Comparing resolutions correctly

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe - but every increase will have its price. Pixel count alone is not the sole parameter for image quality - far from it, despite all the hype from those who want to market newer, better, shinier gear. Let's wait and see when that sensor is there there

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Paul J]

I cannot see the big issue here -Yes all arguments for higher resolution are valid, but one would wish for  doubling of linear resolution in that case. Which would mean a 96 MP sensor over the 24 of the SL - something that would not provide any quality at all with the present technology

 

Like for the last century and a half, there is no substitute for square centimeters. So - Phase One is your game, not Leica in that case.

40-50mp for 135 format is decent (yes even 40mp makes a worthwhile difference which is what I mean by "numbers are irrelevant"), 60MP for Medium Format, more is useful and beneficial but not a huge necessity. The difference in IQ between 24 and 60MP is substantial. Again, don't just look at actual % increase, which sounds less than the real world difference it makes. IMO, even 10% makes a noticeable difference.

[Jeff S]

Nobody can determine which of my prints, at my modest print sizes (typically matted 14x18), were made using my M8.2 versus M240.  

 

Most of the improvements in my prints over the years have occurred because of changes in software editing and print/ink/paper technology...or from gains in my own techniques.  

 

Gear never did correlate directly with print quality (for many purposes)...Mr. Weston did fairly well using a darkroom light bulb....and, more importantly, he started with a pretty decent image.  Others using large format didn't come close.

 

Jeff

[CheshireCat]

Nobody can determine which of my prints, at my modest print sizes (typically matted 14x18), were made using my M8.2 versus M240.  

 

"Nobody" = "none of the folks you asked".

 

It should also be clear after so many threads about this, that more MP are good for many other reasons.

[Jeff S]

"Nobody" = "none of the folks you asked".

 

It should also be clear after so many threads about this, that more MP are good for many other reasons.

 

I've done informal blind tests...at exhibits and with friends, including photographers and others (mixing in lots of different gear and materials).  

 

And, yes, MP can matter for some very specific uses, which is why I included the phrase 'for many purposes' in the last paragraph.  But, in general, people get too hung up on gear and technical distinctions like MP, which rarely have anything to do with great images or great prints IMO.  

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

40-50mp for 135 format is decent (yes even 40mp makes a worthwhile difference which is what I mean by "numbers are irrelevant"), 60MP for Medium Format, more is useful and beneficial but not a huge necessity. The difference in IQ between 24 and 60MP is substantial. Again, don't just look at actual % increase, which sounds less than the real world difference it makes. IMO, even 10% makes a noticeable difference.

As long as things like crosstalk, per pixel acuity, microlens aberations, noise, loss of DR, etc. do not eat up the increase in resolution -or worse- , which, at the current level of sensor technology, is by no means a given on a 135 format sensor. We are looking at tradeoffs and compromises here.

I am not arguing against a higher MP count as such, on the contrary, but I think one needs to look at the whole picture (pun intended), not at a mere number.

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24Mp is adequate for my needs (& wants), only I don't defend it doggedly because it is Leica.  Before I got M9 I used 12Mp Nikon D700, it still produces splendid images with the right lens on, sold M9 long time ago but kept D700.  Real difference in user experience is in M body/lens form & size, I would have Nikon spec sensor any day providing it is fitted to a M sized camera.  Film negative of the good image scanned at 1800 x 1200 looks good to me.  

 

It is not only marketing pushing new products to keep factories running, every new digital camera is providing image quality improvements compared to previous generation, we have seen this with M9 to M240 and now SL. Market has been pushing full frame 36Mp and beyond for some time now, people buy that stuff.  Latest full frame from Pentax is introducing (gimmick for some no doubt) pixel shift in order to maximise image quality form the sensor in hand.

 

http://pentaxrumors.com/2016/03/04/pentax-k-1-pixel-shift-resolution-system-demo-videos/

[pgk]

At 20+MPixels I've already run out of wall space. In all honesty, for very practical reasons I simply don't need more MPixels. The law of diminishing returns has been at play for a number of years now. How many people I wonder, genuinely need more MPixels? In theory perhaps but in all honestly we have extraordinarily good cameras now and whilst they will increase in MPixels no doubt, I'm far from convinced that many really need to be. As MPixels increase we will need high precision shooting to ensure that every nuance of detail can be captured, lenses which are up to the job (not all are) and last but not least, ways of viewing images which make viable use of such image files (not just pixel peeping). Yes, some will need all this, but I'd say its a very small percentage of shooters who will really take advantage of high MPixels.

 

However we live in a world obsessed by numbers so no doubt the race will go on and people will believe that they need to use whatever has the highest numbers allocated to its sensor. 

 

But to answer the OP, its one way of comparing resolutions but as ever its a simplistic way and beneath simple numbers lie a host of complexities. And when I look at images shot on my M8 (now gone), M9s and Canons, my primary consideration is now the image. Its MPixels are of far less relevance.

[Paul J]

I've done informal blind tests...at exhibits and with friends, including photographers and others (mixing in lots of different gear and materials).  

 

And, yes, MP can matter for some very specific uses, which is why I included the phrase 'for many purposes' in the last paragraph.  But, in general, people get too hung up on gear and technical distinctions like MP, which rarely have anything to do with great images or great prints IMO.  

 

Jeff

If the distinctions of high craft and quality mean nothing to someone, then sure it's no problem, ignorance is bliss I guess. However speaking for myself, settling for anything less is half-arsed and pedestrian, just IMO and and also the majority of my clients and peers. Striving for the very best effects us on many more levels that the obvious and the way you do one thing, is in many cases, reflective of how you do everything.

[jaapv]

There is a limit to what the human eye and brain can perceive. At the moment we are discussing the whereabouts of that limit, which surely varies per person and case. I think both "I need more resolution" and "the present resolution meets my needs" are valid arguments.

There is no need to picture one or the other as somehow inferior or overly finicky.

[Jeff S]

If the distinctions of high craft and quality mean nothing to someone, then sure it's no problem, ignorance is bliss I guess. However speaking for myself, settling for anything less is half-arsed and pedestrian, just IMO and and also the majority of my clients and peers. Striving for the very best effects us on many more levels that the obvious and the way you do one thing, is in many cases, reflective of how you do everything.

 

I've crafted silver prints, and now inkjet, for 4 decades in my own dark/light rooms.  And over a 35 year period I've collected vintage prints (silver, platinum and ink) from some of the best photographers/printers on earth, working closely with dealers, museum curators and experts in the field.  I look at photographs and/or paintings every day and I think I know a good print when I see one.  And while I might not always achieve what I'm seeking, or what others may achieve, my standards remain high.  

 

I also print at modest sizes by today's standards...so, as Jaap says, there's a limit to what the human eye can detect.  Resolution doesn't make a print 'sing'....there are myriad factors leading to that throughout the workflow....up to and including matting, framing (especially the type of glass used) and lighting/display conditions, which can change the look and feel of everything.

 

Jeff

[Paul J]

There is a limit to what the human eye and brain can perceive. At the moment we are discussing the whereabouts of that limit, which surely varies per person and case. I think both "I need more resolution" and "the present resolution meets my needs" are valid arguments.

There is no need to picture one or the other as somehow inferior or overly finicky.

I do see inadequate resolution and digital artefacts and anomalies from interpolation as undesirable and there is a limit to what I find acceptable. There is nothing wrong with maintaining high standards (I acknowledge they are standards of my own and not a general standard), and i personally see nothing wrong with the expression of such. I certainly don't feel the the need to apologise for being honest about thoughts about my own work and what I feel is important to it. High scrutiny, wanting more, and the discussion of it, is how we and our craft evolves. I speak for my own work and how others feel about theirs is fine, I certainly welcome an opposing opinion and polemic discussion. Is it not OK to speak of such things? Is it not OK to be honest? It is not my intention to be insulting, just frank.

[pgk]

I think both "I need more resolution" and "the present resolution meets my needs" are valid arguments.

 

My point being that the I need more resolution argument is only valid if genuine and I'm far from convinced that in 99% of cases it is really genuine need but is more likely 'I ought to have'. To draw an analogy, for the vast, vast majority of drivers a car which will do 130mph or one which will do 175mph is an utter irrelevance - a very few might actually use such speed on a race track but the vast majority won't. People will still buy both but because they want to rather than they need to. Arguing about the detail of increased resolution is only relevant if that increased detail is needed otherwise its a pretty pointless discussion.

 

We are better though, at discussing resolution than we are at discussing 'what makes a print 'sing'' unfortunately. Pity.

[jaapv]

 Is it not OK to be honest? It is not my intention to be insulting, just frank.

It is OK to be honest, but words might be interpreted wrongly.

[Jeff S]

I do see inadequate resolution and digital artefacts and anomalies from interpolation as undesirable and there is a limit to what I find acceptable. There is nothing wrong with maintaining high standards (I acknowledge they are standards of my own and not a general standard), and i personally see nothing wrong with the expression of such. I certainly don't feel the the need to apologise for being honest about thoughts about my own work and what I feel is important to it. High scrutiny, wanting more, and the discussion of it, is how we and our craft evolves. I speak for my own work and how others feel about theirs is fine, I certainly welcome an opposing opinion and polemic discussion. Is it not OK to speak of such things? Is it not OK to be honest? It is not my intention to be insulting, just frank.

 

That's clearly not the way you portrayed it above.  Saying your standards are high is one thing....making obvious implications that others who disagree must have low or no standards is different altogether.  Re-read your post.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

OK, guys, this is the direction of the discussion that I was trying to preempt. Let this be the last of it, please.

[Paul J]

I've crafted silver prints, and now inkjet, for 4 decades in my own dark/light rooms.  And over a 35 year period I've collected vintage prints (silver, platinum and ink) from some of the best photographers/printers on earth, working closely with dealers, museum curators and experts in the field.  I look at photographs and/or paintings every day and I think I know a good print when I see one.  And while I might not always achieve what I'm seeking, or what others may achieve, my standards remain high.  

 

I also print at modest sizes by today's standards...so, as Jaap says, there's a limit to what the human eye can detect.  Resolution doesn't make a print 'sing'....there are myriad factors leading to that throughout the workflow....up to and including matting, framing (especially the type of glass used) and lighting/display conditions, which can change the look and feel of everything.

 

Jeff

Thanks for the clarification. Looking at 100MP files, I don't believe we are near the limit the human eye can detect. However, obviously, there is a limit to what the method and size of displayed images will reveal. Resolution can and does make a print sing, even on smaller prints, but I am not for one moment suggesting it is the only thing. It is significant enough for me to argue it's case. Can't we have more of everything?

 

There is an ongoing and aggressive stance here that 24MP is enough, or more than enough, and anything else is bragging rights by elitist fruit cakes who are marketing victims and out to ruin the legacy of Leica and it's ethos - etc etc. Something I have found unequivocally untrue. My opinion (as I'm sure you are ware of by now - lol) is more MP and hurry up. However - of corse not at the expense of anything else.

 

In the context of this post, saying that 50MP is only 44% and therefore hardly worth it is short sighted and IMO, unfounded, when even a 10% increase is enough to make a noticeable difference. It is the stuff of corporate sales pitches. I find detail, the crispness of it is directly proportional to the quality of the image, the realness of the image and it's ability to communicate is greatly increased. I find the effect of low resolution the equivalent of shooting through a sheet of plastic or acetate: false, plastic looking, unnatural and unwanted. YMMV.

[Paul J]

That's clearly not the way you portrayed it above.  Saying your standards are high is one thing....making obvious implications that others who disagree must have low or no standards is different altogether.  Re-read your post.

 

Jeff

I did re-read it. I think you need to do the same. That was not an intentional implication. It was a comment on how I feel about my own work, hence "speaking for myself".

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[talt03]

I think a better subject for this argument is Nikon D5 vs Canon 5DS - Performance vs Resolution. I stand by a person's need. If you want gallery exhibits, most likely the resolution of a Sony A7S2 is all that's needed for those A3+ prints. For night shots, so far at least on paper and initial tests, can any high res camera beat a D5? Can't we possibly just compare 100% crops from 50k or less ISO's produced ooc? Then probably we'll learn more of techniques to improve ourselves.

[Jeff S]

I'll leave it at that.  Let's carry on.

 

And just to show that I'm not unappreciative of MP (or various other technical factors),  I've considered buying the Canon 5DSR (50-ish MP) for some atypical (for me) large landscape work.  I've seen the benefits of that camera, at large print sizes, compared to the 5Diii (and even the 5DS).  But, as always, I recognize that I'm fully capable of making great or crappy prints from either, or any, camera due to many other factors, most of which I find far more important.....the image itself and a good eye/judgment (from camera to PP to display) being the most relevant.  

 

My main point is that people generally under-appreciate the other factors, and far overrate the technical stuff, which often doesn't translate into fine results (assuming they can even discern the difference.)

 

Jeff