Question for high MP (36mp and up) camera users
Apr 1, 2019 10:52:50 #
Apr 1, 2019 11:26:36 #
bpulv
Loc: Buena Park, CA
Rich1939 wrote:
This question is purely to satisfy my curiosity.
The larger pixel count cameras are universally praised for their ability to capture fine detail because of that pixel count. Does that high count also contribute to better tone graduations?
The larger pixel count cameras are universally praised for their ability to capture fine detail because of that pixel count. Does that high count also contribute to better tone graduations?
You will definitely have a higher and better color and tonal graduations with a high megapixel count camera. In addition, you will be able to maintain quality on tight crops or on big enlargements, especially when you combine high pixel count with a full frame sensor.
Apr 1, 2019 13:38:29 #
bpulv wrote:
You will definitely have a higher and better color and tonal graduations with a high megapixel count camera. In addition, you will be able to maintain quality on tight crops or on big enlargements, especially when you combine high pixel count with a full frame sensor.
You seem to be confusing resolution with tonal variation/smoothness. I suggest you read the prior posts for a better understanding of the differences.
Apr 1, 2019 13:41:58 #
Rich1939 wrote:
Thank you for this!
"Film is much more like a halftone screen, it has no intermediate tones, just black grains and transparent areas where there are no grains."
That grains in film are two state,either off or on, was escaping me.
Wouldn't more pixels per area, each with thousands of possible values, also be able to appear to have finer gradations then vs. less?
"Film is much more like a halftone screen, it has no intermediate tones, just black grains and transparent areas where there are no grains."
That grains in film are two state,either off or on, was escaping me.
Wouldn't more pixels per area, each with thousands of possible values, also be able to appear to have finer gradations then vs. less?
If you have fewer pixels than the number of gradations then increasing the pixel count will help. Otherwise no.
Apr 1, 2019 15:17:26 #
JD750 wrote:
If you have fewer pixels than the number of gradations then increasing the pixel count will help. Otherwise no.
fewer pixels than the number of gradations under most shooting situations will be the norm, the reverse would be rare.
Apr 1, 2019 16:04:36 #
Rich1939 wrote:
fewer pixels than the number of gradations under most shooting situations will be the norm, the reverse would be rare.
No, it's very common in clouds and skies.
It's very difficult to see the gradations in the first image below despite the fact that the number of pixels far exceed the number of steps. Each JPEG contains 256 steps.
When they match the number of steps it'a also nearly impossible to see.
When there are fewer pixels there will also be fewer steps. But you won't be able to see the jumps which in the third image are about 10 tonal values per pixel.
Apr 1, 2019 16:20:08 #
selmslie wrote:
No, it's very common in clouds and skies.
It's very difficult to see the gradations in the first image below despite the fact that the number of pixels far exceed the number of steps. Each JPEG contains 256 steps.
When they match the number of steps it'a also nearly impossible to see.
When there are fewer pixels there will also be fewer steps. But you won't be able to see the jumps which in the third image are about 10 tonal values per pixel.
It's very difficult to see the gradations in the first image below despite the fact that the number of pixels far exceed the number of steps. Each JPEG contains 256 steps.
When they match the number of steps it'a also nearly impossible to see.
When there are fewer pixels there will also be fewer steps. But you won't be able to see the jumps which in the third image are about 10 tonal values per pixel.
If all people ever took pictures of were clouds and skies you'd have a point, for this discussion clouds and skies is a straw-man and, how about you make the images the same size for a true comparison
Apr 1, 2019 16:29:57 #
Rich1939 wrote:
If all people ever took pictures of were clouds and skies you'd have a point, for this discussion clouds and skies is a straw-man and, how about you make the images the same size for a true comparison
Since nearly all of your landscape images show sky and/or clouds maybe you should look at them.
Apr 1, 2019 16:31:55 #
selmslie wrote:
Since nearly all of your landscape images show sky and/or clouds maybe you should look at them.
Maybe you consider the premise of the discussion and not look for exceptions
Apr 1, 2019 16:33:51 #
Rich1939 wrote:
Maybe you consider the premise of the discussion and not look for exceptions
I give up.
Apr 1, 2019 16:38:47 #
Apr 1, 2019 17:23:41 #
Rich1939 wrote:
Thank you for this!
"Film is much more like a halftone screen, it has no intermediate tones, just black grains and transparent areas where there are no grains."
That grains in film are two state,either off or on, was escaping me.
Wouldn't more pixels per area, each with thousands of possible values, also be able to appear to have finer gradations then vs. less?
"Film is much more like a halftone screen, it has no intermediate tones, just black grains and transparent areas where there are no grains."
That grains in film are two state,either off or on, was escaping me.
Wouldn't more pixels per area, each with thousands of possible values, also be able to appear to have finer gradations then vs. less?
Yes, but as soon as there is no visible pixelation it no longer makes any difference. Even with only 256 steps across 256 pixels you have 65,536 possible combinations of tonal values. Between three pixels that number goes up to 16,777,216. And that is only 8 bit grey scale. Do you catch my drift? In photography if you can't see any difference it doesn't matter...
Apr 1, 2019 17:32:02 #
kymarto wrote:
Yes, but as soon as there is no visible pixelation it no longer makes any difference
That is true for the display however when the image is first recorded the extra pixels of a more dense sensor will become part of the image file
Apr 1, 2019 19:18:03 #
Rich1939 wrote:
That is true for the display however when the image is first recorded the extra pixels of a more dense sensor will become part of the image file
Yes, true, but so what? I have had exhibitions with prints 2x3 feet, using images shot with a 12MP camera, and you cannot see any pixelization even at close viewing distances. Even if you could see the pixels and even with 8 bit files, it is nearly impossible to see the difference between two consecutive tonal steps. Pixelization, in any case, is easier to see when adjacent pixels have very different tonal values, such as the edge of a dark object against a light background, but this is the very antithesis of smooth gradation, where tonal values change slowly over a large area.
Apr 2, 2019 04:58:58 #
Rich1939 wrote:
This question is purely to satisfy my curiosity.
The larger pixel count cameras are universally praised for their ability to capture fine detail because of that pixel count. Does that high count also contribute to better tone graduations?
The larger pixel count cameras are universally praised for their ability to capture fine detail because of that pixel count. Does that high count also contribute to better tone graduations?
Please see my post
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-585722-1.html#10026662
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.