Ultimate test of sharpness: This is getting literally down to pixel peeping. I was trying to test the dispersion of my lens. I put up a black paper on a white background, and took...

zigipha Loc: north nj

This is getting literally down to pixel peeping.

I was trying to test the dispersion of my lens. I put up a black paper on a white background, and took pictures of it from a distance. I was trying to see how many pixels (viewed in RAW) it would take to go from black to white.

Shot on a tripod, VR off, windless day; tried it for a few different "sharp transitions" (black paper on white; edge of door frame to outside; etc). Transitions were 7-8 pixels. I thought "why is it not 2-3?". But I read a recent post here saying that any transition will be at least 6 pixels due to the Bayer filter in the sensor.

Was wondering if anyone has done anything like this, and their results.

I know this may not have much real world application, but humor me :).

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

zigipha wrote:

This is getting literally down to pixel peeping. b... (show quote)

Zig, I'd love to humour you, but I can't get past the "may not have much real world application!" :)

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

RWR wrote:

Zig, I'd love to humour you, but I can't get past the "may not have much real world application!" :)

I didn't hear anybody mention DXO?!?! :lol:
SS

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

SharpShooter wrote:

I didn't hear anybody mention DXO?!?! :lol:
SS

You didn't ask, but here's my opinion of DXO: "may not have much real world application!" :lol:

Edit: I should put my motto in an avatar: "I don't do wall charts."

Nikonhermit Loc: In This Place

zigipha wrote:

This is getting literally down to pixel peeping. b... (show quote)

You're wondering if anyone had done anything like this. It's likely every photographer has at some time in their lives. But once they discover that cameras can make pictures, they use it for that instead.

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

zigipha wrote:

This is getting literally down to pixel peeping. b... (show quote)

This is a simple fix. Call 1-800-getalife :lol:

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

zigipha wrote:

This is getting literally down to pixel peeping.

I was trying to test the dispersion of my lens. I put up a black paper on a white background, and took pictures of it from a distance. I was trying to see how many pixels (viewed in RAW) it would take to go from black to white.

I know this may not have much real world application, but humor me :).

This post confirms my suspicion that guys are more into the gear than the art. Who cares about the pixels? What about the picture?

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

CatMarley wrote:

This post confirms my suspicion that guys are more into the gear than the art. Who cares about the pixels? What about the picture?

Cat,

Not all of us. I have better things to do, like drink my coffee, and push the shutter button.

I have seen, and asked, some crazy questions at times but this one is close to the top.

Jim D

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

CatMarley wrote:

This post confirms my suspicion that guys are more into the gear than the art. Who cares about the pixels? What about the picture?

Probably the most accurate reply, but not me, maybe or not!

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

zigipha wrote:

This is getting literally down to pixel peeping..... I was trying to see how many pixels (viewed in RAW) it would take to go from black to white.......Was wondering if anyone has done anything like this, and their results.....I know this may not have much real world application, but humor me :).

I would never consider doing something so ridiculous, but if i had it might yield results like this...

And i might think the reason people rely so heavily on their PP to make their images pop is simply because the digital camera is so adept at destroying the original scene.

(Download)

GAS496 Loc: Arizona

Zig,

It's obvious from the responses you are getting about sharpness they simply don't care what their equipment is capable of acheiving. It always amazes me that some photographers don't learn about the tools they are using or how to use them to best capture their vision then wonder why their images don't come out like they wanted.

Quality lens', solid tripods, sweet spot apertures, understanding how your equipment works together are just a part of being able to call yourself a photographer. So run these tests on your equipment and don't worry about what others say. You don't think the likes of Ansel Adams understood what his equipment was capable of? Damn right he did, right down to which developer he was going to use with which paper he was going to print on; before he took the shot!

What you are doing will make you a better photographer.

Moxiesmom Loc: Sarasota, Fl

bobbennett wrote:

This is a simple fix. Call 1-800-getalife :lol:

Great answer :thumbup:

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

bobbennett wrote:

This is a simple fix. Call 1-800-getalife :lol:

I recall you had a different attitude towards learning when you joined Bob.....

"I have developed a manic thirst for knowledge and a distinct fear that I may run out of time before I run out of things I want to learn. "

Moxiesmom Loc: Sarasota, Fl

oldtigger wrote:

I recall you had a different attitude towards learning when you joined Bob.....

"I have developed a manic thirst for knowledge and a distinct fear that I may run out of time before I run out of things I want to learn. "

OMG, me too, wish I felt this way about 50 years ago. At that time I was more interested in the opposite sex. :roll:

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

zigipha wrote:

This is getting literally down to pixel peeping. b... (show quote)

Interesting exercise. Don't why some are so negative about it. If one has no interest why bother to relpy... just move on.