[LeeRunge]

My reference there would be one of my DFA pixel shift images. In that situation, it's at huge disadvantage it wouldn't be fair at all.

It’ll be interesting to see if apple adopts pixel shift. This 12 is the first one to have IBIS on the sensor. Probably we’ll see that on the 13/14.


I’d like to see a computational mode to remove people out of crowded scenes too. Like when visiting italy and everything is a crowd, it would be pretty cool to have a mode that took a bunch of images and just recognized and deleted people so you just had the monument, or whatever the subject is.

[normhead]

I don’t know how you feel about, or others here, but I would love to see something like AirPlay for our DSLR’s or other cameras, espiecially with 8k TV’s with 33 megapixel displays showing up now and in the future. The ability to have friends of family around and do a slideshow presentation like we did in the past with good storytelling is still a great way to share adventures I think. Something like a samsung frame in 8k would be really pretty cool to do that with.

I was sucked into the "I need this D800 for the coming 4k TVs logic back when Jsherman was on the forum. It was one of his justifications. It was complete nonsense. On 4k, 1920 x1080p is indistinguishable from 4k video at a normal viewing distance. I have some 4k video from my ZS100, it looks great but file sizes make them less than desirable, and as I said, on my 4k TV they are pretty much indistinguishable at normal viewing distance. Remember, the larger the TV, the further you have to sit from it to avoid eye strain and you lose huge amount of detail just because of the 5 feet or more distance away from the screen. Peak human visual acuity s measure at 8 inches, and it falls off quickly, even by 18 inches.

Fool me once , shame on you (are you listening Jsherman?) Fool me twice, shame on me. The "upgrade for 4k" was a no go, I expect the "upgrade for 8k will be as well. A true 8k TV would be a 40 MP file for a still image. There's simply nothing we can do now to prepare for that. And I'm guessing even on 8k video , at a normal viewing distance, a 1920 x 1080 will be sufficient.

Last time I went into this issue I was ambushed with information I suspected was bogus but couldn't refute. This time, I have some experience with the issue.

Don't get me wrong, I love 4k for stills. But even then, when I have my computer running and the output is 1920x1080 (10 year old iMac,) once you get 3 feet or 4 feet away, (recommended distance for minimizing eyestrain is 6 feet) I can't tell the difference between when the same image comes up on my desktop, and when the same image comes up at 3840x 2160 on a sideshow image that runs from a data stick on my TV, of course if I walk up to the screen there's a huge difference, but I can't see the whole screen all at once. But at 6 feet, sitting in the lazy boy, there is no noticeable difference. It is always funny, Tess sitting in the Lazy Boy 6 feet away) says, "that's a really nice image", me standing at the computer keyboard right in front of the screen thinks, "that image looks like crap."

By the same token, I'm done with prissy dudes who claim they have to be able to walk right up to the image and it still has to look like a print done at 300 DPI. The topic has drawn extensive comment from some very ridiculous people trying to impress us with how high their picture viewing standards are, but who couldn't take a decent picture to save their lives. I think they believe that if they take a really technically impressive picture people will go "wow"... they don't but that must be what they think. Fact is, people go "wow" because of great composition. Most times, resolution is not a factor. I see the high res thing as a compensation for not very good composition skills, unless you're talking 8x10 great compositions by people like Adams, Avedon, etc. shooting 8x10 film. Their pictures look great small, but they look more impressive big.You walk up to an Avedon portrait, museum quality, and you feel like you're looking at the subject's face. Digital as yet can't match that.

That's an arguments for the iPhone by the way. For 4k TV 12 MP is fine. Maybe not until some kind of diffraction solution is found, I looked at the images from the first link, at close to 4k, and it was simply unacceptable, from any distance. But my 12 MP Q, K-x and Optio W90 files look just fine.

If you are really concerend about 8k TV, a 645z is the minimum and a D850 is barely acceptable. Phones don't even get into the conversation.

Given our experience with 4k TV, I'm not even sure 8k will be viable option in my life time, if ever. I suspect it will thrive in commercial applications, like a slide show or movie for a theatre full of people, not for home use. For 8 people sitting in my living room, 4k is excellent, and probably even overkill.

[timb64]

My reference there would be one of my DFA pixel shift images. In that situation, it's at huge disadvantage it wouldn't be fair at all.

Accepted, that would be a completely pointless comparison.I merely put it forward as an example of a shot that had appeared in a Post your pics thread taken with a phone.

[normhead]

Accepted, that would be a completely pointless comparison.I merely put it forward as an example of a shot that had appeared in a Post your pics thread taken with a phone.

''

Of course, it's just really hard to impress me with mushroom shots. In the fall there are hundreds of them in my woods. I have almost exclusive access to them. In the shot posted above, it has colour, it has depth, I won't even take an image of a mushroom unless it' surrounded by interesting backgrounds. I'm pretty spoiled.

A childhood friend I haven't seen more than 3 times since she was my girlfriend 57 years ago looked at my photostream on Flickr and commented, 'You sure like mushrooms these days.'

[ZombieArmy]

Photo battle between an iPhone 11 Pro and a $7,500 DSLR might surprise you – BGR

Puke article, video too. I could instantly tell the difference between the two even with the extremely small web size resolutions thanks to the HIDEOUS transitions and terrible cutouts of the bokeh. I think this guy is more realizing that the average person doesn't care about image quality as the photographer who spends a lot on gear so an iphone is enough for the layman.

[LeeRunge]

I was sucked into the "I need this D800 for the coming 4k TVs logic back when Jsherman was on the forum. It was one of his justifications. It was complete nonsense. On 4k, 1920 x1080p is indistinguishable from 4k video at a normal viewing distance. I have some 4k video from my ZS100, it looks great but file sizes make them less than desirable, and as I said, on my 4k TV they are pretty much indistinguishable at normal viewing distance. Remember, the larger the TV, the further you have to sit from it to avoid eye strain and you lose huge amount of detail just because of the 5 feet or more distance away from the screen. Peak human visual acuity s measure at 8 inches, and it falls off quickly, even by 18 inches.

Fool me once , shame on you (are you listening Jsherman?) Fool me twice, shame on me. The "upgrade for 4k" was a no go, I expect the "upgrade for 8k will be as well. A true 8k TV would be a 40 MP file for a still image. There's simply nothing we can do now to prepare for that. And I'm guessing even on 8k video , at a normal viewing distance, a 1920 x 1080 will be sufficient.

Last time I went into this issue I was ambushed with information I suspected was bogus but couldn't refute. This time, I have some experience with the issue.

Don't get me wrong, I love 4k for stills. But even then, when I have my computer running and the output is 1920x1080 (10 year old iMac,) once you get 3 feet or 4 feet away, (recommended distance for minimizing eyestrain is 6 feet) I can't tell the difference between when the same image comes up on my desktop, and when the same image comes up at 3840x 2160 on a sideshow image that runs from a data stick on my TV, of course if I walk up to the screen there's a huge difference, but I can't see the whole screen all at once. But at 6 feet, sitting in the lazy boy, there is no noticeable difference. It is always funny, Tess sitting in the Lazy Boy 6 feet away) says, "that's a really nice image", me standing at the computer keyboard right in front of the screen thinks, "that image looks like crap."

By the same token, I'm done with prissy dudes who claim they have to be able to walk right up to the image and it still has to look like a print done at 300 DPI. The topic has drawn extensive comment from some very ridiculous people trying to impress us with how high their picture viewing standards are, but who couldn't take a decent picture to save their lives. I think they believe that if they take a really technically impressive picture people will go "wow"... they don't but that must be what they think. Fact is, people go "wow" because of great composition. Most times, resolution is not a factor. I see the high res thing as a compensation for not very good composition skills, unless you're talking 8x10 great compositions by people like Adams, Avedon, etc. shooting 8x10 film. Their pictures look great small, but they look more impressive big.You walk up to an Avedon portrait, museum quality, and you feel like you're looking at the subject's face. Digital as yet can't match that.

That's an arguments for the iPhone by the way. For 4k TV 12 MP is fine. Maybe not until some kind of diffraction solution is found, I looked at the images from the first link, at close to 4k, and it was simply unacceptable, from any distance. But my 12 MP Q, K-x and Optio W90 files look just fine.

If you are really concerend about 8k TV, a 645z is the minimum and a D850 is barely acceptable. Phones don't even get into the conversation.

Given our experience with 4k TV, I'm not even sure 8k will be viable option in my life time, if ever. I suspect it will thrive in commercial applications, like a slide show or movie for a theatre full of people, not for home use. For 8 people sitting in my living room, 4k is excellent, and probably even overkill.

All of this is so true. We got our first 4k TV this year actually. And for the very real reasons of not being able to tell with viewing distances as you mentioned. I can’t tell the difference from where we sit and watch at 1080 or 4k. Only when i get really close but who sits that close! I guess if you had a 180” TV the size of a wall. I agree 8k is a nonstarter for those reasons for TV, and the bandwidth to stream anything is horrific at that resolution. I think they would look nice for images standing 3-4 feet away to be like “cool” to see all those megapixels uncompressed for once, but then again you’d probably never do that much anyway. The airplay thing is pretty nice with the TV though for checking out what you shot when you get home.

Most internet providers have data caps now at 1 TB per month and even with 4k you get very close streaming. We hit about 780GB of data per month (streaming everything). With 8k I would go over that in half a month. With 1080 we used about 450 GB a month.

[jgnfld]

Re. pixel shift...I'd be curious to know how Huawei combines the color information from the two independent sensors. That said, while I am amazed at the quality of the pics fom my P30 Pro, they still don't come up to KP quality with even a cheap kit lens, let alone a good one.

[LeeRunge]

It was a really foggy day yesterday but we checked out one of the natural bridges in Tennessee. Here's few shots from ProRaw processed into JPEG using luminar 4/ai. Using the ultra wide and wide cameras. They both use a different sensor, wide being the better one.













From the Nikon. Seemed really soft, I'm not sure if the lens had some condensation, it was very damp.

[normhead]

There's place near Niagara Fall like this, I always wonder about these bridge to nowhere.

[LeeRunge]

There's place near Niagara Fall like this, I always wonder about these bridge to nowhere.

I guess it’s the remnants of an old sinkhole according to the plaque. Have you seen the eternal flame over by the finger lakes? I lived in the watertown area for about 5 years up there. The Adirondacks are a great place for having a camera and some free time.

[Rondec]

It’ll be interesting to see if apple adopts pixel shift. This 12 is the first one to have IBIS on the sensor. Probably we’ll see that on the 13/14.


I’d like to see a computational mode to remove people out of crowded scenes too. Like when visiting italy and everything is a crowd, it would be pretty cool to have a mode that took a bunch of images and just recognized and deleted people so you just had the monument, or whatever the subject is.

They are sort of doing something like Pentax's dynamic pixel shift already, aren't they? It was my impression that that was what the night mode was doing was combining several images.

As far as traditional pixel shift, I doubt that there would be much call for that. It requires a tripod, a pretty still scene, self timer, and a really stable set up -- not the sort of thing that most iphone users are going to want to mess with. The computation part of the capture would be easy on an iphone, it's just the set up would be something of a pain.

[slartibartfast01]

They are sort of doing something like Pentax's dynamic pixel shift already, aren't they? It was my impression that that was what the night mode was doing was combining several images.



As far as traditional pixel shift, I doubt that there would be much call for that. It requires a tripod, a pretty still scene, self timer, and a really stable set up -- not the sort of thing that most iphone users are going to want to mess with. The computation part of the capture would be easy on an iphone, it's just the set up would be something of a pain.

The astrophotography mode on a Pixel phone also requires a tripod but the feature is there.

[Rondec]

The astrophotography mode on a Pixel phone also requires a tripod but the feature is there.

They might do it, I just think Apple is focused on what might sell more cameras and that doesn't feel like the sort of thing that will do so much, but Steve Jobs I am not.

[LeeRunge]

They might do it, I just think Apple is focused on what might sell more cameras and that doesn't feel like the sort of thing that will do so much, but Steve Jobs I am not.

I'm honestly surprised they even made a dedicated RAW mode for the iPhone.

[ThorSanchez]

I'm honestly surprised they even made a dedicated RAW mode for the iPhone.

A lot of modes on cameras and phones are there for reviews and spec sheets more than massive increase in sales. It's fairly straightforward and simple to do, so why not? What percentage of Pentaxians bought their camera because it has Astrotracer and pixel shift? That has to be pretty small. But the IBIS mechanism that enables them were already there, so they gave the camera some new features to list.

Apple already had the raw data in the camera in some form, so it was probably pretty simple to dump that to a RAW file and then tell the small niche of hard core photographers it's a cool feature they can use.