# The mega-pixel chase



## chauncey (Jul 28, 2016)

Several caveats up front...I want a lot of megapixels in my images should I desire to print large or to downsize for superior image IQ, 
am also rather adept at using PS photo-merge (along with other tools within), additionally, my well used, old 1Ds3, attached to a 
180 macro or a 300 f/2.8 has served me quite well over the years.

Granted that the learning curve in PS borders on the obscene, it still puzzles me why more photographers fail to utilize its advantages.
Want more MP, merely get closer and merge your images. I don't see a downsize...assuming PS is not beyond your skill set.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 28, 2016)

Could be a lot of reasons. Many photographers either don't use PS or only want to use the basic functions. 

"Getting closer and merge" may not work for some shots or some photographers don't want to do it.

The good news is that the photography world is big enough for photographers to do different things differently. 

It should not puzzle you that much. People are different, photographers are people so ergo.... ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 28, 2016)

"merely get closer and merge your images"

Can you move closer and get the same framing with higher resolution by merging together various shots (assuming nothing is moving, light isn't changing, etc)? Yes, but you can't get the same shot, since distance affects perspective.


----------



## chauncey (Jul 28, 2016)

> Yes, but you can't get the same shot, since distance affects perspective.


Dah...I'm not suggesting that you move during the shoot.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 28, 2016)

The merge technique only works for a tiny percentage of photos, people move, birds fly, race cars and motorcycles move very fast.

That might give you some idea as to why few people use the technique, its very limited, even for supposedly static subjects, if the wind is blowing, or clouds are moving ...


----------



## randym77 (Jul 28, 2016)

You can't always move closer, and sometimes merging doesn't work.

I like the 5DS/5DS R because you can do major cropping, and it still looks great. 

If you're shooting a bald eagle in flight or an outfielder making a play at the wall...moving closer and skilled use of Photoshop won't give you what more megapixels will. A 600mm or 800mm lens might, but dang, those things are huge, heavy, and pricey.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 28, 2016)

The only problem with the MP race is that all camera makers (for the most part) continue to raise the MPs - so ultimately we won't have a choice but to have high MPs and the various issues that can cause. Hopefully Sony's 12MP version of the A7 will do well enough for other camera makers to keep offering lower MP versions. I have gotten rid of my Canon crop camera and won't buy another as even 18MP is more than I want in a crop sensor. With tiny pixel size comes little benefit of adding more pixels of you shoot hand held. You need to shoot at higher speed (not always what you want or even possible) or with a tripod to get the full resolution the sensor offers. When crop cameras get up to 28 MP and beyond, hand held shooters will probably get no better resolution than they get now on an 18-24 MP camera. Full Frame is another matter, or course, and that is why I went to FF so I could continue to get the advantage of larger pixels. But once you get past 50 MPs on FF, you will be in the same boat of not getting the benefits of more MPs unless you shoot at very high speed and/or with a tripod. 

The fact that lower MP cameras probably will disappear is the only problem with the MP race. Otherwise, everyone should use whatever they want and the rest of us should accept that and not try and scold them, debate them, ridicule them or whatever else we love to do around here.


----------



## SteveM (Jul 28, 2016)

Probably an issue for another thread, but I'd love to see what low noise at high ISO they could get from a 12mp full frame camera utilising today's sensor technology. Imagine virtually noise free images at 10,000 ISO.....might buy one of them.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 28, 2016)

Things stitching can work for:

Architectural (I've used stitching for this)
macro
still life
food
astrophotography (I've also used it for this, but I don't use PS here, wrong tool for the job)
posed portraits (brenzier method) (and I've had a go at this too, it's good fun)
The few lanscapes where everything is absolutley still. (tried this but the only times everything was still the images were boring)

Things it fails at

almost all photos of people other than for those using the brenzier method. (includes journalism, sport, family snaps, portraits, weddings etc.)
wildlife
all landscapes with even a little movement.

The second group accounts for the vast majority of all images posted on the web, that's the point.


----------



## chauncey (Jul 28, 2016)

FWIW...all the images on my 1x site are merged images.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 29, 2016)

chauncey said:


> FWIW...all the images on my 1x site are merged images.



Merged as in shot in segments and combined to increase resolution?
Interesting.
How many frames make up the body of the goose in flight?


----------



## chauncey (Jul 29, 2016)

> How many frames make up the body of the goose in flight


If you mean the swan...3 images.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 29, 2016)

This might be a case where the movie is better than the thread.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 29, 2016)

chauncey said:


> > How many frames make up the body of the goose in flight
> 
> 
> If you mean the swan...3 images.



I mean this: https://1x.com/photo/440918/all:user:29755

My bad, I thought it was a goose.

So that swan was composited of three separate images? That's pretty impressive. I'd be really interested in your technique if you're willing to share.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jul 29, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> This might be a case where the movie is better than the thread.



LOL. Yup.


----------



## fegari (Jul 29, 2016)

What year is this, 2009 all over again?

If we are coherent with the logic exposed here then we should all sell our cameras and get a nice, 10Mpx original 5D. Nice big photosites, more than enough to print as well (yes, in 2007 people managed to do nice big bilboards with 10Mpx as well..), and small memory cards and small HDDs! a homerun!

And I would love to know as well how to pano-shot a flying bird. Which by the way I can use the same argument in reverse: last month this kingfisher landed so close that I HAD to do a pano shot and I had a 5DSR 50MPx monster mounted -no time to change lens, no way to change position etc

All this to say all these arguments will stand the same and discussion will never end even when there are 150Mpx cameras and people argue that they are not necesary because the "previous" 100Mpx standar cameras everyone has are the sweet spot...

And here the kingfisher photo, super technically difficult to take and process...and it was a standing bird.. https://1x.com/photo/1160370/latest:user:223762


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jul 29, 2016)

The beauty in all of this is, we are getting advancements. This is good for all involved. 

There are a few things that are certain. We must march forward. Without it, we would be stuck in the same extended technological ruts we used to be in. Without the extensive amount of outside of the box thinking and development, we wouldn't have all of the options we have today and they certainly wouldn't be as good as they are. 

Yes, we have more and more megapixels. However, we keep advancing with the fabrication tech and processors which allow us to get equivalent and/or cleaner results with higher resolution than before. This cannot be a bad thing. Furthermore, we still have lower megapixel options out there from the same companies so it is not as though any shooter has to be relegated to having to shoot high or low resolution. 

We all come to the table with different needs and requirements. We also all have different methods. Any and all of us would be quite narrow in view by lacking the ability to understand how some tools that are not necessary for one, could be integral to another.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 29, 2016)

I'd rather see advances in low-light clean images than in more mega-pixels.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 29, 2016)

In all technology driven systems, focus will shift through its generations. The weak spot will normally be getting most of the attention, until it is good enough to make something else the weaker spot. Within digital photography, resolution was the weakest point in the early days, so it got most of the attention. Today we have all the resolution we need and our focus should shift to other areas. 

AF-systems, metering, target identification and tracking, noise, dynamic range, image stabilisation, integration with external systems ++ are areas where there are lots of improvement potential still. Current mirrorless offerings are still only embryos of what we can expect in the future and combined with DO optics, we can get much smaller and lighter packages (I am not getting any younger and long hikes are getting heavy ...). And the list goes on. 

I now have quite a bit of experience with my 5DSR and I am very fond of that camera. But if you want to get maximum benefit from the 50MP resolution, you have to pay attention to what you are doing. If we moved to 100MP, that problem would grow and handheld shooting will not be trivial. However, if they developed a 100MP sensor, where 4 pixels could be combined into one, providing a 25MP alternative for regular shooting, we could get the best of both worlds. If they made a mirrorless alternative, we should also be able to get high fps on the lower resolution alternative. 

I suppose we will all be visiting CR, to check out what the next camera releases will deliver, for many more years


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 29, 2016)

chauncey said:


> > How many frames make up the body of the goose in flight
> 
> 
> If you mean the swan...3 images.



OK I give up... what do YOU mean by merge?.. side by side images?.. if so how do you cope with the swans movement against the background?

Also can you give us an example where we can see the advantage.. I looked at your site and there's some interesting work there, but it's all web size so I can't see the benefits you claim for your method, I have no doubt you're speaking the truth, just I can't see it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 29, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > > How many frames make up the body of the goose in flight
> ...



I'm more interested in coping with the swan's body position from one frame to another. Say frame 1 contained his head and part of his next, it's hard to imagine the neck angle is the same in frames 2 and 3.

Perhaps he means he took a photo of the bird and added background behind it, but the aspect ratio appears otherwise.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 29, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > chauncey said:
> ...



Perhaps he just wanted us to visit his kewl gallery!


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2016)

fegari said:


> And I would love to know as well how to pano-shot a flying bird.
> 
> And here the kingfisher photo, super technically difficult to take and process...and it was a standing bird.. https://1x.com/photo/1160370/latest:user:223762



Absolutely beautiful shot of the Kingfisher. 

The Swan is blurry as heck though.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Jul 29, 2016)

Eldar said:


> In all technology driven systems, focus will shift through its generations. The weak spot will normally be getting most of the attention, until it is good enough to make something else the weaker spot. Within digital photography, resolution was the weakest point in the early days, so it got most of the attention. Today we have all the resolution we need and our focus should shift to other areas.
> 
> AF-systems, metering, target identification and tracking, noise, dynamic range, image stabilisation, integration with external systems ++ are areas where there are lots of improvement potential still. Current mirrorless offerings are still only embryos of what we can expect in the future and combined with DO optics, we can get much smaller and lighter packages (I am not getting any younger and long hikes are getting heavy ...). And the list goes on.
> 
> ...



Well said. I rented an R and my first day of shooting really showed the need to up the technique. Even with IS and someday integrated lens/sensor IS harvesting the resolution will need improved technique (at least for me, you all may already be there)

I have been playing w/ the Russion 1,100 mirror lens and even though its ultimate resolution is limited, it puts on display poor technique - even poor tripod technique.

As far as merging images, I played around w/ merging several multi frame R sets - One was a 202 frame of the valley east of Logans pass at Glacier national park - ended up a net 1.6b pixels. Even that was down sampled a bit. 

Not only technique have be "on" you have to really like the shooting conditions too.


----------



## chauncey (Jul 30, 2016)

> So that swan was composited of three separate images? That's pretty impressive. I'd be really interested in your technique if you're willing to share.


The swan itself was one image inserted into a background consisting of 3-4 images using a variety of distort tools in PS.
Generally the series of BIF's are when I was able to capture a series of them as they traverse across a pond.
This technique is important as I insist on nose length viewing distance in prints rather than the accepted 2-3 ft.
Lenses used for the most part are 300 f/2.8 with 2X TC and/or 185 macro mounted on a 1DS3...I always take extra images of the wide background.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2016)

chauncey said:


> The swan itself was one image inserted into a background consisting of 3-4 images using a variety of distort tools in PS.



I've accomplished similar via adding canvas (cloned from the background). Point is, with a fast-moving subject, you're effectively limited to one frame for that subject. Hell, you can extract the subject from that single frame and place it into a composite background of infinite size, but you're still limited to one sensor's worth of pixels for your subject. 

As Mt. Spokane says, that's why your technique is irrelevant for most photographers and most subjects. A good technique, yes, but of extremely limited utility.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 30, 2016)

chauncey said:


> > So that swan was composited of three separate images? That's pretty impressive. I'd be really interested in your technique if you're willing to share.
> 
> 
> The swan itself was one image inserted into a background consisting of 3-4 images using a variety of distort tools in PS.
> ...



That's what I figured, but I was chasing down the "want more MP, merely get closer and merge your images" bit. If I wanted more MP on that swan, I'd need a substantially more expensive lens, or a moderately more expensive body (or even a cheaper one if the full frame isn't filled); merging won't work unless I take up taxidermy.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 31, 2016)

chauncey said:


> > So that swan was composited of three separate images? That's pretty impressive. I'd be really interested in your technique if you're willing to share.
> 
> 
> The swan itself was one image inserted into a background consisting of 3-4 images using a variety of distort tools in PS.
> ...



right.. that makes sense, one image for the moving subject.

If one can zoom in then you fill the frame for your subject, then widen the shot with another frame / set of frames, you can create a much wider image despite having a fast moving subject.

Do I take it you leave the focus position in more or less the same place?


----------

