Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-27-2008, 03:17 PM   #1
Senior Member
wowtip's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 254
5120x3402 pixels?

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?

07-27-2008, 04:37 PM   #2
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,309
QuoteOriginally posted by wowtip Quote
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
07-27-2008, 05:05 PM   #3
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by wowtip Quote
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...........
07-27-2008, 05:45 PM   #4
Senior Member
Mikhail's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: York Region, ON
Posts: 277
Yea but not 5120x3402 actual pixels, upsampled after the fact.

Thanks

07-27-2008, 10:03 PM   #5
Site Supporter
oneill's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 312
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
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
07-27-2008, 10:23 PM   #6
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by oneill Quote
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.
07-28-2008, 04:01 AM   #7
Veteran Member
mattdm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,964
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
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.
07-28-2008, 12:42 PM   #8
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,669
But why would you do such a thing if your intended purpose is publishing for web?

07-28-2008, 12:44 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by ftpaddict Quote
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"
07-28-2008, 01:19 PM   #10
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,669
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
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?
07-28-2008, 10:56 PM   #11
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Puyallup, Wa
Posts: 44
so

and do you actually get a better print or is it just for big numbers
07-29-2008, 12:15 PM   #12
Veteran Member
mattdm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,964
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlCanary Quote
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.
07-29-2008, 07:42 PM   #13
Site Supporter
oneill's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 312
QuoteOriginally posted by ftpaddict Quote
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.
07-29-2008, 08:45 PM   #14
Veteran Member
philmorley's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia
Posts: 472
its from a 39mp camera, this image is a crop from a landscape image where 5120 pixels is the short side
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax news, pentax rumors, pixels, sample
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
hot pixels cobra333 Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 01-20-2009 07:21 AM
hot pixels? laissezfaire Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 10-02-2008 07:22 PM
Pixels/inch Bramela Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 5 09-13-2008 08:24 PM
Hot pixels richard64 Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 08-05-2008 05:50 PM
Pixels ddragg1 Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 12-07-2007 05:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top