Lower resolution sensors are not better in low light

biz-engineer · 08-18-2021, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by house

Why display the photos so large?

Life size representation?
That's a question, which if ask to people who never print large or never print at all, will always get the answer that high resolution is not needed.

house · 08-18-2021, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

Life size representation?
That's a question, which if ask to people who never print large or never print at all, will always get the answer that high resolution is not needed.

From what I've seen it's more like twenty times larger than life? It's probably just a curatorial decision to strike awe. I guess it goes well with his images. The scale of works is usually a super sensitive thing for artists. Very intentional and a huge part of creating the atmosphere of the work. Intimate, brash etc. etc.

This time it seems the curation and the mass of images, moving between them have taken precedence.

So about noise and printing large... It depends innit.

MJKoski · 08-18-2021, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Class A

Everytime I have my pictures printed at a shop, they tell me "We know you ordered 8x10 prints, but your files had so many pixels, we had to print them at 16x20, some of them even larger.".

This is actually possible. If super high resolution image is downsampled badly either by the person doing the printing or handled badly by the printer driver, the result might be a bit dense. Cramming 400MP to 2MP web size all in one go using standard resizing operations is not very optimal way to do it.

**BigMackCam** · 08-18-2021, 05:57 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by MJKoski

This is actually possible. If super high resolution image is downsampled badly either by the person doing the printing or handled badly by the printer driver, the result might be a bit dense. Cramming 400MP to 2MP web size all in one go using standard resizing operations is not very optimal way to do it.

Note to self: Stop taking 400MP photos for the web.

This must be why I run out of disk space so often...

MJKoski · 08-18-2021, 07:24 AM

Ya, I was taking a peek at few 400MP pixel-shift capture samples from Fuji GFX100s and tried to downsample them in different ways. I got nice results by halving the resolution step by step until I reached a good target resolution.

ChristianRock · 08-18-2021, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Class A

To answer the question:
One buys a higher-resolution camera to have the option to sometimes exploit the higher resolution. However, when there is not need to exploit the higher resolution, one enjoys the benefits of downsampling, i.e., pays no noise penalty compared to a lower resolution sensor.

Honestly, you can't really buy an APS-C camera with less than 24MP these days.

I find 24MP in my K-3 too much for my needs. My most used camera is the K200D (10MP) and I'm very happy about it. My 2nd-most used camera is the K-S1 and that is because it is the closest in rendering to the older Pentax cameras, not because it's 20MP.

I find that not being a pixel peeper saves you all kinds of money... from the amount of people posting here with older cameras, I'm far from alone...

swanlefitte · 08-18-2021, 11:10 AM

Saving for websize does inform you when your photo is to big. It happens everytime I stitch.

Which reminds me I do have one print I view closer than minimum viewing distance regularly. It is above my sink. It is extremely down sized and the only print that benefits from the high detail.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do ccd sensors have better color than cmos?	barondla	General Photography	23	12-27-2019 01:03 PM
Shooting at a lower resolution	scotty707	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	11	10-23-2014 08:18 AM
better lens will produce better low light video on k-x??	jupzchris	Video Recording and Processing	10	07-20-2010 11:24 AM
Do Samsung reserve the better sensors for the GX20?	asw66	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	05-05-2009 01:44 PM
Da Lens Prices ! Low Low Low	247nino	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	41	04-14-2008 11:55 AM

08-18-2021, 04:01 AM	#46
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,232 Original Poster	Originally posted by house Why display the photos so large? Life size representation? That's a question, which if ask to people who never print large or never print at all, will always get the answer that high resolution is not needed.

08-18-2021, 05:17 AM	#47
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Originally posted by biz-engineer Life size representation? That's a question, which if ask to people who never print large or never print at all, will always get the answer that high resolution is not needed. From what I've seen it's more like twenty times larger than life? It's probably just a curatorial decision to strike awe. I guess it goes well with his images. The scale of works is usually a super sensitive thing for artists. Very intentional and a huge part of creating the atmosphere of the work. Intimate, brash etc. etc. This time it seems the curation and the mass of images, moving between them have taken precedence. So about noise and printing large... It depends innit.

08-18-2021, 05:50 AM	#48
MJKoski Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 1,784	Originally posted by Class A Everytime I have my pictures printed at a shop, they tell me "We know you ordered 8x10 prints, but your files had so many pixels, we had to print them at 16x20, some of them even larger.". This is actually possible. If super high resolution image is downsampled badly either by the person doing the printing or handled badly by the printer driver, the result might be a bit dense. Cramming 400MP to 2MP web size all in one go using standard resizing operations is not very optimal way to do it.

08-18-2021, 05:57 AM - 2 Likes	#49
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,671	Originally posted by MJKoski This is actually possible. If super high resolution image is downsampled badly either by the person doing the printing or handled badly by the printer driver, the result might be a bit dense. Cramming 400MP to 2MP web size all in one go using standard resizing operations is not very optimal way to do it. Note to self: Stop taking 400MP photos for the web. This must be why I run out of disk space so often...

08-18-2021, 07:24 AM	#50
MJKoski Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 1,784	Ya, I was taking a peek at few 400MP pixel-shift capture samples from Fuji GFX100s and tried to downsample them in different ways. I got nice results by halving the resolution step by step until I reached a good target resolution.

08-18-2021, 10:55 AM	#51
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by Class A To answer the question: One buys a higher-resolution camera to have the option to sometimes exploit the higher resolution. However, when there is not need to exploit the higher resolution, one enjoys the benefits of downsampling, i.e., pays no noise penalty compared to a lower resolution sensor. Honestly, you can't really buy an APS-C camera with less than 24MP these days. I find 24MP in my K-3 too much for my needs. My most used camera is the K200D (10MP) and I'm very happy about it. My 2nd-most used camera is the K-S1 and that is because it is the closest in rendering to the older Pentax cameras, not because it's 20MP. I find that not being a pixel peeper saves you all kinds of money... from the amount of people posting here with older cameras, I'm far from alone...

08-18-2021, 11:10 AM	#52
swanlefitte Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,068	Saving for websize does inform you when your photo is to big. It happens everytime I stitch. Which reminds me I do have one print I view closer than minimum viewing distance regularly. It is above my sink. It is extremely down sized and the only print that benefits from the high detail.