Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Pixels and Pixellation

How many pixels do you need? This is a question many, many people ask and to be honest I think it's the wrong one. Let me give you a few numbers!

First of all, it's widely accepted that a monitor with more than 100 "dots per inch" or "pixels per inch" placed 18-24 inches from your face looks pretty good - with outstanding monitors at that distance having 130-170ppi. I'm also going to assume that the average monitor resolution is 1080p - that's 1920x1080 pixels in a 16:9 rectangle. This is actually quite generous but I've done that deliberately. Now when you're printing images on paper, it's generally accepted that 200ppi is "reasonably good" quality, and 300ppi is "excellent".


Full image - 2688x1520 (4 million pixels) displayed at 600 x 339
So - with a 4 million pixel image in a 16:9 arrangement, your image dimensions are going to be close to 2688x1520. If we divide that by 300ppi for printing we get a print size of 8.96" x 5.07". Call it 9" x 5" for round numbers and you're looking at an "Excellent" quality image bigger than most commercially bought prints which would be 6" x 4" or 7" x 5". Start blowing up from 9" x 5" and you're slowly going to start losing image quality. Pixellation will likely begin to occur at about 13" across. For displaying on a screen it's a completely different story: 1920 x 1080 pixels is about 2 million pixels altogether; and at the very best quality I've ever seen for myself (130ppi) that's a monitor size of 14.76" x 8.31" (about a 17" 16:9 monitor). So - if you display a 4 million pixel image on this monitor you're zoomed out so that half of the pixels in the image are never displayed. If you zoom in so that every pixel is displayed you can only see half of the image's area: but still at 130ppi you can't see individual pixels and the image quality is absolutely perfect. On my monitor at work, which is 22" 1680 x 1050 (90ppi) I begin to be able to resolve individual pixels with the naked eye when zoomed in to around 350% - where each image pixel is represented by 3.5 screen pixels on average.

So - let's use these as our ballpark figures; zoom in to 350% or print larger than 13" for individual pixels to appear on a 4 million pixel image.


The original image, cropped to 600 x 339 pixels and displayed at full size. Note the complete lack of pixellation - although there is a certain fuzziness to the detail.
Now, let's look at how the vast majority of mobile phone users use the photos they take. Please don't think of yourself or your friends here; think of the millions of people buying smartphones and how THEY use their pics. Look at Facebook, Flickr, Tumblr, Twitter, etc. That's right - MOST people - the vast majority - use the photos the way they come out. They don't edit, they don't crop, they don't zoom, they don't do any more than perhaps a bit of red-eye removal. And how are those images distributed in the main? They are very rarely displayed at their full size (in fact Facebook almost never even holds the pictures at full size but "processes" them in a way which removes massive amounts of detail and image quality to save storage space). Most places (Facebook included) allow you to choose a range of sizes to upload at, to optimise data traffic and storage space use.

The original image, cropped down to 198 x 146 pixels, and displayed at 600 x 339 to keep the playing field level with the other images. Note the fuzziness; and you can start to see individual pixels. This is now less than 9% of the original image, AND it's blown up to four times actual size.
So - the image you see on the screen is usually displayed to you at 600-1000 pixels across - far less than the original photo. At this resolution, a photo taken at 13 million pixels and a photo taken at 2 million pixels will look EXACTLY THE SAME. There is simply no way to see the original detail because making the picture that size has destroyed it - and if both are now the same width with the same scene depicted the remaining detail in the picture is also the same.

Now - there are a minority of smartphone camera users who shout "but I crop, zoom, edit my images - 4 million pixels is not enough!". I don't want to make fun of those people but - if you take a photograph so poorly that the image you want from the original picture is 30% or less of what you photographed, you're doing it wrongly. Take the photograph you want in the first place rather than taking a wider scene and then cropping it down to a postage stamp. Move closer to the subject and frame it properly. If you can't move close enough that the subject is easily visible in the frame, then a smartphone camera is the wrong tool for that image. Use a camera with a nice big lens, optical zoom and a nice big sensor. Smartphone cameras were (and are) intended for quick opportunist snaps; although a skilled photographer can capture some outstanding images with even a 4 million pixel smartphone camera because they're a skilled photographer. For examples of what I mean, look up Colby Brown who uses smartphone cameras to take many of his unbeatable images. All are displayed on his site at 1140 pixels across and yet they look absolutely fantastic regardless of the camera he used. Another up-and-coming digital photographer is Craig Fish who also uses a 4MP smartphone camera for many of his shots.

To prove my point, here are links to one image which has been progressively halved in size until the smallest one is HALF A MILLION PIXELS. I challenge you to see the loss of quality without zooming in... until you get below the resolution of your monitor.


Original image: 4 million pixels
Half Size – 2 million pixels
Quarter size: 1 million pixels
One eighth size: half a million pixels


This article is also to be found on its author personal blog.

Have any questions or comments? Feel free to share! Also, if you like this article, please use the media sharing buttons (Twitter, G+, Facebook) under this post!

8 comments:

  1. I personally find the megapixel count inadequate and that's without cropping. Photos have so much blur and smudging on the One, I don't think the camera can really be defended. Show an average person a phone taken by the S4 and then one taken with the One and they will choose the S4 as the photos are just sharper and more vibrant.
    A seperate issue with the camera is how photos cannot be taken in the dark as the flash doesn't work properly; resulting in a blurry photo.
    Good article but I don't like the One camera (:

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. photo* not phone.

      Delete
    2. I have not encountered either of those issues, I have to say. In low light I have never needed the flash. Not once.

      Delete
  2. This is cool and I totally get it. Loving every post you write Mike. Thank you, your a smart guy and can take a step back outlook I like reading over most out there.

    When I think about what I want to spend my money on I do feel like the next step from HTC is the key. An 6 - 8 ultrapixel camera sounds like the sweet point. Then what becomes most important are the features to make sure you don't miss that shot. As a Dad I've found that has become easy more important than quality. Picking you photo from a reel of 10/20 is now a must for me now.

    12 years I've now owned just HTC as my phones. You keep winning me with the smarts you have over marketing needs. I hope you keep this as your core because there are other smart people around who would be lost without you! Let the others peak, just hold strong through it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This artcile was written by Stonelaughter, not me :) But we both appreciate your kind words!

      Delete
    2. I'll take your kind words as a compliment to me - thank you!

      Delete
  3. This is taken from the current National Geographic magazine:
    I look at the images from this assignment and can't believe I shot them with a smart-phone. My Nokia Lumia 1020 performed like a professional DSLR camera under every condition-from low light to moving airplanes. The 41-megapixel sensor holds so much detail, the resolution is stunning. even when reframe or zoom in. Since I had manual control over ISO and shutter speed, I could take pictures never would have attempted before with a phone. also wasn't constrained by the physical bulk of a regular cam so l could scramble up rock towers to catch the best light, hang from ropes to get new angles, and move really fast.

    I've used a lot of camera phones i nothing else compares. Never once did miss my DSLR

    -stephen Alvarez, National Geographic photo

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jadwal Resmi Adu Ayam SV388 9 Maret 2019 di Situs Judi Sabung Ayam Online Melalui Agen Resmi Taruhan Sabung Ayam Live Asli Thailand.

    Situs Judi Sabung Ayam Online SV388 Merupakan Situs Judi Asal Thailand Yang Sangat Terkenal Dengan Permainan Sabung Ayam Yang Fair dan Menghibur Para Penonton Judi Sabung Ayam.

    Untuk Info Lebih Lanjut Bisa Hub kami Di :
    wechat : bolavita
    line : cs_bolavita
    whatsapp : +628122222995
    BBM: BOLAVITA

    ReplyDelete