Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Links and Resources
Interesting video comparing 12 megapixel to 102 megapixal.
May 26, 2022 20:49:40   #
wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Sej2TEes4&list=FLTpx7ZqyYNDkAeKx1z5_AuQ&index=1

Reply
May 26, 2022 22:00:47   #
r1ch Loc: Colorado
 
In the other thread that said how many mega pixels do you need? I said 11 and I was right. The big ones were cropped down to 10mp

Reply
May 26, 2022 22:15:23   #
JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ
 
That's interesting.

A 12mp image gives an image 4000x3000. Printed to a 4'x3' which the prints in the video appear to be, gives a resolution of 83dpi.

A 102mp image gives an image of 11648x8736. Printed to a 4'x3', gives a resolution of 242dpi.

That difference you should be able to see. (The laptop screen will be throwing away 75% of the pixels of the 12mp image, and about 98% of the pixels of the 102mp image, so you really shouldn't expect to see a difference there)

Reply
 
 
May 26, 2022 22:47:15   #
Orphoto Loc: Oregon
 
JamesCurran wrote:
That's interesting.

A 12mp image gives an image 4000x3000. Printed to a 4'x3' which the prints in the video appear to be, gives a resolution of 83dpi.

A 102mp image gives an image of 11648x8736. Printed to a 4'x3', gives a resolution of 242dpi.

That difference you should be able to see. (The laptop screen will be throwing away 75% of the pixels of the 12mp image, and about 98% of the pixels of the 102mp image, so you really should expect to see a difference there)


This made for an interesting watch. However never did they say anything about the lenses used on the 2 different MP cameras used in the comparison. I find that can make a big difference in how something looks.

Reply
May 26, 2022 22:57:43   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
Print large and weep.

This is just another senseless argument.

If you stay on the web, a 3mb phone camera is enough. If you print a wall, even with the viewing distance, forget it. Even a 102 mb would be stretched if the viewing distance is too short.

I have taken the habit of printing large, at least 2x2 feet. A D500 can do it with no issue. If I go larger and use macro that will need cropping, a 45mb (D850) is the only camera capable of giving me the potential to print an image correctly. (The reason why I purchased another one a few days ago.)

Note that I am a printing pixel peeper. I want 300DPI. So I often enlarge my images and pre process them for printing. This method allows me to control what will be seen, even if too close.

Reply
May 26, 2022 22:58:57   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
wmurnahan wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Sej2TEes4&list=FLTpx7ZqyYNDkAeKx1z5_AuQ&index=1&t=753s


By the way, this link is spam. It opens on an advertisement.

Reply
May 26, 2022 23:01:38   #
JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ
 
Rongnongno wrote:
By the way, this is spam. It opens on an advertisement.


It jump to a spot near the end. Remove the "&t=753s" from the end.

Reply
 
 
May 26, 2022 23:44:00   #
r1ch Loc: Colorado
 
Orphoto wrote:
This made for an interesting watch. However never did they say anything about the lenses used on the 2 different MP cameras used in the comparison. I find that can make a big difference in how something looks.


He did, the sony got a 50mm 1.4 ziess lens at 2.8
The other Fujifilm GF 63mm F2.8 at 2.8

Reply
May 26, 2022 23:47:26   #
r1ch Loc: Colorado
 
Rongnongno wrote:
Print large and weep.

This is just another senseless argument.

If you stay on the web, a 3mb phone camera is enough. If you print a wall, even with the viewing distance, forget it. Even a 102 mb would be stretched if the viewing distance is too short.

I have taken the habit of printing large, at least 2x2 feet. A D500 can do it with no issue. If I go larger and use macro that will need cropping, a 45mb (D850) is the only camera capable of giving me the potential to print an image correctly. (The reason why I purchased another one a few days ago.)

Note that I am a printing pixel peeper. I want 300DPI. So I often enlarge my images and pre process them for printing. This method allows me to control what will be seen, even if too close.
Print large and weep. br br This is just another ... (show quote)


They did print big and they all got several big print wrong. Even the guy editing the images and printing them got it wrong.

Reply
May 27, 2022 00:35:33   #
Orphoto Loc: Oregon
 
As to lenses. Oops I must have missed that part when zipping from the end to near the front. Stand Corrected.

Reply
May 27, 2022 08:21:10   #
r1ch Loc: Colorado
 
Orphoto wrote:
As to lenses. Oops I must have missed that part when zipping from the end to near the front. Stand Corrected.


I have seen this too, the lens could have made a difference. The 63 was equivalent to the 50 which is why they used it. Then there are products like gigapixel and Resize AI (genuine fractals) that can take a small image and upsize it and have it still took good.

Reply
 
 
May 27, 2022 18:51:12   #
wrangler5 Loc: Missouri
 
IIRC from back in the days when I shot with Leica and Hasselblad (among others), the Leica lenses always came out "better" than the big Hassy glass on optical bench tests as posted in photo reviews. But I usually thought my medium format prints "looked" nicer. (Not that I ever did any scientific comparisons.)

Reply
May 27, 2022 19:32:31   #
wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN
 
wrangler5 wrote:
IIRC from back in the days when I shot with Leica and Hasselblad (among others), the Leica lenses always came out "better" than the big Hassy glass on optical bench tests as posted in photo reviews. But I usually thought my medium format prints "looked" nicer. (Not that I ever did any scientific comparisons.)


I remember in 76 or 77, I was in a camera club and we had a monthly slide competition and I could always tell the slides that the one member that had a Leica submitted, they were almost 3D in how the red popped out of the picture. At the time they were the only lens maker that had been able to get all three colors to focus on one point, every one else had an infra red focus mark because red didn't focus on the same spot as the cyan and yellow.

Reply
May 28, 2022 20:37:56   #
Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA
 
Lenses don't "could have made a difference". They DO make a difference.

If you go to the Nikon website, they have a list of lenses that perform up to the requirements of owning a 45.6MP D850/Z9. Few of the Nikon lenses perform at the level required by the resolution of the sensor.

Higher resolution sensor without an equally higher resolution optical lens??? Not a game starter. (And this is the genuine "issue" for ever higher resolution sensors of the future - the lenses must match or exceed the requirements of the sensors. Otherwise, you have an "advertising advantage" of a new camera with no actual benefit worth the purchase expense.

Some time from now, I will post some of my D850 photos. When I bought this camera, I said to myself that I had purchased an 'epic camera' and needed to require of myself making some 'epic photos' worthy of this equipment. I will post a photo of Yosemite valley looking up valley from Bridal Veil Falls to Half Dome and past it. My D850 and chosen lens showed more resolution than I could have gotten with my old Hassie 500C/Zeiss lenses on fine grain 6x6cm film - a phenomenal feat for a 24x36 mm sensor and top optics. I will include close ups of the trees standing on the far side of Half Dome, waterfalls and much more detail that can only be seen in a large image or the enlarged portions like I will offer.

I have become a confirmed "pixel peeper." I want to take the best photos that I can.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Links and Resources
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2022 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.