Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Where is the limit?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Where is the limit?

 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
On Sep 1, 1:54*pm, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <tRC7q.52720$(E-Mail Removed)> , Gary
> Eickmeier says...
>
> > I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
> > resolution from the newer cameras.

>
> Yes of course, but where is it going to happen? At 50MP for an APS-C
> sensor?


Probably even higher than that.

But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2011
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 1:54*pm, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In article <tRC7q.52720$(E-Mail Removed)> , Gary
>> Eickmeier says...
>>
>> > I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
>> > resolution from the newer cameras.

>>
>> Yes of course, but where is it going to happen? At 50MP for an APS-C
>> sensor?


> Probably even higher than that.


> But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
> people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
> see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.


Everybody will be able to see the difference if you crop out a face
from the crowd and print it.

--
Chris Malcolm

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2011
On Sep 1, 11:38*pm, "Gary Eickmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I read once upon a time that we cannot see resolution any greater than 200
> ppi in a print. So, if the 24mp imager is 4000 x 6000 pixels, then we have a
> 20 x 30 inch print. Any more megapixels would only go to make an even larger
> print than that, which I wouldn't think is needed. I can make gorgeous 13x
> 19 prints with my 10mp camera.


All these estimates people publish are very rough.
Yes, something like 200 camera-original pixels
per inch is vaguely right -- but I'm nearly certain
that 200 isn't a magic number that's EXACTLY
right (for one thing, it's just too darned convenient
that it's such a special number).

Also, resolution isn't usually the key quality
in a print. Sometimes a print at half that looks
wonderful. Possibly if you HAD twice that
available, it might look even better? But
what's important is that you've made a
picture, and print, that look wonderful.

You've got the key point there -- judging what
actually works for you. Probably my best
24x36 print is from a 6MP shot. Looking
closely you can see that the finest details
aren't perfectly rendered -- if you get up close
enough to see that. But I've yet to find anybody
bothered by it. The reason I haven't made a lot
more prints that good isn't the megapixels; it's
that I haven't shot a lot more pictures that good!
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2011
On Sep 2, 12:54*am, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 1:54*pm, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> In article <tRC7q.52720$(E-Mail Removed)> , Gary
> >> Eickmeier says...

>
> >> > I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
> >> > resolution from the newer cameras.

>
> >> Yes of course, but where is it going to happen? At 50MP for an APS-C
> >> sensor?

> > Probably even higher than that.
> > But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
> > people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
> > see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.

>
> Everybody will be able to see the difference if you crop out a face
> from the crowd and print it.


Sure, but why would I do that? That's not art
photography, that's surveillance -- in which case
people don't care if it's a first-rate image, they
just want to be able to recognize the face.

There are lots of specialized applications;
there's a reason they sometimes used 7 inch
sheet film for aerial photography, for example.
But that sort of highly specialized photography
is rarely done with ordinary equipment, and it's
not what people here generally do -- and it's not
what we talk about in general. On the rare occasions
we do, we say so.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2011
On Sep 2, 4:05*pm, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <6cc4bc3d-7cef-402f-995c-1cdcae2f3558
> @t29g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>
> > Sure, but why would I do that? *That's not art
> > photography, that's surveillance -- in which case
> > people don't care if it's a first-rate image, they
> > just want to be able to recognize the face.

>
> If low resolutions are enough, why do people even bother to shoot in
> large format or with 80MP digital camera backs? Obviously in some cases
> there is a need for higher resolutions.


Something that can make a brilliant 24x36 print
is not "low resolution" by any sensible definition.

The history of photography includes moves
from full- and half-plate cameras, to 4x5,
to roll film, to 35mm. Yes, there's
SOME need for higher resolution;
medium-format cameras continued to
exist after 35mm became the mainstream,
and so did 4x5 (and other sheet film sizes).
But they became very rare, because most people
didn't need them.

Well, DSLR-level digital today covers
what 35mm could do, and up into at least the
middle of medium-format territory (by film era
standards). So, yes, there are people who
DO need the 36MP of the D3x, or the 80MP
of some medium-format backs, or who need
even more and are making do with what they
can get.

But there are damned few of them.

The vast majority of photographers have in
their DSLRs more resolution than they need
for anything they do.

I have absolutely no quarrel with people
regularly doing, or even planning to start
doing, various extreme things deciding
(based on real facts and a rational analysis)
that they need lots of megapixels.

However, what I run into most often is
people who haven't made a print bigger than
8.5x11 in the last decade prating about how
"everybody" needs 16MP or even more. THAT
I have a quarrel with.

The vast majority of photographers, here and
in general, would be better served by spending
time improving their own abilities rather than
money upgrading their equipment. And,
if they're spending money upgrading equipment,
they'd be vastly better served by upgrading
their lenses rather than their camera
bodies.

The people who AREN'T in that category
know who they are. Anybody in doubt is
NOT in that category.

(I personally would certainly benefit more from
improving my abilities than my equipment.)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2011
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Something that can make a brilliant 24x36 print
> is not "low resolution" by any sensible definition.


There *are* people having fun with gigapixel panoramas. They might
reasonably call some tens of megapixels a low resolution ...


> The history of photography includes moves
> from full- and half-plate cameras, to 4x5,
> to roll film, to 35mm.


and then to APS film.


> Yes, there's
> SOME need for higher resolution;
> medium-format cameras continued to
> exist after 35mm became the mainstream,
> and so did 4x5 (and other sheet film sizes).
> But they became very rare, because most people
> didn't need them.


There's always the trade off between quality and size/
transportability/costs. Usually costs are a big factor
for amateurs and most of them are 'also-shooters[0]', so
transportability is also a weighty factor.

That's why we see so many P&S compact cameras for a low price.
They miss some of the capabilities of the DSLR (like shallow field
and low light capacity and most of them don't have any flash except
a tiny, weak direct inbuilt flash) ... but then the DSLR misses
also features some medium and most large format cameras have,
like shifting and tilting (there are of course some specialized
lenses with rather limited movements available)


> The vast majority of photographers have in
> their DSLRs more resolution than they need
> for anything they do.


Agreed.
And most any P&S has more megapixels than they really need.
(Sure, higher oversampling of a mediocre lens does give slightly
better result, but ...)


> However, what I run into most often is
> people who haven't made a print bigger than
> 8.5x11 in the last decade prating about how
> "everybody" needs 16MP or even more. THAT
> I have a quarrel with.


Well, you know, then everybody just needs one ultra-wideangle
lens and can crop to any focal length they like. That's the
future and all that.


> The vast majority of photographers, here and
> in general, would be better served by spending
> time improving their own abilities rather than
> money upgrading their equipment. And,
> if they're spending money upgrading equipment,
> they'd be vastly better served by upgrading
> their lenses rather than their camera
> bodies.


Or upgrade (or get in first place) light creation and control
tools. (Though it might be hard to use them even if one wants to,
depending on place, occasion, assistants, etc.) Learning how to
use them for pleasant results is the next step ...


> The people who AREN'T in that category
> know who they are. Anybody in doubt is
> NOT in that category.


I don't need more MPix.
More than 8 MPix would be nice, but really need em? Nope.
Even (slightly cropped) 8 MPix do give a lovely ~11x17 inch
double page in a photo book. (though, of course, that's 16
MPix at 300 dpi).

I need higher ISO, or more skill in persuading people to let
me unpack my compact flashes[1] (it is a _bit_ of a turn off if
they produce audible clicks in _every_ channel of a recording,
probably due to the electromagnetic pulses when the flash starts
or is cut of leaking into the cables to sound board[2]. And then
these others having to manually clean up every click ...).


> (I personally would certainly benefit more from
> improving my abilities than my equipment.)


Same here. Though the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II does appear to be
quite sharp wide open --- my version I isn't, it wants some
stopping down.

-Wolfgang

[0] holidays and other occasions where photography is more an
also-ran than the prime objektive

[1] I don't have the space (and probably no aptitude) for studio
shooting, hence no studio flashes and stuff. I have some
limited access to mobile studio equipment, though I've
rarely needed/used it.

[2] I wasn't even close to the mike cables: the flashes were
on top of the loudspeakers ... which cables however did run
parallel to all the mike cables ...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2011
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <4deb6b29-1c43-4a0f-8b9e-c224caa0d252
> @m18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...


>> But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
>> people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
>> see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.


> But the fact is that nowadays the cameras already exceed the
> capabilities of the human eye.


Every camera exceeds the capabilities of the human eye. We only
see sharp in a very tiny area of the eye, and have to scan a
scene by parts and stitch it and extrapolate what's missing.

OTOH, the human eye has a very wide angle in which motion
detection works, it can work with extreme dynamic ranges with
ease (where cameras need HDR techniqes to even record that,
never mind printing), the eye has a very efficient image
compression and bad pixel removal system (again unlike
cameras) and so on.


> To appreciate the detail you must get
> close to a large print.


That's what a large print is made for. Exploring. Getting
close. Otherwise a small print, observed from a closer
distance, would do as well.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2011
Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Something that can make a brilliant 24x36 print
>> is not "low resolution" by any sensible definition.

>
> There *are* people having fun with gigapixel panoramas. They might
> reasonably call some tens of megapixels a low resolution ...
>
>
>> The history of photography includes moves
>> from full- and half-plate cameras, to 4x5,
>> to roll film, to 35mm.

>
> and then to APS film.


Or to 126 first, then 110, then BACK to 35mm when the AF P&S came out in
the early 1980s. And the disk cameras, which were more important
(produced more pictures) than APS. I really don't think APS was every a
player, though of course it existed.

>> Yes, there's
>> SOME need for higher resolution;
>> medium-format cameras continued to
>> exist after 35mm became the mainstream,
>> and so did 4x5 (and other sheet film sizes).
>> But they became very rare, because most people
>> didn't need them.

>
> There's always the trade off between quality and size/
> transportability/costs. Usually costs are a big factor
> for amateurs and most of them are 'also-shooters[0]', so
> transportability is also a weighty factor.


Yes, very true.

> That's why we see so many P&S compact cameras for a low price.
> They miss some of the capabilities of the DSLR (like shallow field
> and low light capacity and most of them don't have any flash except
> a tiny, weak direct inbuilt flash) ... but then the DSLR misses
> also features some medium and most large format cameras have,
> like shifting and tilting (there are of course some specialized
> lenses with rather limited movements available)


Much easier to correct perspective (fake shifts) in PS than it was in
the darkroom (or at least you can do it over a much wider range), so
less need for shift. Tilt, though, still has advantages, just as high
res does, although stitching and focus stacking can to some degree
address those issues much of the time.

>> The vast majority of photographers have in
>> their DSLRs more resolution than they need
>> for anything they do.

>
> Agreed.
> And most any P&S has more megapixels than they really need.
> (Sure, higher oversampling of a mediocre lens does give slightly
> better result, but ...)


Yes. Few P&S owners make 20x30 prints at all.

>> However, what I run into most often is
>> people who haven't made a print bigger than
>> 8.5x11 in the last decade prating about how
>> "everybody" needs 16MP or even more. THAT
>> I have a quarrel with.

>
> Well, you know, then everybody just needs one ultra-wideangle
> lens and can crop to any focal length they like. That's the
> future and all that.


Yeah, that has it's advantages, in fact. But also disadvantages.

Computational photography, though, imaging the full light-field -- maybe
*that* is the future? We'll see.

>> The vast majority of photographers, here and
>> in general, would be better served by spending
>> time improving their own abilities rather than
>> money upgrading their equipment. And,
>> if they're spending money upgrading equipment,
>> they'd be vastly better served by upgrading
>> their lenses rather than their camera
>> bodies.

>
> Or upgrade (or get in first place) light creation and control
> tools. (Though it might be hard to use them even if one wants to,
> depending on place, occasion, assistants, etc.) Learning how to
> use them for pleasant results is the next step ...


Doing decent lighting is a pretty big step; most people are documenting
what they find in front of them, and setting up a lighting setup is more
than they care to do, and more than the thing they see would probably
wait for.

>> The people who AREN'T in that category
>> know who they are. Anybody in doubt is
>> NOT in that category.

>
> I don't need more MPix.
> More than 8 MPix would be nice, but really need em? Nope.
> Even (slightly cropped) 8 MPix do give a lovely ~11x17 inch
> double page in a photo book. (though, of course, that's 16
> MPix at 300 dpi).


Yep, "good enough" is much more important than "optimal".

> I need higher ISO, or more skill in persuading people to let
> me unpack my compact flashes[1] (it is a _bit_ of a turn off if
> they produce audible clicks in _every_ channel of a recording,
> probably due to the electromagnetic pulses when the flash starts
> or is cut of leaking into the cables to sound board[2]. And then
> these others having to manually clean up every click ...).


Ouch; yeah, that could make you unpopular. Haven't used mine around
people doing serious sound recording.

>> (I personally would certainly benefit more from
>> improving my abilities than my equipment.)

>
> Same here. Though the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II does appear to be
> quite sharp wide open --- my version I isn't, it wants some
> stopping down.


I'm still on the I; it was great on the D200. I can live with it
happily enough on the D700, but better is...better . And a 50%
higher list price (than what I paid) is out of reach.

> [0] holidays and other occasions where photography is more an
> also-ran than the prime objektive
>
> [1] I don't have the space (and probably no aptitude) for studio
> shooting, hence no studio flashes and stuff. I have some
> limited access to mobile studio equipment, though I've
> rarely needed/used it.


I don't use it often. I had stands and light modifiers for multiple
off-camera flashes from the 80s, but didn't do enough with them. In
about 2000 I got a set of three White Lightning 1600x heads, and have
done some nice portrait setups and some jewelry work, but mostly haven't
done enough. I'm reasonably sure my friend Oleg Volk has shot more with
them than I have, he'll borrow them when he's visiting here and has work
to do.

I do carry a second flash, and stands, and radio triggers, and have
benefited from that a number of times at music sessions (not being
audio-recorded ).

> [2] I wasn't even close to the mike cables: the flashes were
> on top of the loudspeakers ... which cables however did run
> parallel to all the mike cables ...


Darned analog world!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew Reilly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2011
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:39:01 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> I need higher ISO, or more skill in persuading people to let me unpack
>> my compact flashes[1] (it is a _bit_ of a turn off if they produce
>> audible clicks in _every_ channel of a recording, probably due to the
>> electromagnetic pulses when the flash starts or is cut of leaking into
>> the cables to sound board[2]. And then these others having to manually
>> clean up every click ...).

>
> Ouch; yeah, that could make you unpopular. Haven't used mine around
> people doing serious sound recording.
>
>> [2] I wasn't even close to the mike cables: the flashes were
>> on top of the loudspeakers ... which cables however did run
>> parallel to all the mike cables ...

>
> Darned analog world!


Indeed. Anecdote: back in the second half of the '80s I was an undergrad
and involved in our EE department's "micro mouse" team. We travelled
interstate for the compettition, and our mouse was doing pretty well in
its maze until someone with an SLR and a big reflector-dish flash took
its photo from about 40cm away: the EMP reset the CPU and stopped it dead
in its tracks. Luckily for us that was ruled to be interference and they
let us do the run again.

Cheers,

--
Andrew
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2011
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> However, what I run into most often is
>>> people who haven't made a print bigger than
>>> 8.5x11 in the last decade prating about how
>>> "everybody" needs 16MP or even more. THAT
>>> I have a quarrel with.


>> Well, you know, then everybody just needs one ultra-wideangle
>> lens and can crop to any focal length they like. That's the
>> future and all that.


> Yeah, that has it's advantages, in fact. But also disadvantages.


Really?

> Computational photography, though, imaging the full light-field -- maybe
> *that* is the future? We'll see.


We'll indeed see. Currently, the spatial resolution is low.



>> Or upgrade (or get in first place) light creation and control
>> tools. (Though it might be hard to use them even if one wants to,
>> depending on place, occasion, assistants, etc.) Learning how to
>> use them for pleasant results is the next step ...


> Doing decent lighting is a pretty big step; most people are documenting
> what they find in front of them, and setting up a lighting setup is more
> than they care to do, and more than the thing they see would probably
> wait for.


That's always the problem if you aren't the master of the
show.


>>> (I personally would certainly benefit more from
>>> improving my abilities than my equipment.)


>> Same here. Though the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II does appear to be
>> quite sharp wide open --- my version I isn't, it wants some
>> stopping down.


> I'm still on the I; it was great on the D200. I can live with it
> happily enough on the D700, but better is...better . And a 50%
> higher list price (than what I paid) is out of reach.


Ah ... Canon, not Nikon. The "IS" should have given it away.

>> [2] I wasn't even close to the mike cables: the flashes were
>> on top of the loudspeakers ... which cables however did run
>> parallel to all the mike cables ...


> Darned analog world!


Darn system's running an analog emulation on a digital world.

-Wolfgang
 
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




Advertisments