Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
So, it is not the lens, it is the sensor..
Page <prev 2 of 9 next> last>>
Dec 1, 2015 09:56:32   #
Wilsondl3
 
In My Not So Humble Opinion most of us need to worry about our skill using the great cameras we now have. I am a lot more interested in the content of the picture than the pixels. Dave

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 10:02:05   #
MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama
 
I guess I will have to go " Study Up ". LOL

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 10:21:05   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Wilsondl3 wrote:
... most of us need to worry about our skill using the great cameras we now have. ...

Exactly! Each new higher resolution camera reveals the defects of our existing lenses. You can go broke trying to keep up.

If you can't see the shortcomings in your lenses after buying a 36+ megapixel camera then you are not very observant and probably should have stopped at 24 MP.

Most photography does not warrant a high resolution camera or lens.

If you really want high resolution and are willing to put in the effort, you are better off with medium or large format film.

Reply
 
 
Dec 1, 2015 11:31:10   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
Wilsondl3 wrote:
In My Not So Humble Opinion most of us need to worry about our skill using the great cameras we now have. I am a lot more interested in the content of the picture than the pixels. Dave

Right.

This is not about applied photography. The thread is about existing technology.

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 12:08:49   #
PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago
 
What are you going to study up so we can give you a test?
MrBob wrote:
I guess I will have to go " Study Up ". LOL

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 12:12:58   #
Photocraig
 
dpullum wrote:
I agree with Rongnongno's "Conclusion: No, we have not reached the point where lenses resolution capabilities are lower than a sensor resolution."

Sorry to confuse about Angles on sensors... perhaps photos... but Angles is an old quandary. How many micro sensors can one put on a small sensor... similar to the ancient philosophical pondering of how many angles can be or dance on the head of a pin. (By the way, as i scold 9th graders, you should look up thing you do not understand. Ever hear of Google? Don't be lazy and say long statements like "huh) ") :?:

When we think we have maxed out, we are being naive,,, technologies will evolve and we will be in wonderment.... then print that 50 mpix image all post process to perfection on a printer of excellent quality only to to find that our eyes are the limiting factor... Tragic but true.

If you Wesso, do not care to count angles then think of fly droppings (poop), as you age the number of fly droppings you can see on that wall 12' away diminish. As was said when on the army range.. "Pullum, you can see a fly speck at a hundred yards.. your good." Now I am not sure if it is a horse fly or a floater in my eye. :XD: We are or will be the weakest link in the photo chain of perfection. :shock: :oops: :cry:
I agree with Rongnongno's "Conclusion: No, we... (show quote)


Agreement from a fellow weak link. I used to tell the Stereo--yes Stereo!!--salesmen, "I can't HEAR that extra $1000!" And no, I can't see those $5000 pixels, either.

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 18:24:18   #
Jim Bob
 
dpullum wrote:
Printers with 4 inks vs 6 print the same photo... same paper... same light.... Room A & B... can you see the difference? Excuse me, remember the difference well enough to say which is which?

Assuming both are excellent printers. Then, side by side, how much difference between them can be seen at a viewing distance of 6 feet? Dance on that for a while... I am not sure... but my eyes are far from prime...

"The best visual acuity of the human eye at its optical centre (the fovea) is less than 1 arc minute per line pair, reducing rapidly away from the fovea." If you love complicate math check out the source of that quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution
Printers with 4 inks vs 6 print the same photo... ... (show quote)


Don't need math to figure that out.

Reply
 
 
Dec 2, 2015 06:04:12   #
heyjoe Loc: cincinnati ohio
 
the eye is only so good,we get so sharp that your eyes will not
see the difference,

Reply
Dec 2, 2015 06:17:16   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
heyjoe wrote:
the eye is only so good,we get so sharp that your eyes will not
see the difference,

Question of distance.

Reply
Dec 2, 2015 06:22:39   #
cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania
 
Jim Bob wrote:
Can the technology be improved? Absolutely. There is nothing groundbreaking in that observation. The ultimate question is are we looking for cameras with the resolution of high powered microscopes and if so, except for research in various fields, what would be the consumer applications. In terms of resolution, the unassisted human eye has limitations. It is doubtful most consumers would be routinely interested in wielding a magnifying glass to enjoy photographs.


Apparently you haven't noticed some of the pixel-peepers on this forum :lol:

Reply
Dec 2, 2015 07:50:35   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
Rongnongno wrote:
Well, been doing research on lenses and sensors as per my last post.

Numerous web sites confirm the sensor/lens matching combination in order to get the best result...

This thread is not about that, not really. It is more about how close we are from maxing out a lens resolution with newer sensors.

Well, we are not close at all. On a FF camera the sensor need to reach... 250MP!!!


While this appears far fetched it really is not. There are some really heavy duty caveats here as the aperture used has a strong influence in the lens quality and precision. The more you close the aperture the less precise the lens become.

So for what I understand and for all practical reasons it seems that lenses will start to be a limiting factor once the sensor hits about +-150MP.

A change in sensor geometry can throw a monkey wrench onto that. So far they are flat. What happens when they become curved or better yet, parabolic shaped?* The internal airy disk becomes more regular and reduce ovoid shape when moving away from the lens center.

We have a long way to go and by then we may not use the same optical system as it seems that there is a push toward using multi lenses with various focal length in order to produce sharper images using math. Something a bit like the multi mirrors used in telescope arrays to observe the cosmos.

Conclusion: No, we have not reached the point where lenses resolution capabilities are lower than a sensor resolution.

----
* Which would mean brand new lens technology and optical properties as well...
Well, been doing research on lenses and sensors as... (show quote)


And yet photo's will continue to be judged on their artistic merits and not ANYTHING else.

Reply
 
 
Dec 2, 2015 08:08:14   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
WessoJPEG wrote:
Thanks :roll: $#!† hits fan


:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Made my morning. Now I have to wipe the coffee off the chandelier.

Reply
Dec 2, 2015 08:14:00   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Wilsondl3 wrote:
In My Not So Humble Opinion most of us need to worry about our skill using the great cameras we now have. I am a lot more interested in the content of the picture than the pixels. Dave


This is probably the most astute observation I've read here, so far.

The limiting factor in *making* most photographs is behind the eyes, not in front of them. The limiting factor in *viewing* most photographs IS the eyes.

Most of us are guilty at some point or other of obsessing over our equipment, and whether we have the best. We miss the point that we ought to be out USING IT to the best of our abilities.

Reply
Dec 2, 2015 08:14:06   #
Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.
 
Years ago ( 35mm film only days) a camera was brought out, with a curved film gate. Just a one-off. No other manufacturer copied the design/ alternative arrangement. The idea just died a death!!

Reply
Dec 2, 2015 08:18:57   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Photocraig wrote:
Agreement from a fellow weak link. I used to tell the Stereo--yes Stereo!!--salesmen, "I can't HEAR that extra $1000!" And no, I can't see those $5000 pixels, either.


The HUGE amount of money it takes to make marginal differences in quality at the limits of our perception is disgusting. As my late mother used to say, "There are starving kids in far corners of the globe, and you're worried about WHAT???"

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.