Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > How Sharp Can we go.

Reply
Thread Tools

How Sharp Can we go.

 
 
Don
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2004
With the ever increasing Pixel count in Cameras, where is the turning point
where the top of the line Lenses would be no better than the pixel count.
From what I have seen allot of the newcomers to DSLRs are already not happy
about the soft focus on their lenses which shows that the pixel count is
much better than the Lens they are using. It looks to me that 6 MP was great
for 90% of the users and now 8MP is good enough for about 98% of the users.
I still like it to be the Camera for the weak point of the max resoultion
as we can always change out the lens.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2004
"Don" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:q71Xc.179971$8_6.120005@attbi_s04:

> With the ever increasing Pixel count in Cameras, where is the turning
> point
> where the top of the line Lenses would be no better than the pixel
> count. From what I have seen allot of the newcomers to DSLRs are
> already not happy about the soft focus on their lenses which shows
> that the pixel count is much better than the Lens they are using. It
> looks to me that 6 MP was great for 90% of the users and now 8MP is
> good enough for about 98% of the users.
> I still like it to be the Camera for the weak point of the max
> resoultion
> as we can always change out the lens.
>


It is a matter of optimization. If more pixels is cheap, then
more pixels will not decrease the resolution. It will give
you some oversampling which will simplify the task to make
a good anti alias filter. Smaller pixels will add to the noise
and therefore decrease the ISO sensitivity. Or will it? If you
have more pixels you don't have to enlarge the pixels so much.


/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jpc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2004
On 25 Aug 2004 17:59:59 GMT, Roland Karlsson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Don" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:q71Xc.179971$8_6.120005@attbi_s04:
>
>> With the ever increasing Pixel count in Cameras, where is the turning
>> point
>> where the top of the line Lenses would be no better than the pixel
>> count. From what I have seen allot of the newcomers to DSLRs are
>> already not happy about the soft focus on their lenses which shows
>> that the pixel count is much better than the Lens they are using. It
>> looks to me that 6 MP was great for 90% of the users and now 8MP is
>> good enough for about 98% of the users.
>> I still like it to be the Camera for the weak point of the max
>> resoultion
>> as we can always change out the lens.
>>

>
>It is a matter of optimization. If more pixels is cheap, then
>more pixels will not decrease the resolution. It will give
>you some oversampling which will simplify the task to make
>a good anti alias filter. Smaller pixels will add to the noise
>and therefore decrease the ISO sensitivity. Or will it? If you
>have more pixels you don't have to enlarge the pixels so much.



The pixels may be smaller, but two side by side pixels that vary by 5
percent will still vary by 5 percent

jpc
>
>
>/Roland


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2004
jpc wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> The pixels may be smaller, but two side by side pixels that vary by 5
> percent will still vary by 5 percent
>


Yes - that sounds true - but whats your point?


/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin Francis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2004
"Don" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:q71Xc.179971$8_6.120005@attbi_s04...
> With the ever increasing Pixel count in Cameras, where is the turning

point
> where the top of the line Lenses would be no better than the pixel count.
> From what I have seen allot of the newcomers to DSLRs are already not

happy
> about the soft focus on their lenses which shows that the pixel count is
> much better than the Lens they are using. It looks to me that 6 MP was

great
> for 90% of the users and now 8MP is good enough for about 98% of the

users.
> I still like it to be the Camera for the weak point of the max

resoultion
> as we can always change out the lens.


???

Since when did anyone's photography demand the absolute highest resolution
of a lens?

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."


 
Reply With Quote
 
Drazen Stojcic / BUNTOVNIK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2004
Don wrote:
> With the ever increasing Pixel count in Cameras, where is the turning
> point where the top of the line Lenses would be no better than the
> pixel count. From what I have seen allot of the newcomers to DSLRs
> are already not happy about the soft focus on their lenses which
> shows that the pixel count is much better than the Lens they are
> using. It looks to me that 6 MP was great for 90% of the users and
> now 8MP is good enough for about 98% of the users. I still like it
> to be the Camera for the weak point of the max resoultion as we can
> always change out the lens.


I'd say we're pretty safe in the lens resolution department up to 40 MP or
so.

--
------------------------------
online photo portfolio
www.stojcic.com

" If you saw a man drowning and you could either save him or photograph
the event, what film would you use?" - Anonymous


 
Reply With Quote
 
jpc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2004
On 25 Aug 2004 18:39:50 GMT, Roland Karlsson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>jpc wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> The pixels may be smaller, but two side by side pixels that vary by 5
>> percent will still vary by 5 percent
>>

>
>Yes - that sounds true - but whats your point?


To quote "Smaller pixels will add to the noise
and therefore decrease the ISO sensitivity. ----Or will it?--- If you
have more pixels you don't have to enlarge the pixels so much."


I was asking about/ commenting on the "Or will it?" I don't see how
the amount of enlargement in a print would effect either the noise or
the responsivity ( microvolts/photon) --aka the ISO sensitivity-- of a
camera.

jpc
 
Reply With Quote
 
Georgette Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2004
"Don" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<q71Xc.179971$8_6.120005@attbi_s04>...
> With the ever increasing Pixel count in Cameras, where is the turning point
> where the top of the line Lenses would be no better than the pixel count.
> From what I have seen allot of the newcomers to DSLRs are already not happy
> about the soft focus on their lenses which shows that the pixel count is
> much better than the Lens they are using.


Just the opposite. Pin sharp film lenses are very, very blurry when
used on all DLSRs, except one. Foveon offers the only acceptably
sharp digital sensor. P&S's are worse.

> It looks to me that 6 MP was great
> for 90% of the users and now 8MP is good enough for about 98% of the users.
> I still like it to be the Camera for the weak point of the max resoultion
> as we can always change out the lens.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Murphy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Georgette Preddy) writes:

> "Don" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<q71Xc.179971$8_6.120005@attbi_s04>...
> > With the ever increasing Pixel count in Cameras, where is the turning point
> > where the top of the line Lenses would be no better than the pixel count.
> > From what I have seen allot of the newcomers to DSLRs are already not happy
> > about the soft focus on their lenses which shows that the pixel count is
> > much better than the Lens they are using.

>
> Just the opposite. Pin sharp film lenses are very, very blurry when
> used on all DLSRs, except one. Foveon offers the only acceptably
> sharp digital sensor. P&S's are worse.


I didn't know sigma did astroturf.

B>
 
Reply With Quote
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2004
"Martin Francis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:cgiohj$g37$(E-Mail Removed):

>
> Since when did anyone's photography demand the absolute highest
> resolution of a lens?
>


It is really common for the lens to be the weakest link.

Of the 20 or so Nikkor lenses I have owned over the years, there were only
ever two (maybe three) that had enough resolution to really show the limits
of my film. (24 2.8, 180 2.8, 60 micro).

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Re: Can't get a sharp picture Vance Digital Photography 2 05-28-2010 01:39 PM
Re: Can't get a sharp picture SMS Digital Photography 2 05-28-2010 07:38 AM
how can I call a aspx page wth c sharp class ASP .Net 1 04-20-2005 08:54 PM
VB to C sharp anyone can point out which is the equivalent Hai Nguyen ASP .Net 3 01-08-2004 02:39 AM



Advertisments