Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Spatial Resolution and its correlation to Dynamic Range - is there an apex?
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
Apr 20, 2019 12:48:54   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
Blair Shaw Jr wrote:
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
Dear Chris: br br I know nothing of this so I loo... (show quote)


Yes, Jimbo - Spatial resolution IS related to pixel size … but the rest of what you read is kind of bewildering and doesn't have much relation to what I'm referring to, here. It would seem to me - there has to be a balance between SPATIAL resolution, and good Dynamic Range. Sure, you can get higher res cameras, to achieve high Dynamic Range - but each time you go higher in Res - you are farther away from perfect pictures at the greatest DOF - since diffraction sets in sooner, when you have high MP. So, there has to be a balance - between SPATIAL Res and Dynamic Range (achieved with higher MP) see?

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 12:53:46   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 


Very interesting, Bill … you actually FOUND somewhere on the Net - where this exact title has been done. Fascinating!!! … I was sure - THIS TIME - I'd come up with something, nobody had done, before …

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 13:12:48   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 


Bill - it looks like you used MY title, as quoted here - as a Springboard for other discussions on SPATIAL Resolution - which have nothing, whatsoever - to do - with my title - as quoted here. So, that's false!

Reply
 
 
Apr 20, 2019 13:32:50   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
selmslie wrote:
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.


Scotty … it may well be that I don't fully understand this issue, and, just perhaps, this is part of the reason I put it out here - in the hope that someone would / could - better explain to me - this correlation. And, there IS one - I am sure. But, it needs further exploration - for me - before I'm ready to put down another thousand (or two) on a new camera. It seems to me - yes - you can - go for the latest and (supposedly) greatest - and having sunk that kind of money - then, find - you are NOT achieving better results than you did with a 12MP camera. If THAT be the case, and one already HAS a 12MP camera - why bother with the extra expenditure? …

Any help I can get on this issue, therefore - would be - quite - a blessing!!!!

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 13:37:16   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
R.G. wrote:
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).


Well, hello, RG … yes - that sounds like a good solution … but, how does one gauge that?

In other words - how do you know when you've acquired max Res for your needs?

Now - upsizing software - sounds like a plan …

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 13:51:25   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
selmslie wrote:
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.


Now, this is a bit ridiculous, dontchathink, Scotty?

If I didn't need help with a problem - what would be the point in putting it out there?

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 13:59:00   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
Chris T wrote:
Well, hello, RG … yes - that sounds like a good solution … but, how does one gauge that?

In other words - how do you know when you've acquired max Res for your needs?

Now - upsizing software - sounds like a plan …


I think we all know that higher resolution gives finer detail, even if you factor in diffraction, but I suspect that most of us don't appreciate how easy it would be to live without huge amounts of micro-detail. My perspective is that if it looks good (i.e. nothing obviously wrong) at normal viewing distance then it's OK. Yes, a picture may look better with lots of fine detail, but we tend to not miss what we don't know is missing, and the only time we're ever going to be aware of a loss of quality is when we do a side-by-side comparison.

Given the choice, I would go for the micro-detail only if nothing else was being compromised. A 12MP camera served me well for quite a long time, and while extra dynamic range would have got me reaching for my wallet, higher resolution was a bit "Meh".

I suspect that the recent high resolution cameras maintain their dynamic range by means of extra in-camera processing (ditto for high ISO performance). It's been my observation that the more processing files get before you get your hands on them, the less you can get away with when it comes to pushing and pulling in PP, so there's a price to pay (on top of the earlier onset of diffraction). It's not a high price, and the latest high res sensors offer good performance, but if keeping a high dynamic range meant staying at 12 or 16 MP, that would be the option I'd choose.

Reply
 
 
Apr 20, 2019 14:00:25   #
RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia
 
Chris T wrote:
Scotty … it may well be that I don't fully understand this issue, and, just perhaps, this is part of the reason I put it out here - in the hope that someone would / could - better explain to me - this correlation. And, there IS one - I am sure. But, it needs further exploration - for me - before I'm ready to put down another thousand (or two) on a new camera. It seems to me - yes - you can - go for the latest and (supposedly) greatest - and having sunk that kind of money - then, find - you are NOT achieving better results than you did with a 12MP camera. If THAT be the case, and one already HAS a 12MP camera - why bother with the extra expenditure? …

Any help I can get on this issue, therefore - would be - quite - a blessing!!!!
Scotty … it may well be that I don't fully underst... (show quote)


You have cameras of very different resolutions.
Why don't you run some tests yourself?

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 14:08:43   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Chris T wrote:
Scotty … it may well be that I don't fully understand this issue, and, just perhaps, this is part of the reason I put it out here - in the hope that someone would / could - better explain to me - this correlation. ...
Any help I can get on this issue, therefore - would be - quite - a blessing!!!!

Your premise (that there is an inverse correlation between spatial resolution and dynamic range) is false. Several of us have already pointed out that they are not related.
Chris T wrote:
.. If I didn't need help with a problem - what would be the point in putting it out there?

There is no problem, just a lack of understanding on your part.

I suggest that you learn how to properly expose an image (without blowing the highlights as is evident in most of your images) before you plunk down any more money on a new digital camera.

You might actually need to learn something about raw and development. Then post images with ([] store original) checked

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 14:30:06   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
R.G. wrote:
I think we all know that higher resolution gives finer detail, even if you factor in diffraction, but I suspect that most of us don't appreciate how easy it would be to live without huge amounts of micro-detail. My perspective is that if it looks good (i.e. nothing obviously wrong) at normal viewing distance then it's OK. Yes, a picture may look better with lots of fine detail, but we tend to not miss what we don't know is missing, and the only time we're ever going to be aware of a loss of quality is when we do a side-by-side comparison.

Given the choice, I would go for the micro-detail only if nothing else was being compromised. A 12MP camera served me well for quite a long time, and while extra dynamic range would have got me reaching for my wallet, higher resolution was a bit "Meh".

I suspect that the recent high resolution cameras maintain their dynamic range by means of extra in-camera processing (ditto for high ISO performance). It's been my observation that the more processing files get before you get your hands on them, the less you can get away with when it comes to pushing and pulling in PP, so there's a price to pay (on top of the earlier onset of diffraction). It's not a high price, and the latest high res sensors offer good performance, but if keeping a high dynamic range meant staying at 12 or 16 MP, that would be the option I'd choose.
I think we all know that higher resolution gives f... (show quote)


Well, thanks, RG - you've come up with the most cohesive argument on this, yet. It seems to me - IF you get high dynamic range with a lesser-res camera - then, clearly - that would be the option to take. You would have MORE leeway before having to deal with diffraction, and still achieve optimum Dynamic Range.
So, clearly - that'd be the way to go. But, there's a large expanse in REAL RES - between 12MP and 50MP cameras … so, one has to consider - there might be a good compromise in there - be it - 16MP, 20MP, 24MP or higher (but NOT as high as 36MP, 42MP, 46MP, or 50MP) … e.g. RG - there might be a more sensible solution further down - either, in the USED area - since neither Nikon nor Canon, anymore - make anything less than 20MP … but, Sony - does still offer a couple of 12MP FF MILCs … so, if that be the case - is that a more apt solution than scourging the listings for a used 12MP Nikon, or other such body?

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 14:34:56   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
RichardTaylor wrote:
You have cameras of very different resolutions.
Why don't you run some tests yourself?


I have, Richard … one at 12MP, two at 16MP, two at 18MP, one at 20MP, and the other half-dozen at 24MP.

But, my eyes are not so good, anymore … so, shots taken 8 years ago, with a 12MP camera - look pretty damned good to me, now … but, if I were to take some, now, with that camera - I doubt they'd be similar.

And, until I get my vision corrected - there's not much which can be gained, in doing tests, currently.

Reply
 
 
Apr 20, 2019 14:46:27   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
selmslie wrote:
There is no problem, just a lack of understanding on your part.

I suggest that you learn how to properly expose an image (without blowing the highlights as is evident in most of your images) before you plunk down any more money on a new digital camera.

You might actually need to learn something about raw and development. Then post images with ([] store original) checked


I just don't buy that, Scotty … SPATIAL Res has to do with pixel size - so how can it NOT be related to Dynamic Range? … Don't the size of individual pixels, in some way - relate to the amount of DR achieved?

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 15:01:26   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
Chris T wrote:
Well, thanks, RG - you've come up with the most cohesive argument on this, yet. It seems to me - IF you get high dynamic range with a lesser-res camera - then, clearly - that would be the option to take. You would have MORE leeway before having to deal with diffraction, and still achieve optimum Dynamic Range.
So, clearly - that'd be the way to go. But, there's a large expanse in REAL RES - between 12MP and 50MP cameras … so, one has to consider - there might be a good compromise in there - be it - 16MP, 20MP, 24MP or higher (but NOT as high as 36MP, 42MP, 46MP, or 50MP) … e.g. RG - there might be a more sensible solution further down - either, in the USED area - since neither Nikon nor Canon, anymore - make anything less than 20MP … but, Sony - does still offer a couple of 12MP FF MILCs … so, if that be the case - is that a more apt solution than scourging the listings for a used 12MP Nikon, or other such body?
Well, thanks, RG - you've come up with the most co... (show quote)


I said in my first post "Don't use a higher resolution than you actually need". One of the determinants would be how large you intended to print. But if you could see beyond the loss of micro-detail, upsizing software would allow you to print large from a low res camera.

I do mostly landscapes, and it's widely recognised that high res is desirable, probably because it allows the camera to render things like distant foliage, grass etc with more detail, so I'm not completely dismissive of the desirability of high resolution. But I'm also aware of the desirability of strong, accurate colours and good noise performance at something other than base ISO, and I'd be reluctant to sacrifice any of those just for some extra micro-detail. A while back somebody posted a pic from a D3s taken at ISO 16000 and it was impressive how robust it looked. I would choose that kind of solidity over micro-detail if there had to be a choice (and if affordability wasn't an issue).

I don't know much about the Sonys that you mention, but I do know that the performance of some of the oldies-but-goldies is still impressive compared to more modern offerings. I'm thinking of cameras like the D3s, D4s, 5D mk1 and the like - which can be had at a reasonable price second hand. If you don't intend to clock up tens of thousands of shutter releases, second hand pro cameras seem like a good choice to me. I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing what the new Sony A7S iii is going to be like, but the price will keep it out of my reach.

RG (from the land of mint Aeros).

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 15:01:55   #
BebuLamar
 
Chris T wrote:
I just don't buy that, Scotty … SPATIAL Res has to do with pixel size - so how can it NOT be related to Dynamic Range? … Don't the size of individual pixels, in some way - relate to the amount of DR achieved?


If they are correlated what is the equation? Both DR and spatial resolution can be expressed in numerical values and if they are correlated there must be an equation to show their relationship.

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 15:12:46   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
BebuLamar wrote:
If they are correlated what is the equation? Both DR and spatial resolution can be expressed in numerical values and if they are correlated there must be an equation to show their relationship.


Must there, Bebu? … hmmm … wonder if it's possible to look that up on the Net … hmmm …

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 5 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
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.