Spatial Resolution and its correlation to Dynamic Range - is there an apex? It's a complicated equation - is it not? … Go for more of the former, and you have less of the latter. Go...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

It's a complicated equation - is it not? … Go for more of the former, and you have less of the latter. Go for more of the latter, and you have less of the former. Is there a point where both are, more or less, optimum?

BebuLamar

Chris T wrote:

It's a complicated equation - is it not? … Go for more of the former, and you have less of the latter. Go for more of the latter, and you have less of the former. Is there a point where both are, more or less, optimum?

But in time you have more of both. Check out the old cameras they have less of both compared to today camera.
But the Chris please tell us what you think? It's only fair. It's not fair to always ask questions.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

BebuLamar wrote:

But in time you have more of both. Check out the old cameras they have less of both compared to today camera.
But the Chris please tell us what you think? It's only fair. It's not fair to always ask questions.

Not too sure about that, Bebu … it seems the farther we go achieving greater dynamic range, the shorter time we have, before diffraction sets in. So, there has to be a point, where Spatial Resolution is at its optimum in correlation to Dynamic Range.

You have the idea, Bebu … I always know the answer to a question, when I ask it. If that were the case, why would I bother putting the question out there?

I'm looking for an answer, here, or, at least - a good discussion on the merits of this correlation ….

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Dear Chris:

I know nothing of this so I looked it up and discovered that Spatial Resolution is actually pixel size when projected in 3D from aircraft & spacecraft cameras of global architectures and subject matter like Google Earth I'm guessing.

So other than Drone Photography , I would not think it would be of any use to any of us as land-based photographers. And as to weather it correlates to Dynamic Range is probably not a worthwhile discussion unless you're using it in the night sky.....go figure.

I wish I could be of more help but this topic is way over my head....sorry and good luck with this one.

JIMBO

Bill_de Loc: US

So the title is reversed ... not copied.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-0233/8/12/003/meta

For more info:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Spatial+Resolution+and+its+correlation+to+Dynamic+Range&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

--

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

You know the answers to the questions you ask because most all your postings are plagiarized. You imply that you are some great photography personality and yet you don't have a website where we can see your work and you don't post your work here. The joke is on the people you have impressed with your plagiarizing expertise. Show us your skill!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Chris T wrote:

... You have the idea, Bebu … I always know the answer to a question, when I ask it. If that were the case, why would I bother putting the question out there? …

That statement makes no sense at all.

It's more likely that you don't understand the issue at all. The two are not related!

Any correlation between spacial resolution and dynamic range is coincidental. Newer cameras simply have more of both.

DavidPine is right. You read an article and, because it left you baffled, you are trying to get someone here to explain it to you.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The moral of the story is - Don't use a higher resolution than you actually need (and don't forget to include the possibility of using upsizing software when required).

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

R.G. wrote:

The moral of the story is ...

The moral of the story is to not take Chris T's threads seriously. He just wants attention.

Pointing that out early just might help others avoid them.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Chris T wrote:

It's a complicated equation - is it not? … Go for more of the former, and you have less of the latter. Go for more of the latter, and you have less of the former. Is there a point where both are, more or less, optimum?

Your theory incorrect.

The 42Mp Sony A7R3 has both great resolution and high dynamic range, as does the Nikon Z7. So you don't have to sacrifice spatial resolution for dynamic range.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Over my pay grade.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

It depends on how you expose and process the images, and what you do with the shadows and highlights. The more you brighten the shadows (to reveal detail within them), the flatter, more two-dimensional the image appears. Deep shadows help establish visual spatial cues. If you examine (heavily processed) HDR images, you will notice how flat they generally appear, especially when compared to a non-HDR version of the same view. This is also true concerning the highlights, although perhaps to a less obvious extent.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

rook2c4 wrote:

It depends on how you expose and process the image... (show quote)

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

DavidPine wrote:

You know the answers to the questions you ask because most all your postings are plagiarized. You imply that you are some great photography personality and yet you don't have a website where we can see your work and you don't post your work here. The joke is on the people you have impressed with your plagiarizing expertise. Show us your skill!

David - you seem to have a REAL problem with my Topic Posts - don't you? … If that be the case - why do you even bother answering them? … Just to give me angst? … I told you, the last time you did this - I came up with the title myself - as is the case, with this one. I considered the problem long and hard - before I decided to put it into a title. I came up with this - believing some bright person here (and there are many) would come up with an answer which would mean something. Obviously - you're NOT one of them, David ….

BTW - if you want to see some of my work so badly - why don't you look for it in the Gallery? ...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

jackpinoh wrote:

Your theory incorrect.

The 42Mp Sony A7R3 has both great resolution and high dynamic range, as does the Nikon Z7. So you don't have to sacrifice spatial resolution for dynamic range.

Jack … sorry, but you misinterpreted the premise, here - which focuses on SPATIAL resolution. You dropped it out in your initial thought, but then you put it back in - in your final thought - which amounts to a manipulation of the given premise …

However, if you take that - the given premise - out of the equation - then your comment makes sense - but only if the reference to SPATIAL is omitted in both parts of your comment. Incidentally, the Sony 12MP FF MILCs - come a lot closer to satisfying this commitment than do the 42MP ones ….