Essay talk:Megapixel

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Nothing substantial links here (just an essay), and a quick skimming shows no real opportunity to link to something else. Not a good sign that this article is on-mission. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I placed it in a new category, "Consumer issues", because I think evaluating marketing claims is most definitely on-mission. Megapixels were just the first thing I thought of; for example, I don't think we have an article on infomercials and we really should. EVDebs (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Where do we draw the line on this? Can we expect articles about the various gimmicks used to sell teabags and toothbrushes? Or "Special Edition" movie DVDs that are padded out with a few minutes of worthless "special features"? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This just another article about a retail gimmick, isn't it? Can I write one about facing out, a tactic for selling expensive books more quickly? SophieWilderModerator 19:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Well... now that you bring it up, some discussion of retail psychology would actually make a very good article. It's not fraud, exactly, but it's something people should be aware of, and there is a ton of material out there about it. EVDebs (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Retail psychology in general, yes, maybe, but not articles on each individual bell and whistle. SophieWilderModerator 20:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Essay. Really nothing here for us.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, cause I find it interesting, it's a definite delete. Scream!! (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Printing / display[edit]

Perhaps something about image use on web pages for photo sharing and the resolutions needed for a decent print. an 8 x 10 photo at 300 ppi is roughly 2400 x 3000 x 3 bytes (for 24 bit color) which is about 21 mb. Hamster (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ferfuxsake, this isn't howtousedigitalmediawiki. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 01:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I did consider doing the math on that, but to be honest I was just too lazy to do it and didn't bother to think about whether it was necessary. EVDebs (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
a high pixel count allows cropping without loss of image quality which is useful in non-pofessional photos. Hamster (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
That's theoretically true, but only if the camera's optics are up to snuff. Which, as is pointed out in the article, they usually aren't. (I mean, the Canon 70D I just got a few weeks ago is a frikkin' beast, but I'd need a lens that costs almost as much as or more than the camera to do proper justice to it. For my needs, that's a bit pointless because I'm satisfied with the kit lens quality for what I do.) Cropping to half or quarter frame is one thing. Much smaller than that, though, you're going to run into smudge. EVDebs (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There's also the utter futility for most folk of having pics of tens of megabyte size when a) as EVDebs says, the optics don't match; b) what you gonna do with the pic anyway? Manipulation takes rather powerful machines and programs which most folk don't have; c) printers and even HD monitors aren't up to the resolution. (I've got a Nikon D7000 & £300 55-300 lens)
Advertising hype could come in to RW's mission (No?) Scream!! (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)