Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
APS-C, Pixels, etc.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
Oct 8, 2019 10:45:12   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
sippyjug104 wrote:
CHG CANON, I highly value your skills and experience and you have been helpful to me in the past so I'll ask the question that if most photographs taken are displayed or shared electronically, does the limitations of computer display or the web impact the viewed quality and perceived resolution of the image? Also, when images are processed does the JPEG or other file format (other than RAW) impact the final result also.

Thanks in advance for response and sharing your knowledge.


If I have the link proper, here's an analysis of displaying a 24MP image (think D7200, 80D, a7II, etc) onto a 50-in Samsung 4L UHD TV. The pixel resolution of the image vs the pixel resolution of the display device is one import factor, whether the image came from RAW or TIFF or JPEG. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-613699-2.html#10573800

A pixel is a dimension less-thing where you can validly ask: how many pixels would fit on the head of a pin? Yes, they have size, but only in the specific application rather than as a standard "pixel" measurement like a 'meter' that is now standardized to the wavelengh of orange-red light in a vacuum. The 1-pixel in your image from a 22.3 × 14.9 mm sensor (APS-C format) maps to 1-pixel on the example 50-inch 4K UHD TV. As long has the pixels in your image match (or exceed) the pixel resolution of your display screen, your image will display in the "full glory" of the image while filling the screen size of the device.

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 11:13:56   #
sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
If I have the link proper, here's an analysis of displaying a 24MP image (think D7200, 80D, a7II, etc) onto a 50-in Samsung 4L UHD TV. The pixel resolution of the image vs the pixel resolution of the display device is one import factor, whether the image came from RAW or TIFF or JPEG. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-613699-2.html#10573800

A pixel is a dimension less-thing where you can validly ask: how many pixels would fit on the head of a pin? Yes, they have size, but only in the specific application rather than as a standard "pixel" measurement like a 'meter' that is now standardized to the wavelengh of orange-red light in a vacuum. The 1-pixel in your image from a 22.3 × 14.9 mm sensor (APS-C format) maps to 1-pixel on the example 50-inch 4K UHD TV. As long has the pixels in your image match (or exceed) the pixel resolution of your display screen, your image will display in the "full glory" of the image while filling the screen size of the device.
If I have the link proper, here's an analysis of d... (show quote)


Thanks for the reply. I'm a retired mechanical designer and so many times things have diminishing returns. Insulation for example is one of them so a few inches is good and then beyond a certain point the benefit in negligible although the cost is not. Much like swatting flies with a sledge hammer, a bit of overkill. I thought that perhaps the highest quality of an image would be reduced to the lowest quality of the media displaying it. Much like printing a high resolution image on a shag carpet.

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 11:29:28   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
sippyjug104 wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I'm a retired mechanical designer and so many times things have diminishing returns. Insulation for example is one of them so a few inches is good and then beyond a certain point the benefit in negligible although the cost is not. Much like swatting flies with a sledge hammer, a bit of overkill. I thought that perhaps the highest quality of an image would be reduced to the lowest quality of the media displaying it. Much like printing a high resolution image on a shag carpet.
Thanks for the reply. I'm a retired mechanical de... (show quote)


Regarding quality of the image, the argument is that the more data available about each pixel, the more the options you have in editing. The JPEG has 8-bits, where BIT DEPTH is the number of bits used to define each pixel. The greater the bit depth, the greater the number of tones (grayscale or color) that can be represented. A color image is typically represented by a bit depth ranging from 8 to 24 or higher.

Regardless of the number of bits, they present the color at a given pixel within the image. In a 2-bit image, there are four possible combinations: 00, 01, 10, and 11. If "00" represents black, and "11" represents white, then "01" equals dark gray and "10" equals light gray. The bit depth is two, but the number of tones that can be represented is 2^2 or 4. At 8 bits, 256 (2^8) different tones can be assigned to each pixel.

An 8-bit image can contain 256 tones for a given color for every pixel in the image (2^8 - 2 raised to the power of 8). In a 16-bit image, there are 65,536 tones. Imagine "red" that moves from dark purpleish to bright orangeish. You can achieve a smoother distribution of the slightest changes in tone of a color in a 16-bit image as compared to a 8-bit image. Imagine a clear blue sky where it might be a bluish grey due to ground haze transitioning to a deep blue sky directly overhead.

When you output your image to an 8-bit JPEG for a given colorspace, some of that richness of 'tone' will be lost as discrete 16-bit tones are "lumpted" into an 8-bit representations. The specifics of each unique image will determine whether the human eye can see the subtle differences, if any. If your display device can only use 8-bit JPEG, there's nothing you can do about using JPEGs except to control when the JPEG is created in your workflow (the proper place being: the final output step).

This link might help with more background: https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 11:44:40   #
ggab Loc: Northern Virginia
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
typo?


Canon's most expensive DSLR "Canon EOS-1D X Mark II" is only 20 mp.

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 12:04:03   #
timcc Loc: Virginia
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Regarding quality of the image, the argument is that the more data available about each pixel, the more the options you have in editing. The JPEG has 8-bits, where BIT DEPTH is the number of bits used to define each pixel. The greater the bit depth, the greater the number of tones (grayscale or color) that can be represented. A color image is typically represented by a bit depth ranging from 8 to 24 or higher.

Regardless of the number of bits, they present the color at a given pixel within the image. In a 2-bit image, there are four possible combinations: 00, 01, 10, and 11. If "00" represents black, and "11" represents white, then "01" equals dark gray and "10" equals light gray. The bit depth is two, but the number of tones that can be represented is 2^2 or 4. At 8 bits, 256 (2^8) different tones can be assigned to each pixel.

An 8-bit image can contain 256 tones for a given color for every pixel in the image (2^8 - 2 raised to the power of 8). In a 16-bit image, there are 65,536 tones. Imagine "red" that moves from dark purpleish to bright orangeish. You can achieve a smoother distribution of the slightest changes in tone of a color in a 16-bit image as compared to a 8-bit image. Imagine a clear blue sky where it might be a bluish grey due to ground haze transitioning to a deep blue sky directly overhead.

When you output your image to an 8-bit JPEG for a given colorspace, some of that richness of 'tone' will be lost as discrete 16-bit tones are "lumpted" into an 8-bit representations. The specifics of each unique image will determine whether the human eye can see the subtle differences, if any. If your display device can only use 8-bit JPEG, there's nothing you can do about using JPEGs except to control when the JPEG is created in your workflow (the proper place being: the final output step).

This link might help with more background: https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/
Regarding quality of the image, the argument is th... (show quote)


Great explanation - thanks!

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 12:29:37   #
Fredrick Loc: San Francisco Bay Area
 
Ed Chu wrote:
24mp seems to be the max # on APS-C cameras - how come we don't see a race to see how many we can cram onto an APS-C sensor ( like Sony's new FF A9 with 61 )?

From a response on DP Review: "That being said, there is a max theoretical resolution for any given sized sensor due to the wave-like nature of light. Depending on how you do the math, you get slightly different answers, but it tends to be a few gigapixels for full frame sensors, and a little less than one gigapixel for a micro 4/3 sensor. That's assuming a perfect lens which doesn't exist in reality of course, but still, we're nowhere near the limits or resolution." Try to keep responses simple, but is this true ?

So 20mp will continue to be, more or less, the max for MFT ?
24mp seems to be the max # on APS-C cameras - how... (show quote)


The Fuji X-T3 APS-C camera has 26mp, and rumor has it the X-T4 will have 30-32mp.

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 14:19:03   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
Ed Chu wrote:
24mp seems to be the max # on APS-C cameras - how come we don't see a race to see how many we can cram onto an APS-C sensor ( like Sony's new FF A9 with 61 )?

From a response on DP Review: "That being said, there is a max theoretical resolution for any given sized sensor due to the wave-like nature of light. Depending on how you do the math, you get slightly different answers, but it tends to be a few gigapixels for full frame sensors, and a little less than one gigapixel for a micro 4/3 sensor. That's assuming a perfect lens which doesn't exist in reality of course, but still, we're nowhere near the limits or resolution." Try to keep responses simple, but is this true ?

So 20mp will continue to be, more or less, the max for MFT ?
24mp seems to be the max # on APS-C cameras - how... (show quote)


Canon just introduced their 90D, APS-C with 32.5MP.

Panasonic just announced a Micro 4/3 camera with 47MP.

Sony has just released a 61MP full frame camera.

Rumors are that Canon has an 83MP full frame camera in the works (makes sense... it's the exact same density as 32.5MP on APS-C).

Fujifilm now offers a 100MP medium format digital. Phase One has a 150MP.

Where does it all stop?

How much resolution do you REALLY need?

Will your lenses work well on a higher resolution camera?

Are your computer processor, hard drives, RAM and memory cards up to the task?

These are important questions.

Some people are saying enough is enough:

https://petapixel.com/2019/10/02/the-sony-a7r-iv-is-now-available-but-you-shouldnt-buy-it/

https://fstoppers.com/originals/sony-a7r-iv-heres-why-i-wont-be-getting-extraordinary-camera-392379

I'm waiting for the 83MP Canon camera announcement. When it comes, I'm going to buy one of the old 50MP models. Those will drop dramatically in price because "more is better" and everyone will be trading in their "low resolution" 5DS-Rs for the "latest and greatest" (whether they really need it or not)!

What next? Supposedly China has developed a 500MP camera: https://thenextweb.com/security/2019/09/30/chinas-new-500-megapixel-super-camera-can-instantly-recognize-you-in-a-crowd/

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 14:22:05   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
Considering the iPhone 11 has 12mp on a 1/2.55" sensor, it's certainly possible for a MFT sensor, which is about 9 times the area, to have a sensor over 100mp. Whether it's feasible or useful is an entirely different subject.

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 14:27:56   #
Bill P
 
. The D3 and the D700 with only 12 Mp. have been very capable cameras that yield excellent enlargements.

I have your experience. To me the high MP sensors can produce images that are a bit gritty. The 12MP sensor in my D3 produces a remarkably smooth looking file.

I have a friend who is a full time art photographer. I was just looking at some of his work on exhibition. All he does is shot with a several year old digital rebel with kit lens. All his work is printed and displayed in sizes measured in feet. An average print is somewhere around 3x6 feet. Do they look fuzzy? No. is his work a part of the permanent collections of over 49 international museums? Yes. Over 30 private institutions in Europe and the US have also added his work. Does he worry that his camera is inadequate? not a bit. Does he obsesses at the latest cameras and lenses? He pays no attention at all. Will he get a replacement camera before his current is beyond economical repair? Never.

When you reach that level, thie you can engage again in navel-gazing. It's always better to have a view of the big picture.

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 14:43:11   #
PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA
 
Ed Chu wrote:
...and a little less than one gigapixel for a micro 4/3 sensor.
So 20mp will continue to be, more or less, the max for MFT ?


Since 1 GP is 1,000mp, there is a long way left we can go.

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 16:21:23   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
Ed Chu wrote:
knowing this ( I have seen this in articles, before ), does it follow that the 20mp MFT cameras COULD produce a better image than 24mp models ( not withstanding sensors used, etc. ) ?


Generally speaking, Camera's with lower MP are also better in lower light. Example, Nikon D3s is a 12 MP camera and it is renowned for its low light shooting.

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 17:15:30   #
Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC
 
"...Camera's with lower MP are also better in lower light..."

Yes this is very real for Nikon sensors...

From DxOmark's sensor database... The highest low light performance comes from

D3s 3253 at 12.1 mp
Df 3279 at 16.2 mp

and now the Z6 3299 at 24.6 mp

However the D3s's 0.04 second shutter-release time lag and 9-frames-per-second shooting rate in FX trumps all the above... The D3s is a legend in it's own time...

btw the Z6 actually can't shoot at the claimed 12 frames per second... this is only for a static subject (no AF tracking) and without any "real-time" Exposure Adjustments... In reality it is able to crank out a healthy 5 frames per second in "real-world" shooting conditions...

Keep in mind that "Full Frame" sensors have other significant benefits... As commercial photographers who deploy them for professional sports and available light portraiture can share with you...

btw, I'm totally happy with my D3 and D700 for nearly all commercial work... though in the studio I certainly appreciate what my D3x and D810 bring to the table... the right tool for the job, enough said...

Thank you for sharing billnikon and BillP... I get it...

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 17:35:20   #
Steve758
 
Read all of the questions and reply's. There appear to be some very knowledgeable folks on this one so I'd like to ask for clarification on a couple of areas. Is it incorrect to state that pixel pitch (size) is an important aspect in image resolution and dynamic range which also effects image quality. As well, what about diffraction? Doesn't increasing the pixel count (smaller pixel) also have an effect on image quality when your shooting at smaller apertures? I'm under the impression that to minimize resolution issues (diffraction) on high mp count sensors that the max usable aperture go wider as the number of pixels increases. Doesn't this have an effect on depth of field in your images?
Thanks in advancd

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 17:42:58   #
Architect1776 Loc: Williamsport Pa
 
Ed Chu wrote:
24mp seems to be the max # on APS-C cameras - how come we don't see a race to see how many we can cram onto an APS-C sensor ( like Sony's new FF A9 with 61 )?

From a response on DP Review: "That being said, there is a max theoretical resolution for any given sized sensor due to the wave-like nature of light. Depending on how you do the math, you get slightly different answers, but it tends to be a few gigapixels for full frame sensors, and a little less than one gigapixel for a micro 4/3 sensor. That's assuming a perfect lens which doesn't exist in reality of course, but still, we're nowhere near the limits or resolution." Try to keep responses simple, but is this true ?

So 20mp will continue to be, more or less, the max for MFT ?
24mp seems to be the max # on APS-C cameras - how... (show quote)


I guess you missed the Canon 90D.

| Reply
Oct 8, 2019 17:44:58   #
Architect1776 Loc: Williamsport Pa
 
amfoto1 wrote:
Canon just introduced their 90D, APS-C with 32.5MP.

Panasonic just announced a Micro 4/3 camera with 47MP.

Sony has just released a 61MP full frame camera.

Rumors are that Canon has an 83MP full frame camera in the works (makes sense... it's the exact same density as 32.5MP on APS-C).

Fujifilm now offers a 100MP medium format digital. Phase One has a 150MP.

Where does it all stop?

How much resolution do you REALLY need?

Will your lenses work well on a higher resolution camera?

Are your computer processor, hard drives, RAM and memory cards up to the task?

These are important questions.

Some people are saying enough is enough:

https://petapixel.com/2019/10/02/the-sony-a7r-iv-is-now-available-but-you-shouldnt-buy-it/

https://fstoppers.com/originals/sony-a7r-iv-heres-why-i-wont-be-getting-extraordinary-camera-392379

I'm waiting for the 83MP Canon camera announcement. When it comes, I'm going to buy one of the old 50MP models. Those will drop dramatically in price because "more is better" and everyone will be trading in their "low resolution" 5DS-Rs for the "latest and greatest" (whether they really need it or not)!

What next? Supposedly China has developed a 500MP camera: https://thenextweb.com/security/2019/09/30/chinas-new-500-megapixel-super-camera-can-instantly-recognize-you-in-a-crowd/
Canon just introduced their 90D, APS-C with 32.5MP... (show quote)


Canon introduced a 240mp sensor already.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.