficient for taking portraits or pictures of nearby objects. In this aspect, the flash from Sony Ericsson outperforms all competitors.

But the use of an electronic shutter does not allow you to take pictures with a long shutter speed and not have the frame blurred, as from strong hand shaking. Using the mechanical shutter on the Nokia N73 gives better views at night (they are clearer in most cases). As an intermediate solution, you can use the Twilight Landscape mode in Sony Ericsson, but the pictures are still not as clear. Let me make a reservation that now we are not talking about using a flash.

The diode that acts as the flash in the N73 is low power, and its use by the company itself is described as effective at a distance of about one meter. At the same time, this is not a pulsed, but a constant light source. When shooting at distances from one to three meters, it is quite effective and gives better results in terms of photo quality than a xenon flash (the best result in image perception). Due to the long burning of the flash, its power and effect are comparable to xenon. This is a controversial finding, but we tested it in a variety of situations.

When shooting moving objects at short distances in dimly lit rooms, the xenon flash is a winner. We tried to photograph the fan from one meter, in the photo from the K800i the blades are visible, due to the impulse they are well illuminated, while on the N73 the blades are blurred.

Shooting moving objects with sufficient lighting and low speed is better by default for the Nokia N73, this is due to the use of a mechanical shutter. When using a mechanical shutter, information from the matrix is ​​not read sequentially, but from all points at once. This statement can be easily verified using the example of a fan. It is enough to place it on a window with bright lighting and try to photograph the blades without using a flash. In the case of an electronic shutter, we will see that the blades in one part are lubricated, this is due to the sequential reading of the camera matrix. For Nokia N73 this effect is not observed.

I will make a reservation that for the average person it is quite difficult to come up with everyday photography in which the advantage of a mechanical shutter will constantly manifest itself. Moving cars on both devices will look approximately the same. Rather, the difference will appear in photographs of cyclists riding on a sunny day (whether the wheel spokes are visible or not).

The macro mode on the Nokia N73 is implemented well, with a number of reservations. First, it must be activated by the user, in automatic mode The camera does not focus at distances from 6 to 30 centimeters. The manufacturer says it works from 10 centimeters, but it also works from 6 centimeters. Focusing seems problematic when there is a monochromatic object in the field, for example, a bright flower. In this mode, macro does not work very well (slightly worse than in Sony Ericsson K800i).

There are not many improvements in the interface area, so when you activate the camera you see icons for the main events (type of selected memory, image resolution, options), on the right there is a vertical row of icons. You can switch between icons using the joystick.

The first thing that catches your eye is the focus area, the frame displayed on the screen. In the Nokia N93, however, as in the Sony Ericsson K800i, focusing occurs at the central point; here the frame is much larger and occupies a significant part of the frame. Empirically, we found out that focusing occurs at 4 points inside this zone. Problems begin if there is a solid-colored object in the focusing area at a distance of up to 10 centimeters, then the camera focuses on the background. In this case, we recommend switching to macro mode, it saves the situation. We can definitely say that for landscape photography, ordinary family photographs, this focusing area is much better, it allows you to achieve better results. This is another setting made according to user requests, for those pictures that are likely to be the main ones for the phone.

The camera settings are as follows, you can choose one of 4 resolutions:

• Print 3M – Large
• Print 2M – Large
• Print/e-mail 0.8M – Small
• Multimedia message 0.3M

The manufacturer does not provide the actual resolutions of the images, but we will do it for him. The resolutions are respectively: 2048x1536, 1600x1200, 1024x768, 640x480 pixels. The average image size is 1 MB, 600-700 KB, 250-300 KB and 75-100 KB. You cannot set the quality of saving images.

The device uses digital zoom, its maximum value is x20. There is a difference between “normal” and “extended” zoom. In the second case, the maximum value is reached, but the artifacts become clearly visible. When using regular digital zoom, artifacts are not as noticeable. Considering that such an approximation can be done in any graphics editor, it is not worth using it when shooting.

Shooting modes include one mode, which can be customized by the user to suit his preferences, automatic, as well as macro. Other options include portrait photography, landscape, sports, night, and night portrait.

The flash can be set to auto, just on, off, or with red-eye reduction. The timer for taking pictures of yourself can be set to 2, 10 and 20 seconds. The device supports shooting a series of pictures (three at a time), which can be useful when working with fast-moving objects. The feature is designed to be similar to Sony Ericsson's BestPic, but offers less flexibility.

Exposure compensation – this function interesting for some specific conditions and can help get better pictures. The scale ranges from -2 to +2 in 0.5 increments.

White balance – automatic, sunny, cloudy, Incandescent, Fluorescent. You can use Sepia, Black&White, Negative, Vivid as effects (the latter is described in detail above).

Since the moment when cameras on smartphones have become widespread, there has been an opinion in society that the number of megapixels directly affects the quality of the photo. In most cases, the more megapixels, the sharper the photos. However, is it really that important? In this article, we'll look at why megapixels don't always matter.

Many of you like to post photos on Facebook or Instagram. Our colleagues from phonearena We compared the quality of the original photos and those already posted on social networks. The results may be surprising.

This comparison shows the quality of the photo before and after Facebook compression. The original image size is 5312 x 2988 pixels (in the comparison, the photo was cropped to see the difference in quality), the photo weighs 5.84 MB. Facebook, thanks to its compression system, managed to reduce the size to 313 KB (more than 17 times). The resolution of this photo is already 2 megapixels.

If we take Instagram, the situation is even bigger. The application compresses photos to 0.4 MP (640 x 640). The size of such a photo is only 115 KB, despite the fact that the original size was as much as 5.84 MB. This kind of compression is truly impressive. Unfortunately, there were some losses in quality - alas, they do not have Richard Hendricks (approx. the main character of the series “Silicon Valley”) on the team.

However, let's look at the photo in full size(compressed above, original below, but also compressed by the site to 2 MB. To view in full size, follow this link). There is practically no difference, and this despite the fact that the photo size has been reduced to 17 times. In this case, the point of using cameras with a large number of megapixels completely disappears.

The second point lies in the quality of the photos themselves. Let's compare two gadgets: the iPhone 6.

Both photographs were taken at the same time of day and cropped to required sizes. As you can see, the differences between the 20.7-megapixel camera One M9 and the 8-megapixel camera of the iPhone 6 can be overlooked. Moreover, the color reproduction of the iPhone 6, in our opinion, is better.

Probably, the One M9 shot was not taken on the latest firmware, hence the low quality. Indeed, in a recent update the company added RAW support and significantly improved the quality of the images themselves. However, why not initially release a normal camera, which, by the way, still does not even have software stabilization?

Thus, having a high number of megapixels in devices is not always justified. It is much better to have a larger sensor, which will allow you to get excellent quality even with a small resolution.

It will be interesting to know the opinions of our readers. Are megapixels so important in smartphones?

The race for megapixels from digital photography has gradually moved into IP video surveillance. Our clients are increasingly asking for cameras of 3, 4, 5 megapixels and even higher. Most of them are absolutely sure that the higher the resolution, the more megapixels the camera has, the better it will show, the higher the detail of the frame will be. Manufacturers, to please consumers, produce high-resolution cameras; 12 MP IP cameras, in the now fashionable 4K format, are already being sold with all their might.

We decided to figure it out - does the video quality of IP cameras really increase with increasing megapixels? Is it worth paying extra for high-resolution cameras, NVR processing power, high network bandwidth and terabytes of disk space required for such high resolution. We selected several cameras from stock with different resolutions - from 1 to 5 megapixels. We also ordered several expensive 5 - 8 MP IP cameras from manufacturers for this test. This is who came to us for testing.

We gave preference to outdoor IP cameras with a fixed lens, because... they do not need to be adjusted, and errors in the tedious adjustment of varifocal lenses will not affect the quality of the video image. True, we did not find 5-megapixel cameras with a fixed lens and tested 5MP varifocal cameras. We installed all the cameras in the same place and pointed them at the opposite wall, where we have several homemade “test tables” hanging.

Let's see what we got. All frame shots were taken through web interface cameras using the IE browser and the ability to save a still image built into each camera. In the table below we have placed a reduced frame to a resolution of 640x480 (or 640 by 360 if the camera has a widescreen matrix with an aspect ratio of 16:9), as well as a crop (cut out of the frame) with a resolution of 200x360 pixels. It shows the quality of the “drawing” more clearly. small parts images - in particular the letters on the Sivtsev table (a table for testing eyesight).

To view a full-size frame from an IP camera, click on its small copy in the table.

1 MP IP camera: Space Technology ST-120 IP Home, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1 MP IP camera: Polyvision PN-IP1-B3.6 v.2.1.4, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1.3 MP IP camera: MATRIXtech, resolution 1280x960, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 MP IP camera: Space Technology ST-181 IP Home, resolution 1920x1080, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 MP IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW1080IP20, resolution 1920x1080, 1/2.8 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
3 Megapixel resolution. IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-1300S-0360B, resolution 2048x1536, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
4 Megapixel resolution. IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-4421EP-0360B, resolution 2560x1440, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
5 Megapixel resolution.
5 MP	>

What we noticed when comparing these frames:

1. Cameras have different aspect ratios. IP cameras with a resolution of 1, 2, 4 megapixels have a widescreen frame with a 16:9 ratio. And cameras with a resolution of 1.3, 3 and 5 megapixels are 4:3. Those. the latter have a greater vertical viewing angle. This is very important for those cameras that will “look” at an object from top to bottom. For such cameras, there will be fewer dead spots under the camera both near and far. It is interesting to note that a 3MP camera compared to a 4MP camera not only has a larger vertical viewing angle, but also a resolution: 1536 versus 1440 pixels.
2. Cameras have different viewing angles, and it depends not only on the lens, but also on the size of the matrix. Budget IP cameras with a 1/4 matrix and a standard 3.6mm lens have a horizontal viewing angle of no more than 60°. But the 5MP IPEYE camera with a 1/2.5 matrix has a wide viewing angle both vertically and horizontally (more than 110°). It’s true that the lens at its shortest focus has a distance of 2.8mm.
3. Well, the most important thing we wanted to pay close attention to is the resolution. If you look closely at all the frames, you will notice that, undoubtedly, as the resolution (megapixels) increases, the detail increases. But NOT PROPORTIONAL! Not huge. A 4MP camera does not improve the image by 2 times compared to a 2MP camera. Detail increases slightly. In any case, not a single camera could “cope” with the second line from the bottom of Sivtsev’s table. And already the 6th bottom line (the right letters “B K Y”) is confidently “read” by both cameras with a resolution of 4 and 2 MP.

Of course, here we need to make allowances for different viewing angles. After all, as the viewing angle increases, we seem to move away from the scene being filmed and the detail deteriorates. This is especially true for the 5-megapixel IPEYE camera - the viewing angle provided by this combination of matrix and lens is too wide. And if you make the angle on it the same as that of 2MP cameras (about 90°), then the letters of this table will be read more confidently.

It’s interesting that another 5MP IP camera with the same declared parameters (2.8-11 lens, 1/2.5 matrix) has a slightly narrower viewing angle at the shortest focal length than the IPEYE-3802VP. Detail is approximately at the same level, the picture is somewhat noisier in dark areas of the frame, although the cost of the BEWARD camera is several times higher. But it has a motorized lens and you can control the viewing angle while sitting in front of the computer. A picture with a maximum focus of 11 mm will then look like this:

Maybe someone needs this, considering that every time you change the focus of the lens, you need to either manually or by pressing the “autofocus” button to adjust the sharpness of the image. And this takes from 5 to 20 seconds. But here you can confidently read the second line from the bottom of the vision test table.

Subsequently, we tested a pair of 2-megapixel IP cameras with a 2.8 - 12mm varifocal lens, because... There is an opinion that they show better than “fixes”. Here's what we got:

2 MP IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW1080IP40, resolution 1920x1080, matrix 1/2.8, lens 2.8 - 12 mm
2 MP IP camera: Hikvision DS-2CD2622FWD-I, resolution 1920x1080, 1/3 matrix, 2.8-12 mm lens

As you can see, the result is not much different from the previous one. The detail is almost the same as that of 2MP IP cameras with a fixed lens. Even the expensive 2 megapixel (!) Hikvision camera (the retail price of which as of February 2016 was 21,990 rubles) with a viewing angle of 50 degrees set at the factory (and to change it, you had to open the camera, which we absolutely did not want) The readability of Sivtsev’s table was no higher than 5th line from the bottom.

Perhaps varifocal lenses have greater photosensitivity and IP cameras with them can “see” better in the dark, but this is the topic of a completely different test and another article, which we may turn to later. But varifocal lenses have virtually no effect on resolution. Moreover, the slightest inaccuracy in focusing settings can lead to disastrous results, and all megapixels will be useless. And anyone who has ever set up a varifocal lens on an IP camera will agree with me that this is oh so difficult, given the delay with which the signal from the camera arrives at the monitor.

5 MP

This is the first camera with a 1/1.8 sensor size that we got our hands on. In addition, this camera is capable of delivering a stream at a speed of 25 fps with a 5-megapixel resolution (2592x1920 px). Others cannot do this yet. The maximum they are capable of is 12-15 fps at maximum resolution. The wide viewing angle of this camera is immediately noticeable. With a focus of 3.6 mm, it is wider than 5MP cameras with a 1/2.5 matrix with a focus of 2.8 mm. The resolution of the camera from BSP Security is at the level of other 5-megapixel cameras, even a little clearer. At least the contrast of the picture is higher. However, the situation is slightly overshadowed by blurring of the left side of the frame. Perhaps we were unlucky and came across a camera with a slight distortion of the matrix.

And finally, 4K IP cameras with 8MP resolution arrived at our warehouse. This is a hemisphere with a fixed lens DAHUA DH-IPC-HDW-4830EMP-AS. Here's a shot from that camera:

8 MP IP camera: DAHUA DH-IPC-HDW-4830EMP-AS, resolution 3840*2160, 1/2.5 matrix, 4 mm lens

To open the frame in full resolution, right-click on the picture in your browser and select the “open image” menu item.

We didn't stop our test with office pictures; we also wanted to look at real footage of a street scene. To do this, we pointed our camera lenses at the nearest parking lot, visible from our window. We did this deliberately in rather difficult light conditions - early twilight. This is what we got.

1 MP IP camera: Space Technology ST-120 IP Home, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1 MP IP camera: Polyvision PN-IP1-B3.6 v.2.1.4, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1.3 MP IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW960IP20, resolution 1280x960, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 MP IP camera: Space Technology ST-181 IP Home, resolution 1920x1080, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 MP IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW1080IP20, resolution 1920x1080, 1/2.8 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
3 MP IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-1300S-0360B, resolution 2048x1536, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
4 MP IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-4421EP-0360B, resolution 2560x1440, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
5 MP IP camera: resolution 2592x1920, matrix 1/2.5, lens 2.8 - 12 mm

Perhaps we chose a part of the day that was still too bright (17.10 - 18.00 in February), but all the cameras did an excellent job with such lighting. True, the 1.3 MP camera MT-CW960IP20 had a slightly darker picture than others, which is quite strange, because... the 1/3 matrix should have better light sensitivity compared to the 1/4 matrix.

As for the detail of the picture, the situation is similar to the results of testing in the office. Although it increases with increasing megapixels, it is not significant. Both 4 and 2 megapixel cameras were able to read Renault's license plate number. True last ones A little worse.

IP cameras with a resolution of 1.3, 4 and 5 megapixels with their wide viewing angles even “saw” the license plate of our van in which we carry all these IP cameras)). And the 5 MP camera even saw a car standing to the left of the van. The viewing angle is amazing!

In March, we received two more 5-megapixel IP cameras BEWARD and BSP Security for testing. Let's compare how they show on the street.

5 MP IP camera: resolution 2592x1944, matrix 1/2.5, zoom lens 2.8 - 11 mm
5 MP IP camera: BSP Security, resolution 2592*1920, matrix 1/1.8, lens 3.6 - 11 mm

The cameras were tested at the same time (18.00 in mid-March). It is interesting to note that despite the fact that the camera from BSP Security has a wider angle, it has slightly better detail. State The license plate on the blue Ford can almost be read, which is not the case in the BEWARD camera footage. The matrix size has an effect - 1/1.8 versus 1/2.5.

What conclusion can we draw?

1. The treacherous pursuit of megapixels is practically useless and only plays into the hands of manufacturers (well, let’s be honest - we, the sellers of these IP cameras, recorders and hard drives) they make more profit.
2. In the vast majority of cases, 1- and 2-megapixel IP cameras are sufficient. And if you need better detail of distant objects, then this problem should be solved not by mindlessly increasing megapixels, but by reducing the viewing angle using a varifocal lens. With this we will “bring the picture closer” to ourselves and will be able to see everything we need. And an increase in the number of video cameras. This solution may be a little more expensive, but it will definitely solve your problem. And perhaps the price of a pair of 2-megapixel cameras with a viewing angle of 50° (for example, “fixes” with a 6mm lens) will be less than the price of one 5- or even 4-megapixel with a viewing angle of 100°. But they will give us much more information about the observed territory.
3. It should be taken into account that increasing the number of pixels without increasing the physical size of the matrix only worsens the sensitivity of the video camera, because The pixel area becomes smaller and less light reaches its surface.
4. Real high-quality lenses with optics that allow you to get all the advantages of multi-megapixel matrices cost at least $1000. What can you expect from a 12-megapixel camera worth 20,000 rubles?
5. Well, the last thing to remember is that as the “megapixel” increases, you will additionally overpay for the processing power of the devices being recorded, storage devices (HDD), network bandwidth and traffic when viewing via the Internet.

P.S. We will continue to test IP cameras that come into our hands in this way. Several test samples have already been requested from various suppliers with resolutions ranging from 5 to 12 megapixels. Therefore, periodically visit this page to receive new information about the megapixel race in IP video surveillance.

P.P.S. If any of the manufacturers or suppliers would like to test their cameras on our “test bench” - welcome, contact us by e-mail: kb063_sobaka_yandex.ru

TB-Project Company, Panasonic's distributor in the video surveillance equipment segment, presents a new series of high-performance Full HD domes i-PRO cameras SmartHD, cost-effective, with industry-leading 133dB dynamic range, minimum sensitivity of 0.07 lux in color mode and intelligent motion detection (i-VMD).

TD "Leader-SB" presents a new IP video recorder Praxis VDR-6216IP.




The Amicom brand has added a new IP video camera Beward BD3590Z30, which is designed for obtaining close-ups with increased detail. Hardware 3x WDR performs high-quality processing of scenes with illumination differences of more than 50 thousand times. High frame rate of 50 fps provides clear images of fast moving objects.

"TB Project Company", a distributor of the TVhelp brand, a domestic developer and manufacturer of video surveillance equipment, presents a model range of Standart series street cameras with a resolution of 3 MP.

TB-Project Company, distributor of the TVhelp brand, announces the start of sales of IP video surveillance equipment.

TD "Leader-SB" announces the availability of new professional IP video cameras for street surveillance PROvision PVF-IR305IPC and PV-IR305IPC.

TB Project Company, an official partner of Samsung, announces the start of sales of a new 3-megapixel cylindrical IP camera SNO-7084RP, which generates a video stream with a maximum resolution of 2048x1536. The new product supports transmission of three-megapixel video at a speed of 30 fps and Full HD video at a frame rate of 60 fps.




TD "Leader-SB" announces the availability of new IP video cameras eVidence Apix - Bullet / E2 36 and Apix - Dome / M3 LED AF 309 with resolution 2 MP And 3 MP, respectively. At the same time, in resolution Full HD both video cameras broadcast video in real time. The new items are equipped with infrared illumination with a range of up to 25 meters.




The 7th International All-over-IP Forum 2014 traditionally brought together well-known world brands and bright technology premieres, eminent industry experts and promising business newcomers under one roof.

At this event, connections are established and contracts are concluded, new technologies are presented and the vector of development for the near future is determined.




The line of equipment for network video surveillance presented at the TB Project Company, the official dealer of Samsung, was replenished with the new cased SNB-7004P without a lens, built on the basis 3 MP sensor, which has a set of intelligent video analytics functions in its functionality.




Vivotek has released three brand new 3 megapixel WDR Pro network cameras, two of them are fixed dome IP cameras, FD8173-H and FD8373-EHV, and one bullet camera - IB8373-EH.

Leader-SB is pleased to present to your attention the new IP video camera Etrovision N70Q-B. The new product is built on a modern 3 Megapixel CMOS matrix (resolution 2048x1536).




Arecont Vision has made several significant improvements to its popular all-in-one MegaDome 2 series of megapixel day/night cameras equipped with Stellar(Spatio Temporal Low Light Architecture), used in low light conditions, offline memory option up to 32 GB using SDHC cards; function Corridorview, allowing you to rotate the image 90 degrees to better review in halls and corridors; as well as having advanced image scaling capabilities with different resolutions in order to better fit bandwidth systems and data storage requirements.

TH "Leader-SB" announces the availability of a new IP video camera J2000IP-mPWV6013-Ir3-PDN with a high resolution of 3 MP. The new product is distinguished by vandal-proof all-weather design and high sensitivity to light along with a high range of IR illumination.

TD "Leader-SB" presents a new IP video camera Berger BNC-3112ZWR, which has the latest matrix, excellent sensitivity, and also supports remote power and is compatible with the ONVIF standard.

Samsung is expanding its lineup with new video surveillance solutions that deliver high performance.

"TB Project Company" - the official distributor of the Panasonic brand, presents an overview of the new products in the line of video surveillance systems - IP dome cameras: WV-SF539E and WV-SF538E. These models are intended for indoor installation (temperature environment up to -10°C), support Full HD stream, have a rich set of functions, take power from PoE, and in addition are easily combined with various devices external nature, including mobile phones.

TD "Leader-SB" announces the arrival of a new product from HikVision - a compact 3-megapixel IP video camera DS-2CD2032-I. This revolutionary model has a high resolution of 2048x1536 pixels and allows surveillance both indoors and outdoors, in absolute darkness, thanks to infrared illumination with a range of 30 meters




The TB Project company has begun supplying new IP cameras of the EverFocus brand - models EHN3160, EHN3260 and EHN3340. All of them are made in dome housings, equipped with IR illumination and varifocal optics, and also support broadcasting HD streams in real time. The protection class of all three models meets IP66 requirements, and the temperature range ranges from -40°C to +55°C.

EverFocus has released compact network fixed dome cameras designed for installation even in railway transport.

The MegaBall series of spherical cameras is available in several variations, differing in configuration, which allows for flexibility in organizing the surveillance system and maximally meeting customer requirements.




At the Essen show, Grundig recently showcased its expanded range of network, analogue and HD-SDI video surveillance products, including 22- and 24-inch LED monitors with 16:9 format.

Samsung has introduced a new series of 3-megapixel network cameras. The updated 7002 Professional Series models not only offer high definition, but also include many innovative features and functions. The new items have already arrived at the warehouse of the brand's distributor - the TB Project company.

Brickcom has released a 3MP night vision dome network camera in its MD-300N IP camera series.




The Smartec OPTi range of IP cameras were all distinguished by high functionality and image quality. Two new dome products from this series - STC-IPM3578A and STC-IPM3597A - presented by the brand's premier partner, AVALON, are long-awaited new products, and they are not inferior to their brothers - real-time recording, three-stream transmission, 2D DNR, WDR functions , PoE and much more.

Everfocus presents its latest developments products, including the new NevioHD series 1.3, 2.0 and 3.0 megapixel cameras.

The next expansion of the Samsung IP camera line did not take long to arrive. TB-Project Company is pleased to present three new products with a resolution of 3 megapixels: a fixed dome SND-7011P, a body-mounted SNB-7001P with a C/CS mount, and a dome SND-7061P with an 8.5 mm zoom lens.

TPG COMCOM announces the start of sales of a new line of professional high-resolution IP cameras - NeoVizusIP. The lineup NeoVizusIP is available in 6 models of various designs (case, street and dome) with a resolution of 2 MP and 3 MP, as well as a universal thermal housing NVH-5120HB with support for PoE power supply.

Arecont Vision has launched a new line of IP video surveillance equipment with wide dynamic range WDR. New products are aimed at creating a clear and detailed picture in conditions of extreme lighting, in other words, when there are very dark and very light areas in the frame at the same time. The line of WDR IP cameras is represented by two models: Full HD video camera AV2116 and AV3116 with a resolution of 3 MP, having variations with automatic adjustment aperture and Day/Night mode.




Lilin has launched a new revolutionary line of Imegapro HD IP cameras that feature sense up+ technology, which successfully combats the key disadvantages of most other HD IP cameras, namely the low lower sensitivity threshold and blur of moving objects.

The TB Project company presents an overview of four new products - professional high-speed PTZ IP cameras of the Hikvision brand from the DS-2DF1-5xx and DS-2DF1-7xx lines, equipped with a highly sensitive sensor with high resolution (from 1.3 to 3 MP). The new products are of the “Day/Night” type, and representatives of the DS-2DF1-7xx, among other things, are equipped with an IR illuminator for 80 meters.