Optimal Viewing Size for Judging Sharpness
Feb 10, 2016 08:31:37 #
kayakbob
Loc: Placerville, CA
At what percentage of the image size (1-100%) is considered optimal for judging the sharpness of a image on a monitor?
Camera is Canon 60D (18 MP), Images are Large RAW, monitors are 23" - 27", differen't computers.
Monitors are set for 1080 x 1920 resolution.
I know that the images appear sharper at 25% than they do at 100%.
Off hand I don't remember the exact Pixel Count of images, but believe it is roughly 4,700 x 3,500.
Typically look great at 25 -30% but soft at 100% +
Bob
Camera is Canon 60D (18 MP), Images are Large RAW, monitors are 23" - 27", differen't computers.
Monitors are set for 1080 x 1920 resolution.
I know that the images appear sharper at 25% than they do at 100%.
Off hand I don't remember the exact Pixel Count of images, but believe it is roughly 4,700 x 3,500.
Typically look great at 25 -30% but soft at 100% +
Bob
Feb 10, 2016 08:37:13 #
kayakbob wrote:
At what percentage of the image size (1-100%) is c... (show quote)
I think you answered your question with your last statement...100%
--Bob
Feb 10, 2016 08:37:42 #
100% to see actual image sharpness.
To get a reasonable approximation of what it will look like at print size, use an even fractional multiple of 100% (50% or 25% or 12.5% or...)
If you are posting the image on a web page, view it the same size as it will appear on a 1280x960 pixel monitor.
If you're preparing to print, note that different sizes require different amounts of sharpening. You may wish to run tests with images from your own camera to determine how much to sharpen for every size you print.
To get a reasonable approximation of what it will look like at print size, use an even fractional multiple of 100% (50% or 25% or 12.5% or...)
If you are posting the image on a web page, view it the same size as it will appear on a 1280x960 pixel monitor.
If you're preparing to print, note that different sizes require different amounts of sharpening. You may wish to run tests with images from your own camera to determine how much to sharpen for every size you print.
kayakbob wrote:
At what percentage of the image size (1-100%) is c... (show quote)
Feb 10, 2016 08:47:49 #
I would spend my time making pictures than concerned about sharpness.
Today's lenses are better than ever and I would dare to say that it is rare to use a lens that will not do its part when we do ours. Sharpness depends more on us than on the lens.
If I were you I would stop worrying about sharpness and would spend more time making pictures.
Today's lenses are better than ever and I would dare to say that it is rare to use a lens that will not do its part when we do ours. Sharpness depends more on us than on the lens.
If I were you I would stop worrying about sharpness and would spend more time making pictures.
Feb 10, 2016 08:51:47 #
I think Bill has answered this well. I have found if I can't enlarge three clicks on my camera and have it still sharp I won't be happy later. With a really good lens that is in perfect focus I can do 5 times and it still looks sharp.
burkphoto wrote:
100% to see actual image sharpness. br br To get ... (show quote)
Feb 10, 2016 08:57:17 #
Feb 10, 2016 09:11:33 #
kayakbob wrote:
At what percentage of the image size (1-100%) is c... (show quote)
Sorry not all monitors are set at 1080 x 1920, maybe yours is. I have a 27" IMac and the "native" resolution, at which it is set, is
1440 x 2580.
No matter --- sharpness should be checked at 100% to view an image like what it would appear in print.
Feb 10, 2016 09:27:30 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Err... The scale also depends on the camera sensor...
Just saying.
Just saying.
Correct. Change the original image size and magnification needed to produce a given print size also changes. THAT changes the sharpening values needed to optimize a particular size of print...
One more note: When viewing raw images in SOME post processing software, the sharpening value (and all other parameters) set for JPEGs in the camera menus is applied by default when opening the raw image. In OTHER post-processing software, NONE of the camera menu settings used for processing JPEGs is applied. In that software, the defaults are pulled *from the software.* So you have to be careful to know which is happening, and what the settings are.
Feb 10, 2016 09:29:37 #
kayakbob
Loc: Placerville, CA
kayakbob wrote:
At what percentage of the image size (1-100%) is c... (show quote)
I am refering to my culling process for "keepers". I am not "pixel peeping". I am curious as to what others do in their selection process.
I believe that monitors are typically considered to display at 72 or 96 ppi and I am assuming that.what I am refering to as softness is "Pixelation"
akin to the "Jaggies" effect when a raster image is enlarged to much.
When applying sharpening to an image, I do so at 100%.
I also understand that the viewing distance is also a factor in the perceived image sharpness, the same as it is with prints.
Feb 10, 2016 09:44:33 #
I use 100 percent to be accurate about sharpness.
kayakbob wrote:
At what percentage of the image size (1-100%) is c... (show quote)
Feb 10, 2016 09:52:43 #
kayakbob wrote:
I am refering to my culling process for "keep... (show quote)
When I'm "culling" my images from a days shoot, if it's not sharp at 100%, I hit delete.
Feb 10, 2016 09:57:59 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
kayakbob wrote:
I believe that monitors are typically considered to display at 72 or 96 ppi and I am assuming that.
I believe that monitors are typically considered to display at 72 or 96 ppi and I am assuming that.
Don't assume that.
Feb 10, 2016 10:20:54 #
kayakbob wrote:
At what percentage of the image size (1-100%) is considered optimal for judging the sharpness of a image on a monitor? ...
It depends on how big it will be when it is being viewed by someone "normal" (not a pixel peeper) from a comfortable viewing distance.
See also: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-367827-1.html
Feb 10, 2016 10:31:11 #
kayakbob
Loc: Placerville, CA
kayakbob wrote:
At what percentage of the image size (1-100%) is c... (show quote)
I have been doing some research on line and believe that I have found the underlying reasoning.
It is similar to taking a image sized to be 1" x 1" @ 72 DPI and printing it at 3" x 3", the resulting jaggies (pixelization) in the image would make it appear terrible.
I believe that current monitors, like their CRT predecesors have a "Dot Pitch" or equivalent specificarion.
If you exceed 1 image pixel per Dot Pitch, you end up with an effect similar to pixelization when printing.
The more image pixels per Dot Pitch, the smoother/sharper the image appears as well as the greater the viewing distane, the smoother/sharper the image appears.
I also ran across some comments that percentages other then those divisible by 2 or multiples of 2, can induce jaggies (no explination as to why).
Bob
Feb 10, 2016 23:24:02 #
kayakbob wrote:
At what percentage of the image size (1-100%) is c... (show quote)
Print the image, unless you will be showing you image digitally on a computer screen or projected. You will be surprised how sharp an image looks when printed even if the fine detail is missing on the digital version.
Remember, the eye's ability to resolve fine detail diminishes when you increase the viewing distance, which usually happens when you print large.
That's why a Sony 4K cinema projector, like the one you watch when you go to the local Multiplex, is displaying a 9mp image - 4096x2160 to be exact. Yet it looks pretty darn sharp, doesn't it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.