Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Dose sensor resolution matter to anyone other than a photographer?
Page <<first <prev 6 of 8 next> last>>
Mar 28, 2024 17:48:36   #
joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
 
bwana wrote:
We're getting closer to nature's resolution...

Resolution must mean something!

bwa


My 576mpx camera wears glasses

Reply
Mar 28, 2024 17:51:19   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
bwana wrote:
Not total nonsense, per:
According to scientist and photographer Dr. Roger Clark, the resolution of the human eye is 576 megapixels. That’s massive when you compare it to the 12 megapixels of an iPhone 12’s camera123.

However, let’s delve deeper into this fascinating comparison. The 576-megapixel resolution implies that to create a screen with a picture so sharp and clear that you can’t distinguish individual pixels, you would need to pack 576 million pixels into an area the size of your field of view. But here’s the catch: in a single snapshot-length glance, the resolution drops to a fraction of that—around 5–15 megapixels. Why? Because our eyes have some quirks that wouldn’t be acceptable in a camera:

Fovea: The high resolution is concentrated in a tiny area called the fovea, right at the center of our vision. Beyond that, the resolution decreases significantly.
Blind Spot: We have a blind spot where the optic nerve meets the retina.
Eye Movements: Our eyes constantly move around a scene to gather more information and correct for imperfections.
So, while the megapixel count is intriguing, the human eye isn’t just a camera lens—it’s more like a detective, collecting clues and piecing them together in our brain to form a complete picture. When it comes to our daily visual experience, talking in megapixels is a bit too simplistic.

The human eye, a remarkable biological marvel, captures the world in intricate detail, far beyond what any camera sensor can achieve. Its resolution, though not directly comparable to a camera’s megapixels, remains awe-inspiring. Next time you gaze at a breathtaking landscape or a loved one’s face, remember that your eyes are more than just pixels—they’re the gateway to your perception of the world.

I respect Roger Clark's opinion.

bwa
Not total nonsense, per: br i According to scient... (show quote)

So the resolution of the eye is actually 5-15MP.

The 576MP figure is the result of a massive panorama stitching exercise.

I guess it really doesn’t mean much since we can only think we will remember the complete image.

Reply
Mar 28, 2024 18:16:00   #
joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
 
billnikon wrote:
I am a photographer, and the image is more important than any discussion about resolution.


Would have been a great parochial school teacher back in the 70s

Reply
 
 
Mar 28, 2024 18:47:27   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
selmslie wrote:
Once someone posts an error on the internet it gets propagated without question, hearsay going berserk.
...
...
Don't believe everything you read on the internet unless you know you can trust the source.


I certainly don't!!!!!

Reply
Mar 28, 2024 18:59:37   #
Canisdirus
 
selmslie wrote:
I am not questioning the smartness of professional photographers, just photographers like you who can't think for themselves.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand the math, geometry or physics.

What makes you think you know anything about my economic situation?

Who is trying to convince whom about having done "the right thing"? The person who has only a lower resolution camera or the one that has only a higher resolution camera?

I could not provide evidence from a 24MP and 45.7M camera as I have unless I had them both.

You may not be qualified to understand this thread. It's too nuanced.
I am not questioning the smartness of professional... (show quote)


Gibberish...you don't even understand the crop equation.

You're like the creationist of the photography world...

Reply
Mar 28, 2024 19:11:59   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Canisdirus wrote:
Gibberish...you don't even understand the crop equation.

You're like the creationist of the photography world...

That's funny.

Which one? The one for aperture, field of view and effective focal length?

Do you still think ISO is included? Why not shutter speed? Or both? How would you apply a crop factor of 1.5 or 1.6 to either of those?

Do you have any idea what the intent of the article on equivalence was about?

Why not throw in megapixels. You don't understand them either.

Is there anything you actally understand? I doubt it.

Reply
Mar 28, 2024 19:38:27   #
Retiredjim Loc: Miami FL
 
The size (mp) of a camera sensor is important IF you are planning to print the image. At screen resolution(you fill the screen, don't look at it an 100%) i would challenge anyone to see the difference between a 10mp image and a 50mp image. the need for a larger sensor is dependent on the planned use of the image. if you don't shoot like you would film, use the full frame, then it would make sense to use a larger MP camera.

i photographed art work in New York City for 40 years, most of it on film. i retired in 2013. from around 2006 to my retirement i worked with a Nikon D300, a 13mp sensor. there are a number of coffee table books that i shot with that camera and i would challenge anyone determine that by looking at the books. the point is that the images were shot tight and not intended for posters, only full page books.

google the book "Irving Harper works in paper"

d. james dee

Reply
 
 
Mar 28, 2024 22:58:26   #
BebuLamar
 
selmslie wrote:
That's funny.

Which one? The one for aperture, field of view and effective focal length?

Do you still think ISO is included? Why not shutter speed? Or both? How would you apply a crop factor of 1.5 or 1.6 to either of those?

Do you have any idea what the intent of the article on equivalence was about?

Why not throw in megapixels. You don't understand them either.

Is there anything you actally understand? I doubt it.
That's funny. img src="https://static.uglyhedgeho... (show quote)


Oh yeah shutter speed too. The hand holding shutter is supposed to be multiplied by the crop factor too.

Reply
Mar 29, 2024 00:16:29   #
Boris77
 
selmslie wrote:
If it sounds like a provocative question, it was intentional.

A discussion took place recently on another thread that got me thinking about it. So I did some comparison's using a 24MP A7 III and a 45.7MP Z7 using each camera's 85mm f/1.8 lens (at f/2.8). Those lens resolutions are very close according to DXOMARK.

I viewed the results on a 2k (1920x1080, about 2MP) and 4k (3840x2160, about 8MP) monitor and couldn't tell them apart.

I printed the original full-size images on 8.5x11 Red River UltraPro Satin paper at their best settings. I still could not tell them apart.

Then I exported each image at a width of 1920 and 3840 pixels as well as at their full resolution. They will be attached to the next post.

The only time I could tell them apart was at the full resolution pixel peeped at 100%. But the only way anyone can see that is on a monitor where the magnified image is way too big to fit the screen.

There is a message here and some of you aren't going to be happy with it.
If it sounds like a provocative question, it was i... (show quote)


I bought my last camera at 24MP, and will buy no more.
I still use the 12 and 16MP cameras I have.
Enough is enough. Photography is for fun or important personal projects.
Boris

Reply
Mar 29, 2024 01:11:47   #
Wallen Loc: Middle Earth
 
selmslie wrote:
If it sounds like a provocative question, it was intentional.

A discussion took place recently on another thread that got me thinking about it. So I did some comparison's using a 24MP A7 III and a 45.7MP Z7 using each camera's 85mm f/1.8 lens (at f/2.8). Those lens resolutions are very close according to DXOMARK.

I viewed the results on a 2k (1920x1080, about 2MP) and 4k (3840x2160, about 8MP) monitor and couldn't tell them apart.

I printed the original full-size images on 8.5x11 Red River UltraPro Satin paper at their best settings. I still could not tell them apart.

Then I exported each image at a width of 1920 and 3840 pixels as well as at their full resolution. They will be attached to the next post.

The only time I could tell them apart was at the full resolution pixel peeped at 100%. But the only way anyone can see that is on a monitor where the magnified image is way too big to fit the screen.

There is a message here and some of you aren't going to be happy with it.
If it sounds like a provocative question, it was i... (show quote)


IMHO, aside from those who compare and want the bigger d*cks that others, the only person who is bothered by resolution and sharpness are those that process/edit images.
Those that are purely into taking pictures and do not process/edit, can shoot anything any day and be happy even with potato cam & jpegs.

Reply
Mar 29, 2024 06:29:09   #
BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh
 
cbtsam wrote:
I guess you guys just don't ever crop. An enviable luxury!


Bingo!! One might choose to mount a 26mm pancake lens on a small mirrorless body (e.g. Nikon Z7II) for a "street photography" set up and rely on cropping as you point out to extend the effective focal length when necessary.

Reply
 
 
Mar 29, 2024 08:55:09   #
User ID
 
BurghByrd wrote:
Bingo!! One might choose to mount a 26mm pancake lens on a small mirrorless body (e.g. Nikon Z7II) for a "street photography" set up and rely on cropping as you point out to extend the effective focal length when necessary.

Quite imaginative. Never seen it.


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Mar 29, 2024 09:10:08   #
DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA
 
BurghByrd wrote:
Bingo!! One might choose to mount a 26mm pancake lens on a small mirrorless body (e.g. Nikon Z7II) for a "street photography" set up and rely on cropping as you point out to extend the effective focal length when necessary.


cropping does not extend the focal length. It only changes the FOV. A head and shoulders portrait at 26mm isn't going to look very pleasing.

Reply
Mar 29, 2024 09:18:11   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
cropping does not extend the focal length. It only changes the FOV. ....

And a longer focal length has a different FOV.

Cropping a 50mm lens shot to match a 100mm lens shot will effectively make the cropped 50mm shot look like the 100mm shot, matching the FOV.
So effectively making it look like it was taken with the 100mm lens....... (Save any telephoto compression.)
But you're right in saying that the cropped version does not make the 50mm LENS used a telephoto LENS.

Perception.....

Reply
Mar 29, 2024 09:37:47   #
User ID
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
cropping does not extend the focal length. It only changes the FOV. A head and shoulders portrait at 26mm isn't going to look very pleasing.

You are criticizing something that was NOT said. Read again, much more slowlier, maybe aloud to your cat.

What Burghbyrd DID say is quite correct.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 8 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
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.