5120x3402 pixels?

[wowtip]

As falconeye noted in this thread, this image taken with Da*300 has an unusual pixel count.

5120 x 3402 pixels? My K20D produce images at no more than 4672 x 3104 pixels.

This Da35 sample has the same weird 5120 size.

Any ideas? Is it a new unreleased camera? Is it a resized sample (why on earth would they do that..), a film scan?

[benjikan]

Originally Posted by wowtip

As falconeye noted in this thread, this image taken with Da*300 has an unusual pixel count.

5120 x 3402 pixels? My K20D produce images at no more than 4672 x 3104 pixels.

This Da35 sample has the same weird 5120 size.

Any ideas? Is it a new unreleased camera? Is it a resized sample (why on earth would they do that..), a film scan?

In RAW you can choose to upsize as a default. This might have been the case. You can go +1 etc. This may be the reason for this.

Ben

[jeffkrol]

Originally Posted by wowtip

As falconeye noted in this thread, this image taken with Da*300 has an unusual pixel count.

5120 x 3402 pixels? My K20D produce images at no more than 4672 x 3104 pixels.

This Da35 sample has the same weird 5120 size.

Any ideas? Is it a new unreleased camera? Is it a resized sample (why on earth would they do that..), a film scan?

That's 17.4MP .... hmmmm...........

[Mikhail]

Yea but not 5120x3402 actual pixels, upsampled after the fact.

Thanks

[oneill]

Originally Posted by benjikan

In RAW you can choose to upsize as a default. This might have been the case. You can go +1 etc. This may be the reason for this.

Ben

I always process my RAW images at one size up in Adobe Camera RAW CS3 and see no cons in doing so. I consider it to be a free upsize. One step up on a K20D gives you 17MP.

Murray

[jeffkrol]

Originally Posted by oneill

I always process my RAW images at one size up in Adobe Camera RAW CS3 and see no cons in doing so. I consider it to be a free upsize. One step up on a K20D gives you 17MP.

Murray

What is the purpose of this? Why create false data (maybe good false data) for no reason.

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by jeffkrol

What is the purpose of this? Why create false data (maybe good false data) for no reason.

If you're going to print at huge sizes for viewing distances where that resolution might be helpful, you're going to have to create false data at some point, and during the initial conversion is probably the best time to do it.

[ftpaddict]

But why would you do such a thing if your intended purpose is publishing for web?

[Gooshin]

Originally Posted by ftpaddict

But why would you do such a thing if your intended purpose is publishing for web?

why bother with 14 megapixel cameras at all?


i think the simplest answer is "because they can"

[ftpaddict]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

why bother with 14 megapixel cameras at all?


i think the simplest answer is "because they can"

To hell with common sense and server space. Why not stick an adapter on it and shoot with a Canon EOS 1Ds?

[CarlCanary]

and do you actually get a better print or is it just for big numbers

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by CarlCanary

and do you actually get a better print or is it just for big numbers

At big print sizes inspected from close up, assuming that the RAW converter uses good algorithms, I'd expect there to be a slight advantage in doing it this way. But I also bet that 99% of people couldn't tell the difference in a double-blind study.

[oneill]

Originally Posted by ftpaddict

But why would you do such a thing if your intended purpose is publishing for web?

You wouldn't, my reason is to produce a stock image where the end use has not been determined and the larger size is more acceptable by stock agencies. The other advantages have already been mentioned in this thread.

[philmorley]

its from a 39mp camera, this image is a crop from a landscape image where 5120 pixels is the short side