Perceived image sharpness in high pixel-count cameras.
Dec 23, 2018 19:12:11 #
Dec 23, 2018 19:14:12 #
univac1103 wrote:
I don’t recall reading forum discussions about the... (show quote)
Interesting questions regarding other photo quality factors could also be asked -- Remembering film, larger negatives (or positives) could give wonderful tone and color gradations that set apart the results from 35mm just because there were more silver grains to represent the in-between values. Has anyone done these kinds of comparisons between "not-so-many" and "holy-moley-thats-a-lotta-pixels" cameras? (I assume that bits per pixel, etc., issues would probably come into play here in both the camera settings and post-processing procedures) I can't play with this idea because I don't have any high pixel count cameras . . . shucks.
Dec 23, 2018 19:14:45 #
CatMarley wrote:
I don't think you were focused at the same place on photo #1 and #2 because although the text on the wine bottle is better resolved on #2, the crumbs on the countertop ar sharper in photo #1. There may be just a slight difference between the two cameras. Did you autofocus on the same point in both cases, or did you manually focus?
Hi Cat,
It has been awhile since I took those, but as far as I recall I used spot autofocus targeted on the word Chianti on all of them. There is a slight difference in framing between 1 and 2 because I had to change the camera. Maybe that affected the focus. Or it could be a depth of field issue. I believe FF has a shallower DoF than APS-C at a given aperture. I think I was using F8 which isin't exactly shallow DoF.
BTW - the crumbs were placed on the counter as part of the test. The kitchen is always spotlessly clean.
Dec 23, 2018 19:45:21 #
Purelightglow
Loc: High plains
Lots of sharper image potential on my Canon 5Dsr and I can see it sometimes at web sizes. Some photos really show off their detail and I've found micro-contrast looking sharp. I think detail levels perceived are not at the same rate as megapixel count, double an 8mp might look double but double a 24mp may just appear slightly more.
Dec 23, 2018 20:00:08 #
PHRubin wrote:
I agree in part. One can crop and/or enlarge more
with a higher pixel count before you see the pixilation.
Distortion is another matter.
I agree in part. One can crop and/or enlarge more
with a higher pixel count before you see the pixilation.
Distortion is another matter.
Inneressing point there. Those who imply that
cropping reduces distortion are only correct if
the cropping is centralized, meaning about the
same amount trimmed at each edge. That is
not always how we crop. Example would be if
you just wanna crop away excess foreground.
==========================
On scene, there was way too much pavement
in the foreground. But tilting the view upward
would cause objectionable keystoning. This is
a pretty good lens, but the shot is very typical
of the need to crop completely off-center, thus
keeping the upper edge in the finished image.
A lesser lens here would really mess things up.
Dec 24, 2018 00:18:04 #
Am I the only one who finds pixelation a little more disturbing than film grain? Probably related to my Film Days (TM) upbringing.
Andy
Andy
Dec 24, 2018 03:54:47 #
PHRubin wrote:
I'm sure it depends on how you look at it. My computer can only display 1152 X 864, or about 1 MP, so on it I'll never even see the difference between my old 8 MP camera and my newer 24 MP camera UNTIL I blow a photo up for cropping.
Dec 24, 2018 05:54:21 #
catchlight..
Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
Some of the responses are well meant but I think are leading down the wrong path. If you are truly interested in the facts, here is a very good read:
http://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/shooting/sharpness,-acutance-and-resolution/
http://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/shooting/sharpness,-acutance-and-resolution/
Dec 24, 2018 11:10:23 #
univac1103 wrote:
Re. "perceived sharpness", I'm thinking of the (instantaneous) appearance and impact of how sharp the images appear to be.
"appearance" where? On a computer display? In an 8x10 print? At poster size? Printed as a wall mural?
Dec 24, 2018 12:56:36 #
catchlight.. wrote:
Not sure what you are trying to say but... 1152x864 - (means 1152 pixels across, 864 pixels down)
Calculation
Size = 1152 x 864 = 995328 pixels total
Megapixels = 995 KP
Aspect ratio = 1.33
Calculation
Size = 1152 x 864 = 995328 pixels total
Megapixels = 995 KP
Aspect ratio = 1.33
Golly, I'm trying to say the difference when viewing on a PC monitor is only visible under extreme blow ups
Dec 24, 2018 19:32:14 #
univac1103 wrote:
I don’t recall reading forum discussions about the... (show quote)
Je vais au carnaval de Venise depuis plusieurs années, j'ai commencé avec le Nikon D2, puis le D3, le D4, j'ai depuis sa sortie le D 850, et mon expérience est simple : je suis passé de 50 % de déchet à 20% de déchet sur les images que je tire sur papier... ceci résume mon expérience.
I have been going to the Venice Carnival for several years, I started with the Nikon D2, then the D3, the D4, I have since its release the D 850, and my experience is simple: I have gone from 50% of waste to 20% of waste on the images I shoot on paper... this sums up my experience.
Denis
Dec 25, 2018 00:53:08 #
boberic wrote:
Just my guess- Assuming sooc with the same lens and no cropping and an 8X10 print, I don't think that a human eye can decern the difference between an 8mp sensor or a 50mp sensor.
There is no simple relationship between magapixels and optical resolution.
Dec 26, 2018 01:39:06 #
AndyH wrote:
Am I the only one who finds pixelation a little mor
e disturbing than film grain? Probably related to my
Film Days (TM) upbringing.
Andy
Am I the only one who finds pixelation a little mor
e disturbing than film grain? Probably related to my
Film Days (TM) upbringing.
Andy
I'm with you. Heavy film grain is a random pattern
and thus interferes less with the "illusion of reality"
as compared to the in-you-face regulated pattern
of pixelation.
.
Dec 26, 2018 06:08:35 #
catchlight..
Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
Megapixels are the unit used to grade image resolution and "perceived" sharpness or DOX mark. Pixels play a big part in sharpness or "perceived sharpness". I think you will see how resolution, pixels and sharpness work if you read this article.
Here is a quick Quote from the article:
"If you stick a horrible lens onto a high-megapixel camera, your photographs may pop out with a large megapixel “size”, but the sharpness of the photo may be equivalent to the sharpness of a photo taken with a much smaller sensor and a “perfect” lens.
For example, say you’re shooting with a 24-megapixel camera, but are using a lens rated at 18 P-MPix. This means that the resulting photos are equal in sharpness to an 18-megapixel camera shooting with a optically perfect lens."
Read more here: https://petapixel.com/2012/12/17/perceptual-megapixel-mtf-charts-boiled-down-to-a-single-number/
Here is a quick Quote from the article:
"If you stick a horrible lens onto a high-megapixel camera, your photographs may pop out with a large megapixel “size”, but the sharpness of the photo may be equivalent to the sharpness of a photo taken with a much smaller sensor and a “perfect” lens.
For example, say you’re shooting with a 24-megapixel camera, but are using a lens rated at 18 P-MPix. This means that the resulting photos are equal in sharpness to an 18-megapixel camera shooting with a optically perfect lens."
Read more here: https://petapixel.com/2012/12/17/perceptual-megapixel-mtf-charts-boiled-down-to-a-single-number/
Bipod wrote:
There is no simple relationship between magapixels and optical resolution.
Dec 26, 2018 21:20:52 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.