Yes... lets consider this picture. FOV is approx 8" x 8" - 10" x 10". FOV on that Hickock is easily twice that in all dimensions. That means to manage the same resolution across the FOV, you need nearly 5 times the space, and that's assuming your camera and his are equal and focused as well with similar lighting; clearly none of which are so.
My point is, it's not about the number of pixels, it's about resolution. Actual resolution, I know that pixel count is often mis-named as resolution, but resolution it is not. For each pixel in my jpeg there are around 5 pixels in Neo's, but it's quite clear, even from a casual look that those 5 pixels contain less information than each pixel on my photo.
Let's try and zoom in on those pixels at features of similar physical size - the meter legends in the top right and one of the refdes on the board. I've tried to zoom in so that 1 pixel on the right takes approximately the area of 4 or 5 on the left.
![](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/test-equipment-anonymous-(tea)-group-therapy-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=508358;image)
The image on the left has more pixels, but they aren't conveying anywhere near as much information, per pixel, as the one on the right. You do not need a massively high pixel count with low compression to deliver a clean, clear, informative photo packed with detail. By the way, I've just realized that I had not made it obvious but that is a screenshot of both so you can see the JPEG artefacts induced by the compression (i.e. I'm not cheating).
Here's another example. A 22 1/2" by 14 1/2" page of newsprint, probably about the size of that Hickock panel. Again a mere 6 Mpixel, maximum JPEG compression (i.e. worst quality) that photoshop will do and every detail is still visible, right down to some stray scratches in the printing plate on the lower left edge. You can certainly read every word on the page but there are also obvious JPEG artifacts visible, to be expected on such busy matter. That's the price you pay for getting a 17.2Mb original crushed down to 733 kb.
![](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/test-equipment-anonymous-(tea)-group-therapy-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=508364;image)
So what you've confirmed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that neo's camera took a crappy picture with lots of pixels. We knew that about ummm... 3 pages ago?
So for him to convey the information he wants to convey, he has to publish a lot more pixels. Hence beating his head against the still ridiculously small 2MB limit.
All of that is covered under this part of my statement.This is the real world: People take pictures with what they have available. It's not always an award-winning camera like my Sony, or whatever you took your pic with. A lot of folks only own the camera in their phone, all of which have horrible lenses due to size (yes there are a few exceptions, lets not go there) and do their best to make up for it with a gazillion microscopic pixels in the sensor, which means lots of software manipulation to counter noise, and not near as much information transmitted for all those pixels, because that camera may have to interpolate information from 4,8,16 or more pixels and average the values to come up with something usable. But the
EU end-user STILL expects to see a 16MP filesize, even though there's only about 6MP worth of actual information captured in that crappy little raisin-sized camera. So they do the best they can with software to make it look good to the naked eye, and Aunt Lucy gets what she thinks are awesome pics of your kids chasing each other around the yard with a garden hose. But she's damned lucky if she can get a legible pic of a signed release form to eMail to her insurance company with the same camera.
![Laughing :-DD](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley_laughing.gif.pagespeed.ce._hfWAz_QHO.gif)
AS A RESULT... the STANDARDS of THE REAL WORLD mean that a 2MB TOTAL filesize limit IS ABSURDLY SMALL.
You shouldn't have to have professional digital photography expertise to use a freaking bulletin board, dude. Or even "advanced amateur" expertise like myself.
Yeah, sure... you and I can shrink a pic down and make it look good without even thinking about it... I do it all the time. But arguing that you should HAVE to in this age of free terabytes of online storage is ludicrous.
What it really sounds like you're arguing is that it's good to keep it as a rite of passage for the noobs. Same attitude as the "old HAMs fraternity" clinging to the code requirement well past doomsday.
![Wink ;)](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/xwink.gif.pagespeed.ic.cldandycH0.png)
mnem
*poot and a half*