Multiplier for natural resolution on K-5 display

MikeR · 04-03-2012, 06:32 PM

If I wanted to try and check the sharpness of a shot on the camera display, what would the most accurate magnification level to use. Since the K-5 has a resolution of about 16 megapixels and the display is about 1 megapixel would a magnification of 4x be most accurate, or am I missing something? Any insight would be appreciated.

Mike

Adam · 04-03-2012, 06:42 PM

About 8x is full size, I believe.

**jeffshaddix** · 04-04-2012, 05:02 AM

I think 4x is right, that's a linear factor. At 4x you can view 1/16th of the image at a time.

I use quick zoom 4x to test focus on shots, quite a handy feature!

deadwolfbones · 04-04-2012, 08:11 AM

I've always used 8x and it looks correct to me.

MikeR · 04-04-2012, 11:19 AM

Adam, Jeff, Deadwolfbones,

Thanks all for taking the time to reply. Examing some pictures really close in the daylight (my eyes don't work as well in the artificial light after the sun goes down as they used to) I've come to the conclusion that 4x is correct, but the display seems to do a really fine job of smoothing out the greater magnification. That being the case, I'm not really sure whether the display helps very much towards determining full-sized sharpness. Not exactly the same thing, but sort of like looking at a 4x6 to determine whether it's going to look nice at 13x19.

Thanks again,
Mike

maltfalc · 04-04-2012, 11:26 AM

the k-5's lcd is nowhere near 1MP. it's 640X480.

RonHendriks1966 · 04-04-2012, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by maltfalc

the k-5's lcd is nowhere near 1MP. it's 640X480.

If it only was better. QHD would be great for the nect.

At 8x you are pixelpeeping. At 4x you should be able to see some descent performing to judge.

MikeR · 04-04-2012, 11:44 AM

Matfalc,

Thanks for the reply. 640x480 equals 307,200 dots, and the K-5 owners manual says the resolution is approximately 921,000 dots. I believe a megapixel is defined 1,000,000 so I considered that close enough to round it up.

Mike

MikeR · 04-04-2012, 12:01 PM

Ron,

Thanks for the reply.

Quote:

QHD would be great for the nect.

I'm new to Internet forums and don't understand.

Quote:

At 8x you are pixelpeeping. At 4x you should be able to see some descent
performing to judge.

True, I am pixel peeping as my hands aren't extremely steady (even with shake reduction), and if I'm in a situation where I want a crisp shot for a large printout, a means of assurance that I nailed it would have been nice.

Mike

RonHendriks1966 · 04-04-2012, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by MikeR

Matfalc,

Thanks for the reply. 640x480 equals 307,200 dots, and the K-5 owners manual says the resolution is approximately 921,000 dots. I believe a megapixel is defined 1,000,000 so I considered that close enough to round it up.

Mike

These are pixels and times 3 (a dot for Red, Green and Blue) makes 640x480x3=921600 dots (yes they fool us).

Originally posted by MikeR

Ron,

Thanks for the reply.

I'm new to Internet forums and don't understand.

True, I am pixel peeping as my hands aren't extremely steady (even with shake reduction), and if I'm in a situation where I want a crisp shot for a large printout, a means of assurance that I nailed it would have been nice.

Mike

QHD is a quarter HD so a larger screen with 960x540x3=1.55miljon dots. For a next generation with a larger 16:9 screen.

I do the pixelpeeping as well, when sharpness is crucial.

icywindow · 04-04-2012, 01:48 PM

I remember reading in one of my manuals (can't remember if K-x or K20D) that previewing at 11x was 100% resolution. My guess is that the K-5 manual will also disclose that information.

MikeR · 04-04-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

These are pixels and times 3 (a dot for Red, Green and Blue) makes
640x480x3=921600 dots (yes they fool us).

Ron,

I was unaware of that, but that makes what I have been seeing and what everyone has been saying, gel and make perfect sense. 307,200 dots with it being linear would be about 8x and that would explain why I convinced myself "the display seems to do a really fine job of smoothing out" the 8x magnification. The little bit of what I was thought might be noise was probably just greater detail, or a combo of the two. I sort of feel like a doofus, but question is answered, I understand why, and problem solved!

Thank you everyone,
Mike

maltfalc · 04-04-2012, 03:10 PM

the long edge of the image reduced to fit the lcd (640 pixels) is considered 1X. 640 x 7.7 = 4928 pixels (the long edge at full resolution).

**jeffshaddix** · 04-04-2012, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

These are pixels and times 3 (a dot for Red, Green and Blue) makes 640x480x3=921600 dots (yes they fool us).

That's sneaky!! Bah, 8x it is then!

cbope · 04-08-2012, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by jeffshaddix

That's sneaky!! Bah, 8x it is then!

It's not sneaky. A dot is NOT a pixel. A pixel is made up of 3 colored dots also known as an RGB triad (red, green, blue). Dots are also sometimes called sub-pixels.

Now, if Pentax had said 921k pixels, and the display is 640 x 480 pixels in height and width... then some sneakiness (or more likely, dumb marketing types) may be involved.

04-03-2012, 06:32 PM	#1
MikeR New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 10	Multiplier for natural resolution on K-5 display If I wanted to try and check the sharpness of a shot on the camera display, what would the most accurate magnification level to use. Since the K-5 has a resolution of about 16 megapixels and the display is about 1 megapixel would a magnification of 4x be most accurate, or am I missing something? Any insight would be appreciated. Mike

04-03-2012, 06:42 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,593	About 8x is full size, I believe. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Image Resolution for Display	calicojack	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	10-25-2009 11:21 AM
For Sale - Sold: [CLOSED] [EU] Vivitar (Kiron) 3.8/75-205mm + 2X Matched Multiplier	ovim	Sold Items	6	08-21-2009 04:11 AM
For Sale - Sold: Vivitar 75-205mm 1:3.5-4.5 with 2x matched multiplier	duncsuss	Sold Items	4	08-12-2009 06:44 AM
dslr focal length multiplier and lens hoods	dmoon911	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	07-30-2008 06:34 AM
conversion multiplier for digital designed lenses?	slip	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	11-16-2006 01:28 PM

04-04-2012, 05:02 AM	#3
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	I think 4x is right, that's a linear factor. At 4x you can view 1/16th of the image at a time. I use quick zoom 4x to test focus on shots, quite a handy feature!

04-04-2012, 08:11 AM	#4
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	I've always used 8x and it looks correct to me.

04-04-2012, 11:19 AM	#5
MikeR New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 10 Original Poster	Adam, Jeff, Deadwolfbones, Thanks all for taking the time to reply. Examing some pictures really close in the daylight (my eyes don't work as well in the artificial light after the sun goes down as they used to) I've come to the conclusion that 4x is correct, but the display seems to do a really fine job of smoothing out the greater magnification. That being the case, I'm not really sure whether the display helps very much towards determining full-sized sharpness. Not exactly the same thing, but sort of like looking at a 4x6 to determine whether it's going to look nice at 13x19. Thanks again, Mike

04-04-2012, 11:26 AM	#6
maltfalc Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Winnipeg Photos: Albums Posts: 396	the k-5's lcd is nowhere near 1MP. it's 640X480.

04-04-2012, 11:43 AM	#7
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by maltfalc the k-5's lcd is nowhere near 1MP. it's 640X480. If it only was better. QHD would be great for the nect. At 8x you are pixelpeeping. At 4x you should be able to see some descent performing to judge.

04-04-2012, 11:44 AM	#8
MikeR New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 10 Original Poster	Matfalc, Thanks for the reply. 640x480 equals 307,200 dots, and the K-5 owners manual says the resolution is approximately 921,000 dots. I believe a megapixel is defined 1,000,000 so I considered that close enough to round it up. Mike

04-04-2012, 12:01 PM	#9
MikeR New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 10 Original Poster	Ron, Thanks for the reply. Quote: QHD would be great for the nect. I'm new to Internet forums and don't understand. Quote: At 8x you are pixelpeeping. At 4x you should be able to see some descent performing to judge. True, I am pixel peeping as my hands aren't extremely steady (even with shake reduction), and if I'm in a situation where I want a crisp shot for a large printout, a means of assurance that I nailed it would have been nice. Mike

04-04-2012, 01:03 PM	#10
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by MikeR Matfalc, Thanks for the reply. 640x480 equals 307,200 dots, and the K-5 owners manual says the resolution is approximately 921,000 dots. I believe a megapixel is defined 1,000,000 so I considered that close enough to round it up. Mike These are pixels and times 3 (a dot for Red, Green and Blue) makes 640x480x3=921600 dots (yes they fool us). Originally posted by MikeR Ron, Thanks for the reply. I'm new to Internet forums and don't understand. True, I am pixel peeping as my hands aren't extremely steady (even with shake reduction), and if I'm in a situation where I want a crisp shot for a large printout, a means of assurance that I nailed it would have been nice. Mike QHD is a quarter HD so a larger screen with 960x540x3=1.55miljon dots. For a next generation with a larger 16:9 screen. I do the pixelpeeping as well, when sharpness is crucial.

04-04-2012, 01:48 PM	#11
icywindow Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 303	I remember reading in one of my manuals (can't remember if K-x or K20D) that previewing at 11x was 100% resolution. My guess is that the K-5 manual will also disclose that information.

04-04-2012, 03:04 PM	#12
MikeR New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 10 Original Poster	Quote: These are pixels and times 3 (a dot for Red, Green and Blue) makes 640x480x3=921600 dots (yes they fool us). Ron, I was unaware of that, but that makes what I have been seeing and what everyone has been saying, gel and make perfect sense. 307,200 dots with it being linear would be about 8x and that would explain why I convinced myself "the display seems to do a really fine job of smoothing out" the 8x magnification. The little bit of what I was thought might be noise was probably just greater detail, or a combo of the two. I sort of feel like a doofus, but question is answered, I understand why, and problem solved! Thank you everyone, Mike

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-04-2012, 03:10 PM	#13
maltfalc Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Winnipeg Photos: Albums Posts: 396	the long edge of the image reduced to fit the lcd (640 pixels) is considered 1X. 640 x 7.7 = 4928 pixels (the long edge at full resolution).

04-04-2012, 06:08 PM	#14
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 These are pixels and times 3 (a dot for Red, Green and Blue) makes 640x480x3=921600 dots (yes they fool us). That's sneaky!! Bah, 8x it is then!

04-08-2012, 08:05 AM	#15
cbope Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Helsinki Posts: 664	Originally posted by jeffshaddix That's sneaky!! Bah, 8x it is then! It's not sneaky. A dot is NOT a pixel. A pixel is made up of 3 colored dots also known as an RGB triad (red, green, blue). Dots are also sometimes called sub-pixels. Now, if Pentax had said 921k pixels, and the display is 640 x 480 pixels in height and width... then some sneakiness (or more likely, dumb marketing types) may be involved.