Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-10-2015, 06:56 AM   #61
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,731
And here is the big fallacy.. on my monitor which is 27 inches. sad 2560-x1440 which is pretty much huge, I am looking at less than 1/6, pixel peeping I looking 3.6 million pixels. MY camera takes 24million pixels. You need to back up a long way to see that image as you would viewing the whole image. Imagine if you cut the Mona Lisa into 6 pieces then enlarged one piece to the size of the original, and asked people to evaluate it. You'd say "that's stupid". Yet people do it everyday pixel peeping and for what?

QuoteQuote:
Now if you add some margin for post processing (crops, perspective correction, optical corrections) and that this is achieved only on the center, and you'll see that this D800 is going to provide noticable improvement at 30", that you don't really need 60" to see it. And then that's not so big anymore. You don't need to be that far from a 30" print to see it entirely and you can resolve quite some level of details already.
One person on the forum has actually done this (have you? ) and their result was, the person asked to evaluate them, refused to pick which they liked best and said " I like some parts of one better and some parts of the other better, overall I can't pack a favourite." This is the one and only blind test I've ever heard of. And those are the results. Unless there is body of work out there that I am totally unaware of, I have conclude that everyone who says a D800 image is better than a K-01 image has been swallowed up in propaganda. People repeat other people's "logical" statements. But every time someone tests these "logical statements" my self included with my lens comparisons, in a blind test, the results are not what "experts" predict.

The reason people get so angry when I say these kinds of things is because it challenges their "core"beliefs and they have no answer. There is nothing. anywhere on the web, that proves me wrong. There are lot's of people who will offer an unsubstantiated opinion that I'm wrong but that is a far cry from actually presenting some scientific research that says I'm wrong.

The notion that higher resolution leads to better art has never been scientifically established.

And it never will be because it's not true.

Repeating the "expert" line of thinking over and over, doesn't make it true.

The elements of graphic design, do not include resolution. You do not need higher resolution to make a more effective print. It's a complete fallacy.

Elements of design. notice, resolution is not one of them.


The people promoting higher resolution as a necessity for artistic expression are completely without any kind of scientific foundation. Their whole argument consists of " I paid $7000 for this camera and I think it's images look better than those taken with my $1000 camera." Anyone who can't see the flaws in that kind of logic has no credibility anywhere. Not in my book, and shouldn't be in anyone else's book either.

If people want to say they like their 1000 MP camera, I have no issue with that. But when people say "my images taken with my 36MP camera are better than the ones you take with your 24MP camera," I have a huge issue with that. It's just not true.

Believing more resolution makes for better images doesn't make you technocrat, it makes you a sucker. Get what you need for your style, of shooting, go with that. There is absolutely no way, all these people espousing 36 M (and higher) FFs on the forum are making 70 inch prints, where with a microscope from 8 inches away, you could tell the difference.

I just say "Prove it." End of conversation.

The biggest argument for a high resolution camera past 16 MP from my perspective is, "it makes you happy". There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just don't go getting all superior about it. Is the guy who needs a Mercedes to be happy better than the guy who can be happy with a Kia? That's what a lot of this comes down to.


Last edited by normhead; 12-10-2015 at 08:08 AM.
12-10-2015, 12:58 PM   #62
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
Is resolution part of Art?

This of course depend of what the Art in question is. In India they did miniature painting using magnifying glass to have very fine level of detail.That's part of a core movement for them and this is Art.

In classical painting again you have pointillism, painting with knife and many style that doesn't rely one bit on resolution high resolution or details. On the contrary, hyperrealism is a recent painting movement were you want extreme realism and details and make you painting look a bit like a high resolution photo.

There many painting that while not providing that much fine resolution are just huge. Think of the Sixtine Chapel in Roma. The last jugement for example is 21 meters high and 13 meters large. The amount of detail in such painting is simply amazing. You have to be there to see it and there no way for a photo even with 36MP to reproduce the filling you could have when seing it.

Some form of art rely a lot on fine details while some don't. Some things are huge, other small, some are very detailled or on contrary not at all.

You can't resume art to a one style or two that fit your ideal of gear. You have yourself started a thread with the most expensives photo out there and theses one are huge prints that span a wall with ultra high resolution.

Honesly for my usage I don't care and I'am the first to say you don't need an FF or 36MP and so on. But there actually a difference. You just need to know if you are going to leverage it or not. Most will not. In partculary many of the actual owners. Doesn't mean there no value or you can't do something interresting with it.

i also know that for myself while I would consider the K3 "good enough" for resolution I know that I wasn't satisfyed by K5. Many time after a crop there wasn't enough remaining resolution and it was showing in print of even medium size. The K3 by combining tack of AA filter and more photosites solved the issues for most common cases in my practice.

But Maybe the key point in art is that artist are not going to comply to 1 form, 1 way of doing things or 1 standard vision. Part of being an artist is breaking the rules, doing things that are different. If everybody is thinking 24 or 36MP is enough, and APSC is enough, there will be artists that will scan huge film or that will use z whole wall as the sensitive area. Art ins't limited by rules.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 12-10-2015 at 01:11 PM.
12-10-2015, 01:16 PM   #63
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And here is the big fallacy.. on my monitor which is 27 inches. sad 2560-x1440 which is pretty much huge,
This is huge resolution but some Smartphones have actually more resolution than that and fit it in a 5-6" screen. With such pixel density, a 36MP picture displayed at 100% crop would not fit in a 15" screen.
12-10-2015, 01:28 PM   #64
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,731
And you view them from a foot away from your face. You've totally lost track of what we are talking about. The question is, can you see a difference between a 24 and 36 MP image, even on your incredible phone. No one cares how many pixels you pack in there, if they are microscopic.

Just out of curiosity, what phone has better than 2760x1440?

Eventually resolutions will be so good you need an electron microscope to see the captured detail, and actually in images printed at 300 DPI that's already true., ... how will that affect anything? You need to be able to see the detail for it to improve your viewing experience. Most art, has an optimum viewing distance. Very little art actually can use 300 DPI, but that's what most of us print at.

In fact I bet you can't provide one example of art that needs 300 DPI to be effective, regardless of your efforts to promote hi-Res. There's hi res, and there is ridiculous res (Ri Res). 300 DPI is ridiculous. And I can do a 20 inch print at 300 DPI off my K-3.

I expect the difference between you and me with a K-5 was I bought a 60-250 which allowed me to crop really tight, and get excellent images. I have no problem using K-5 images. A K-5 is approx 5000x 3300, , a K-3 is 6000x 4000, you only get anther 1000 pixels to crop. If you aren't taking care of business with a K-5 you probably aren't getting it done with a K-3 either.


Last edited by normhead; 12-10-2015 at 01:48 PM.
12-11-2015, 11:42 AM   #65
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
In fact I bet you can't provide one example of art that needs 300 DPI to be effective, regardless of your efforts to promote hi-Res. There's hi res, and there is ridiculous res (Ri Res). 300 DPI is ridiculous. And I can do a 20 inch print at 300 DPI off my K-3.
Look again at theses india miniatures, you need a manifying glass to see all details and that's a traditionnal art centuries old.

And this is not art, but 600dpi is a common setting for printing... text. This make the text more comfortable to read.

For smartphone the minimum resolution theses days is 1280x720 (still more than 200dpi) and most phones costing 250€ or more are at least 1920x1080 (300-400dpi range depending on actual screen size).

LG G4 and LG G3, Samsung galaxy note 4, samsung galaxy S6 edge, samsung galaxy note edge, motorola X Style, , google nexus P, microsoft lumia 950 have 2560 x 1440, Google nexus 6 has 2540 x 1440. For theses models we are arround 500dpi depending the screen size.

Sony Xperia Z5 premium has 3840 x 2160, that's 806 dpi.

Most table are now at least 1920x1080 and many are 2560x1440 or 2560x1600. Screen size is usually in 8-10" range with a few 12". This is still around 300dpi in that last case

Last edited by Nicolas06; 12-11-2015 at 12:25 PM.
12-11-2015, 12:54 PM   #66
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,731
Whatever....

I try and understand what point you're making, and I think I've come to realize what it is, you like to argue. You don't have a point. This is like me saying "there are bacteria that are visible to the naked eye", and you saying "there are viruses that you need an electron microscope to see."

You kind of pretend you're talking to my points, but you aren't you're far away in another galaxy.
12-15-2015, 05:08 PM   #67
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Whatever....

I try and understand what point you're making, and I think I've come to realize what it is, you like to argue. You don't have a point. This is like me saying "there are bacteria that are visible to the naked eye", and you saying "there are viruses that you need an electron microscope to see."

You kind of pretend you're talking to my points, but you aren't you're far away in another galaxy.
You used absolute (lke no art benefit of such level of details) I show you some example and it doesn't count. The huge piece of art that is one of the most well known classical like the last judgement by MichaelAngelo that span over full wall and that has so lot of details doesn't count ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Judgment_%28Michelangelo%29). Your own example of the most expensive photo in the world with lot of resolution doesn't count. Traditionnal Indian art made with the sense of small detail doesn't count. I guess people doing things like that: http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/insanely-detailed-artwork don't count neither. I guess reproducing the huge tapestries of Sevilla Royal palace doesn't count as valid usage or that huge painting by Vladimir Kussh "Mythology of the oceans and heavens" that is 33x99" surealist painting showing a huge scene full of detail isn't relevant... All of theses are only exception from other galaxies A galaxy where most smartphone sold are 300dpi or more and where there are thousand of cathedrals and churchs with huge biblic scenes or palaces with detailled painting of batles.

I know you don't live in europe, and maybe you don't spend so much time in museums but there as much art that would require lot of resolution to be recorded in its full glory as well as art that would not really benefit of it. One is not necessarily better than the other.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 12-15-2015 at 05:35 PM.
12-16-2015, 02:01 AM   #68
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,816
My personal experience with higher resolution displays (retina) is that they deliver better looking images from the same camera and lens. I've compared the same images viewed with retina display and 1920x1050 lcd display. With retina, even when zooming at 100%, you can't see the lens blur, while the same 100% zoom on 1920x1050 display clearly show the lens flaws. when using a higher resolution display, you can use a cheap kit lens with cheap camera, and the image still look awesome :-) I wish retina displays would become a standard, that would defeat all pixel peepers, and that would kill the camera market further.

Regarding the above arguments about viewing distance, DPI resolution and existing high resolution art, I think they all exist. A phone display has higher DPI count, but the overall pixel count is not higher, the display is smaller and the viewing distance is also smaller. Given the bandwidth of the human eye, I figured out for myself that the only key constraint for how much resolution is needed is the viewing distance (considering that everyone has perfect eyes, no to mention when you get older than 40 or 50 years old, you may need to wear glasses to see closely or you have to stand further away from what you are looking at): whatever camera and display, at a normal viewing distance, the eye is not able to differentiate much between images above 7Mpixels. When looking at any print at 1/10th of the diagonal of that print, a Canon 5Ds is not good enough. The funny thing is, when you make one step away from the print you are looking at, you instantly save $3500 compared to the Canon guy who just purchased his 5Ds.


Last edited by biz-engineer; 12-16-2015 at 02:12 AM.
12-16-2015, 06:55 AM   #69
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 144
WARNING: This post might cause you a need to buy a new display.

I have FullHD 1920x1200@26" Math says from this distance which I'm using, it is good enough and some headroom to come closer. However, I can see how K letter diagonals are build with tiles, all CAD looks horrible. These are some exceptions to human eyesight where it performs better than it should. On the left I have 24" 4k display It has no problems and its colors beat this old FullHD. An I can have windows there more freely.

So staring resolution numbers, color accuracy and other technical and measurable things, look at what is in the picture you want to print. Grey ship in foggy sea on cloudy day can be stretched huge. High contrast object behind chicken wire doesn't forgive that much.
12-19-2015, 01:31 PM   #70
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
Depend of the way you compute, the max resolution eyes can benefit change. This is even more complicated because basically our camera interpolate full color pixels out of photosites. Pixel shift has shown that there a noticable improvement in performance when you get full color information for each pixel. There also the low pass filter for many old camera models. Finally it is common to do post processing: correct perspective, correct lens deformations, reframe a bit, change the aspect ratio, all kind of operation that actually reduce MP. To me counting all of that you should have to at least double the MP you think you need.

So if 7MP is enough you'll want 16MP. Having more increase the margins and is still very beneficial. Sure the 50MP 5DS look a bit overkill then.

But other people counting differently say you would need a much as 75MP because the eyes can still see very fine details on wide area by moving even if the head doesn't move. Just think that for printing text 600dpi is common! Some say also that there also value in looking at the fine details of some scenes and so that you'll want to keep a minimum DPI even when you print huge...

And the elephant in the room is that the lenses have to follow, of course.
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!
camera, dslr, photography, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is ther a K-x or other AA Pentax for sale on the Forum kamicota Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 08-17-2015 07:33 AM
Is a K-3 with a full frame sensor enough for you? jake14mw Pentax Full Frame 58 03-28-2015 11:39 AM
Pentax staying small. An advantage? stillshot2 Photographic Industry and Professionals 27 12-22-2013 02:34 AM
Bayer filtered camera sensor brian101 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 05-08-2013 01:10 PM
What is the advantage of 21/35/40 prime vs a f2.8 zoom lens raider Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 23 06-21-2010 10:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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