Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-23-2019, 02:39 AM - 2 Likes   #181
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,610
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
The Apsc sensor is 2;25 times smaller than a FF sensor. And you print to what size?

There is a huge magnification going on with every digital photo. Or do you watch your apsc photos on a screen sized 16x24 mm?
If we take a K5/K1 in crop mode sensor as an example 16.3MP 4928x3264 pixels. My monitor is 2560x1440. In full screen view I am seeing the image at around half its actual size, not enlarged at all, let alone a huge one.

When you print an image your print size is determined by the image file pixel dimensions and the ppi. At say 300 ppi You could print that image at 16"x10.88". No enlargement required. No magnification

The point is that pixels in an image file do not have a physical size.


Last edited by pschlute; 08-23-2019 at 03:12 AM.
08-23-2019, 02:45 AM - 1 Like   #182
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,827
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
It would be quite cool to have a monitor at 7372:4924 resolution. But I don't think we are there yet even with large screen tvs are we?
Pixel count or size have no relevancy in this discussion at all unless someone declares it is only about different photo end results sizes. So far the thread opener has not made this statement.
So for the time being I can only advise any reader to flat out ignore every single post mentioning pixel size or pixel count here in this thread about light gathering of lenses.

---------- Post added 23rd Aug 2019 at 11:51 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pschlute Quote
If we take a K5/K1 in crop mode sensor as an example 16.3MP 4928x3264 pixels. My monitor is 2560x1440. In full screen view I am seeing the image at around half its actual size, not enlarged at all, let alone a huge one.

When you print an image your print size is determined by the image file pixel size and the ppi. At say 300 ppi You could print that image at 16"x10.88". No enlargement required. No magnification

The point is that pixels in an image file do not have a physical size.
I was talking about size in millimeters.

I do hope you do understand that taking the image of a 16x24mm apsc sensor and printing it to your 16x10 inches involves a LOT of magnification. And less so if the image had been from a large format film camera.
08-23-2019, 02:53 AM - 2 Likes   #183
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,610
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Pixel count or size have no relevancy in this discussion at all unless someone declares it is only about different photo end results sizes. So far the thread opener has not made this statement.
So for the time being I can only advise any reader to flat out ignore every single post mentioning pixel size or pixel count here in this thread about light gathering of lenses.
Ahem...point of order Sir...

It was you that brought pixel size into the discussion by claiming that every digital image required "huge magnification".
08-23-2019, 03:06 AM - 1 Like   #184
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,126
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
I was talking about size in millimeters.
That was a bit silly considering you were responding to a statement about resolution.

08-23-2019, 03:11 AM - 1 Like   #185
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,610
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
I was talking about size in millimeters.

I do hope you do understand that taking the image of a 16x24mm apsc sensor and printing it to your 16x10 inches involves a LOT of magnification. And less so if the image had been from a large format film camera.
I hope you understand that a pixel has no physical size.
08-23-2019, 03:21 AM - 1 Like   #186
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,578
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
I do hope you do understand that taking the image of a 16x24mm apsc sensor and printing it to your 16x10 inches involves a LOT of magnification. And less so if the image had been from a large format film camera.

Please think very carefully about the important point that pschlute has stated far better and far more succinctly than I've done: Pixels in an image file do not have a physical size.

Now this next bit is going to blow your mind: a 16"x10.88" print from a 16 megapixel file is effectively a contact print. It's a print at 1:1 resolution, in which one pixel on the sensor equals one dot of ink on the print (told you it would blow your mind).

It can seem counterintuitive, which is why so many people prefer the comforting myths of equivalence, but when we're talking about digital photography the physical size of sensors and screens usually has very little to do with things. After all, your computer doesn't need to know the physical size of your monitor to display photos properly, does it? All it needs to know is the pixel resolution
08-23-2019, 03:22 AM - 1 Like   #187
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,827
QuoteOriginally posted by pschlute Quote
Ahem...point of order Sir...

It was you that brought pixel size into the discussion by claiming that every digital image required "huge magnification".
Is this a joke? Magnification is the difference between input / sensor and output size. Pixels are nowhere part of the equation.

---------- Post added 23rd Aug 2019 at 12:24 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pschlute Quote
I hope you understand that a pixel has no physical size.
Again: Pixels are not relevant. And: pixels on the sensor do have a size.
08-23-2019, 03:28 AM - 2 Likes   #188
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,126
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Is this a joke? Magnification is the difference between input / sensor and output size. Pixels are nowhere part of the equation.

---------- Post added 23rd Aug 2019 at 12:24 ----------



Again: Pixels are not relevant. And: pixels on the sensor do have a size.
When I set my editor image to 100% it matches the image pixel to the screen pixel so you are simply wrong

08-23-2019, 03:29 AM - 2 Likes   #189
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,578
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Pixels are nowhere part of the equation.

Oookaaaayyyy. . . .

Um. . . .

So maybe a digital sensor is full of microscopic elves painting oil paintings very quickly?
08-23-2019, 03:31 AM - 1 Like   #190
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,126
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
Oookaaaayyyy. . . .

Um. . . .

So maybe a digital sensor is full of microscopic elves painting oil paintings very quickly?
OK, you are back on the Dartmoor mushrooms aren't you!
08-23-2019, 03:34 AM - 3 Likes   #191
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,578
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
OK, you are back on the Dartmoor mushrooms aren't you!

This thread is making me feel that way. And the problem is, from now on I'm only ever going to be able to talk about resolution in terms of micro-elves.
08-23-2019, 04:12 AM   #192
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 664
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
Oookaaaayyyy. . . .

Um. . . .

So maybe a digital sensor is full of microscopic elves painting oil paintings very quickly?
As in Discworld?

08-23-2019, 04:14 AM - 1 Like   #193
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,102
It has now been stated by everyone, pixels are not used to measure size. Right, keep that in mind for the rest of this post. Pixels are not .

So take for example an image projected on a 35mm frame/sensor and then viewed on a 24 screen.
Has the image size been reduced? (Remember, pixels are NOT a measurement of size, millimeter are.)

It has been enlarged.


If we now take an image from a APS-C sensor and display it on the same 24 screen, it has to be enlarged even more then the FF image to fill the screen. ENLARGED, even though it was down sampled. Pixels are NOT used to measure size.
08-23-2019, 04:53 AM   #194
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,342
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
When I set my editor image to 100% it matches the image pixel to the screen pixel so you are simply wrong
That is a real equivalence.
A monitor with one pixel will display one pixel or down sample or up sample. But it is 1 pixel. How can you say that huge pixel vs a camera pixel is magnification of the sensor?
One pixel is equivalent to one pixel. I guess you can say the pixel is magnified but that has no real meaning.
08-23-2019, 04:55 AM - 1 Like   #195
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,126
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
It has now been stated by everyone, pixels are not used to measure size. Right, keep that in mind for the rest of this post. Pixels are not .

So take for example an image projected on a 35mm frame/sensor and then viewed on a 24 screen.
Has the image size been reduced? (Remember, pixels are NOT a measurement of size, millimeter are.)

It has been enlarged.


If we now take an image from a APS-C sensor and display it on the same 24 screen, it has to be enlarged even more then the FF image to fill the screen. ENLARGED, even though it was down sampled. Pixels are NOT used to measure size.
So when my image viewer magnification is set to 100% it should show the image at the size of the sensor according to that.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
50mm, amount, aps-c, bokeh, camera, distance, energy, exposure, ff, image, iris, iso, jpg, k-mount, lens, light, metal, paint, pentax lens, pixel, print, sensor, shutter, size, slr lens, unit, water
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thought FF (k1) would give me. Significant increase in light gathering vs k70 Mazzoman Pentax Full Frame 31 12-10-2017 12:57 AM
FF vs APS-C light gathering / noise CypherOz General Photography 21 06-13-2014 10:25 AM
60-250/50-135 macro abilities jenst Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 05-13-2014 06:22 PM
A Realization on my Abilities interested_observer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 04-22-2014 09:04 PM
Is there unit for light gathering properties of a lens? Reportage Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 03-12-2012 07:37 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:51 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top