Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-23-2015, 01:58 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 241
I think 5 MP is fine if you don't crop. I really like the 16mp sensor in my K-50. It allows me reasonable crops If I want to do a very, very large print it will be a static picture, Which means I can stitch photos together. I have a copy of the K 28 3.5 which is ideal for this. I could cover a wall with this method.

I think the ability to stitch photos together negates, for me, the need for something like a 50mp camera. ev range and color/image quality of the sensor are much more important to me. I would add light sensitivity also but with the curent quality at high iso combined with PP noise software that is somewhat negated.

03-23-2015, 02:05 PM   #17
Senior Member
Pavel_Zhelev's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 190
QuoteOriginally posted by robthebloke Quote
I recently bought a Lenovo yoga 2 pro, which has a 13.3" display that is just under 4k (about 6mp or so? And that isn't even 4k). That's actually changed my opinions on the subject a little bit. So yeah, 5mp wouldn't be quite enough for me

Pixel peeping is now impossible (the pixels are just too small). So viewing my k5 images at 100% displays about 40% of the image. High ISO noise is far less obvious when viewing at 100% pixel peeping range as well.

If you were to create a 26" monitor with the same technology, you'd be looking at a 24mp display. If you apply moore's law here, we should expect those displays in 3 years time (although monitors have traditionally been a little behind the curve, so let's say 6 years).

From my own experience, on my display, I can tell immediately when I'm viewing a 2mp image scaled to 6mp, or a native 6mp image.

For me personally, 50mp is overkill. 24 mp should future proof your images for consumption on the highest specced pcs for the next 6 years at least. 50mp just adds cropping ability into the mix

For prints though, it may not make sense.
I agree with your opinion except with the fact that on 4k 26" you would be able to see 100% of your 16Mpx image, it shoud be the same as on your monitor (around 50% or 8Mpx) since the resolution is the same, therefore you would be still able to see 50% of your image just it is going to be larger size (bigger screen). I just wanted to clarify.
03-23-2015, 02:32 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Diego
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 883
IMO, 50mp cameras exist for the select few professionals who need it for billboards and whatnot, and is then sold to everyone else who thinks they need it to fund more research for important things like clean high ISOs and dynamic range.
03-23-2015, 02:50 PM   #19
Pentaxian
furryurry's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 725
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Because this one goes to 11...

These go to 11.mpg - YouTube
LOL..

03-23-2015, 02:54 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,927
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
If we make a photobook large size square, 30x30cm, that is almost 12x12 inch one only needs 5 megapixels for good quality. Yes it gets a little better at 8 megapixel and even just another notch better at 12 megapixel, but I doubt you will see this on a regular base.

So why do some people think that 50 megapixels for the next FF camera is a great idea?
12x12inch at 300dpi requires 12.96Mp, 5Mp will give you around 180 dpi, that is not good quality imo.
Now lets print a little bigger, say double the size in both directions to 24x24 inch. That is still not very large, and at 300 dpi that requires 51.84Mp.
So there you go, 50Mp easily spent.

I could settle for 36Mp, but 50 would be nicer. Not every picture I take require 50Mp though, so some kind of in camera down sampling option for those everyday photos would be nice.
03-23-2015, 03:03 PM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 844
QuoteOriginally posted by Pavel_Zhelev Quote
I agree with your opinion except with the fact that on 4k 26" you would be able to see 100% of your 16Mpx image, it shoud be the same as on your monitor (around 50% or 8Mpx) since the resolution is the same, therefore you would be still able to see 50% of your image just it is going to be larger size (bigger screen). I just wanted to clarify.
My screen isn't full 4k, but 3200x1800, I.e 5.75mp rather than 8mp you get with 4k. You'd still need double the resolution of 4k to display a 16mp image though.

Assuming that 5k means 4800x2700, you could get 13mp from the latest iMac.
03-23-2015, 03:40 PM   #22
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
My 100" x 200" 300dpi kitchen screen wall requires 1.8 GPixel images. Or soon will
03-23-2015, 03:49 PM - 4 Likes   #23
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,264
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
So why do some people think that 50 megapixels for the next FF camera is a great idea?
Because, according to some, it will not be taken seriously by serious photographers wanting to do serious work nor will serious reviewers give it serious consideration.

Seriously, though, until the very serious 50Mpx sensor is seriously available, even the most serious desires for a 50Mpx Pentax in 35mm format are going to result in serious disappointment.


Steve (so very seriously so)

03-23-2015, 03:51 PM - 1 Like   #24
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,333
QuoteOriginally posted by Pavel_Zhelev Quote
it shoud be the same as on your monitor (around 50% or 8Mpx) since the resolution is the same
The square area of a 13" display is one-quarter (one-half squared) of the square area of a 26" display. But the Yoga display has a higher dots per inch or pixels per inch value than a 26" 4K display. The Yoga display is 3200 x 1800 pixels (5,760,000 pixels, so smaller than 6 Mpx), a 4K display is actually 3840 x 2160 pixels (8,294,400 pixels, so just over 8Mpx) almost four times the physical area, which works out to about 289 square inches compared to about 75 square inches for the Yoga display. PPI is the number of pixels in a line 1 inch long, the PPI for the 26" 4K display is 171, for the Yoga display, it is 276. 276 PPI is not as good as the iPhone 6's 401 PPI, but better than the 264 PPI of the Retina display on iPads and much better than the 218 PPI of the 27" iMac Retina 5K displays.

Your eyes can probably discern individual pixels from 12 inches away at 120 PPI or lower, there are claims that the human eye can distinguish pixels up to 477 PPI, but our brains do so much post-processing of what the eye sees, that it's a moot point to me. Printing on paper media is a different story because individual drops of ink (assuming the image is produced by an inkjet printer) are merged by our brains and the dispersion of the ink droplets into different zones of colours, but you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between an image printed at 240 DPI and 600 DPI. Another issue is that all of the visual factors that compose an image, such as contrast and colour, also affect the perceived sharpness of the image, but that's a much larger topic for discussion, and I haven't even touched the topic of interpolation. Bottom line: most 6 MP images that start out postage stamp size will probably look equally good up to 10 inches by 14 inches, but some won't.

Last edited by RGlasel; 03-23-2015 at 03:57 PM.
03-23-2015, 03:55 PM - 1 Like   #25
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Pavel_Zhelev Quote
push for the consumer to buy a new "better" performing product
...and whether that is the case has yet to be demonstrated. Unless Canon pulls a VERY big rabbit out of its hat by the time its pair of 50 Mpx cameras actually ship, early tests seem to indicate that they are two cameras with limited usability for general shooting.

Using the automobile analogy, a 50 Mpx 35mm FF camera is a little like a funny car. It looks a little like a regular car, but really all it is good for is going like hell in the straight line.


Steve
03-23-2015, 03:59 PM   #26
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,328
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Very good question: the benefit of a 50Mp sensor is that an optical AA is not needed anymore, and since AA filter are sort of 1st order filters, to be efficient against aliasing, the AA filter also degrade the contrast of the image at lower spatial frequencies, i.e the quality of lower resolution image is lower. If you'd use a 50Mpixels sensor with a digital down sampling that give you a 24Mpixel RAW file, the image quality would be better than the image quality of the Nikon D600/D610/D750. The downside of a 50Mp sensor is that it may be slightly more expensive due to lower production yield, and the digital low pass filter would also add costs or a bit more processing time.
The matter of not needing an AA filter on a 50 MP sensor may have been addressed elsewhere, but if you look at Canon's specification for the 5DS/R, the odd thing is that they've retained the AA filter on both cameras, and added a cancelling filter on the R model. Clearly they think that Moire fringing is still an issue at that sensor density, and that it isn't a problem to add yet another layer in front of the sensor if you think you don't need it, and opt for the 5DSR.
03-23-2015, 05:21 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,113
I would gladly have 50 megapixels and possibly a medium format too.

I think 'good quality' is subjective. I can see a huge difference between the 8 megapixel and 16 megapixel shots at 13x19 inches.
For the screen viewing it doesn't matter much. Higher megapixels shots can be a bit sharper when downsized, but it's a small difference.


5 megapixels maybe enough if you view the picture from far away, but sometimes you want to be able to see fine detail:
For example, what are the people doing in this landscape:

You may have missed it, but there are people standing on the rocks, towards the right. It's very obvious on a large print, but at 5 megapixels, they would be just a few pixels across.

Or you can see the fine streaks of sand being pulled by the water (bottom left):

Each streak would again be a few pixels across on a 5 megapixels.


In short, 5 megapixels might be enough for 95% of the shots, 16 megapixels for 99% of them, but there will always be a select few shots that would benefit from higher resolution. The same goes for 400,000 iso sensitivity and all the other technical improvements.

Last edited by rrstuff; 03-23-2015 at 05:29 PM.
03-23-2015, 06:02 PM   #28
Senior Member
Pavel_Zhelev's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 190
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
...and whether that is the case has yet to be demonstrated. Unless Canon pulls a VERY big rabbit out of its hat by the time its pair of 50 Mpx cameras actually ship, early tests seem to indicate that they are two cameras with limited usability for general shooting.

Using the automobile analogy, a 50 Mpx 35mm FF camera is a little like a funny car. It looks a little like a regular car, but really all it is good for is going like hell in the straight line.


Steve
Totally agree, Steve

---------- Post added 03-23-15 at 06:03 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
The square area of a 13" display is one-quarter (one-half squared) of the square area of a 26" display. But the Yoga display has a higher dots per inch or pixels per inch value than a 26" 4K display. The Yoga display is 3200 x 1800 pixels (5,760,000 pixels, so smaller than 6 Mpx), a 4K display is actually 3840 x 2160 pixels (8,294,400 pixels, so just over 8Mpx) almost four times the physical area, which works out to about 289 square inches compared to about 75 square inches for the Yoga display. PPI is the number of pixels in a line 1 inch long, the PPI for the 26" 4K display is 171, for the Yoga display, it is 276. 276 PPI is not as good as the iPhone 6's 401 PPI, but better than the 264 PPI of the Retina display on iPads and much better than the 218 PPI of the 27" iMac Retina 5K displays.

Your eyes can probably discern individual pixels from 12 inches away at 120 PPI or lower, there are claims that the human eye can distinguish pixels up to 477 PPI, but our brains do so much post-processing of what the eye sees, that it's a moot point to me. Printing on paper media is a different story because individual drops of ink (assuming the image is produced by an inkjet printer) are merged by our brains and the dispersion of the ink droplets into different zones of colours, but you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between an image printed at 240 DPI and 600 DPI. Another issue is that all of the visual factors that compose an image, such as contrast and colour, also affect the perceived sharpness of the image, but that's a much larger topic for discussion, and I haven't even touched the topic of interpolation. Bottom line: most 6 MP images that start out postage stamp size will probably look equally good up to 10 inches by 14 inches, but some won't.
Very detailed explanation, thanks.
03-23-2015, 08:03 PM   #29
Site Supporter
sherrvonne's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,886
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Because this one goes to 11...

These go to 11.mpg - YouTube
That is funny.
03-23-2015, 08:09 PM   #30
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,333
QuoteOriginally posted by rrstuff Quote
Each streak would again be a few pixels across on a 5 megapixels.
If there are visual clues as to the coloration and shape of the streaks somewhere in the photo, our minds can do very sophisticated interpolation and anti-aliasing, even if the final resolution is less than optimal. In a similar fashion, scalable computer fonts are often handmade bitmaps at smaller sizes where perfectly scaled strokes would be thinner than a single pixel. Part of the photographer's art is being able to use those visual clues to give viewers image quality that doesn't exist in the file itself. Of course there are very few disadvantages to greater resolution, so if more details are recorded by the sensor than are absolutely required, there is no harm in including them in the final image.
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!
4k, 645z, auto, bandwidth, camera, crop, diffraction, display, dslr, ff camera, image, inches, lcd, lens, line, megapixel, megapixels, mp, mpx, photography, photos, pixels, ppi, race, sensor, square, yoga
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So is 16 megapixel enough? RonHendriks1966 Pentax DSLR Discussion 307 11-20-2014 10:52 AM
Why is the K-5 IIs video mode so bad? ZombieArmy Pentax K-5 37 07-10-2014 09:08 AM
Is the image processor in Pentax K-r is good enough? dmnf Photographic Technique 10 05-15-2013 09:43 AM
[Auto-ISO] so, is the K5 and Kr brave enough to use max iso? Reportage Pentax K-5 13 10-24-2010 03:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:18 PM. | 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