Detail in Photographs (Page 7): "Can you sort the two images below? I sized them both to 3400 pixels on the long side (slightly below max resolution for one of them) -- enough to make...

CTTonymm Loc: Connecticut

"Can you sort the two images below? I sized them both to 3400 pixels on the long side (slightly below max resolution for one of them) -- enough to make a very good 16 x 20 print and more than enough for viewing on a typical display. Both used their respective standard zooms with close focus capability (both very good lenses). One of the two sensors is 95% larger than the other and one of the two sensors has 78% more pixel resolution than the other."[/quote]

Did you mean to include two different cameras for the same image ? I don't believe I can objectively review two different images for detail/quality of image resolution, etc.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

jackm1943 wrote:

No, I said get a good zoom lens and crop in-camera. This gives the absolute minimum cropping of the final image. I don't buy the "zoom with your feet" BS. Once I find what I consider the ideal perspective then I use a good zoom lens to get the desired composition, not walking forwards or backwards, or using a fixed lens then having to do more cropping in PP.

Yes I agree that does yield minimum cropping.

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

burkphoto wrote:

They should be FAR more concerned with how many original pixels derived from the camera sensels are REPRESENTED BY those ink dots.

Bill, if you are meaning how many pixels represented original real data seen by the camera and how many were generated in post processing, I agree with you wholeheartedly. --Richard

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

profbowman wrote:

Bill, if you are meaning how many pixels represented original real data seen by the camera and how many were generated in post processing, I agree with you wholeheartedly. --Richard

Exactly!

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

JD750 wrote:

Are you saying... photography is first and foremost about the optics?! ;)

I shouldn't have said "the lens is the most important part of photography" but rather "the lens is the most important part of photographic equipment". The most important part of photography is the light, composition, skill of the photographer, subject matter, etc.... But the equipment needs a good lens more than it needs a body with all the bells and whistles.

kernel bleep Loc: Charlotte, NC

Beautiful work.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

jeep_daddy wrote:

I shouldn't have said "the lens is the most important part of photography" but rather "the lens is the most important part of photographic equipment". The most important part of photography is the light, composition, skill of the photographer, subject matter, etc.... But the equipment needs a good lens more than it needs a body with all the bells and whistles.

Hear hear!! 100% correct.

tgreenhaw

Ysarex wrote:

You're describing a legacy process from the previous century. Press plates made using line screens that can potentially cause moiré interference etc. is an issue that went away last century when we moved to direct computer-to-plate technology. The computer can generate a stochastic dot pattern that reduces the previous requirement for excess resolution to address problems that arose from using halftone line screens.

Every magazine and newspaper in my house has halftone dots (I just checked because I hate being full of it :-). Direct to plate makes it easier to get good quality stochastic plates, but I'm not seeing widespread adoption.

And I agree, the use of stochastic dots changes things about moire and required resolution, but actually requires even higher resolution. Fun fact - I pioneered the use of stochastic dot screening in the early 90's for high quality newspaper and magazine advertising. We had terrible problems with Cadillac newspaper ads that showed a moire on the body panel trim.

For those wondering what the heck we are talking about, go into photoshop, convert an image to grayscale and then to bitmap. One of the options is diffusion dither use that and halftone dot and compare. Diffusion dither is a type of stochastic screening for offset lithography printing.

User ID

jeep_daddy wrote:

I shouldn't have said "the lens is the most important part of photography" but rather "the lens is the most important part of photographic equipment". The most important part of photography is the light, composition, skill of the photographer, subject matter, etc.... But the equipment needs a good lens more than it needs a body with all the bells and whistles.

While the lens is important its in no way any more important than the sensor. Operationally they are equal, one throws the image and the other catches it ... a 50/50 partnership.

There a major way in which the sensor is MORE important, and that is in terms of improvements. Lenses have long been better than necessary, but even the best sensors today have multiple important shortcomings. Hello ?? high ISO, global shutter, dynamic range ???

tgreenhaw

Ysarex wrote:

The second image is from a 10 megapixel P&S compact camera with a 5.2 - 15.6mm 3X zoom lens and tiny 1/1.7 sensor. The first image is cropped and then substantially downsized from a 46 megapixel Z7 with the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon 3X zoom and FX sensor.

How embarrassing for the Z7!

User ID

tgreenhaw wrote:

How embarrassing for the Z7!

In what way(s) ?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

tgreenhaw wrote:

And I agree, the use of stochastic dots changes things about moire and required resolution, but actually requires even higher resolution.

It's been a very long time since I worked at a press shop and I'm not an expert but I do pay attention and the general rule that I've encountered is as expressed here by Howie Fenton:

"The Good News

There are a number of benefits of FM technology. Since stochastic screening does not employ screen angles, moires due to the interfaces of patterns from screening are eliminated. Particularly, subject moires, which occur most frequently in certain images such as woodwork and fabrics. Many versions of stochastic use very small dots which result in greater detail rendition which results in enhanced image quality.

Not using screen angles also reduces the need for the precise press registration. Since frequency modulated screening does not use lines screens it will make 5,6,7 or more color printing more accessible.

Make-ready times, or the time needed to get a press up to speed and ready to produce accurate color, can be reduced because stochastic screening is faster to register and provides more consistent color on press.

In addition, FM technology can utilize scans with lower resolution. Using lower resolution scans can reduce the amount of time spent in manipulated the image, time to send it over a network or RIPed to an imagesetter."
http://in3.org/fenton/index.htm

tgreenhaw wrote:

Fun fact - I pioneered the use of stochastic dot s... (show quote)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

tgreenhaw wrote:

How embarrassing for the Z7!

It's not embarrassing for the Z7. It simply makes the point that enough resolution is just that -- enough.