wattsy Posted March 17, 2016 Share #81 Posted March 17, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) So twice the area is twice the size. Double the pixels is twice the print size. Agreed? Yes, if you are referring to the printed 'pixels' (the dots on the paper) – which I think you are. However, in practice I don't believe, for the reasons given in my previous post about physical enlargement (sensor size to print size), that there is a direct correlation (at least a linear one) between increasing pixel density on the sensor (which is what happens when you go from 24MP to 36MP with the same size chip) and print size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Hi wattsy, Take a look here 36 + Mp SL?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted March 17, 2016 Share #82 Posted March 17, 2016 In theory. However, in practice I don't believe, for the reasons given in my previous post about physical enlargement (sensor size to print size), that there is a direct correlation (at least a linear one) between increasing pixel density (which is what happens when you go from 24MP to 36MP on the same size chip) and print size. Agreed, hence my earlier question in this thread about pixel size and density, which drew the response that this is no longer an issue. I don't know whether I accept that entirely, but it is a slightly different point. There will always be some extraneous factors concerning density, quality and so on, and I fully accept that it interferes with the theory. But it does help to get the theory correct first so that we can then understand where practice diverges from it. So it is important to acknowledge that other things being equal (which they rarely will be) double the print size means double the area and double the number of pixels required to produce it, and not quadruple as has mistakenly been proposed. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 17, 2016 Share #83 Posted March 17, 2016 I think, as Jaap, is suggesting, you (or others) are becoming confused by area and length. A lot of this discussion is somewhat moot because print size isn't determined solely by the number of pixels on the sensor. A 36MP 'full frame' sensor is the same physical size (36mm x 24mm) as a 12MP 'full frame' sensor and, whilst the nature of digital capture is different to film capture, it doesn't completely escape the constraints imposed by enlargement. A 24" x 16" print derived from each sensor will have the same enlargement factor and, whilst a more densely resolving sensor (high MP number), will likely offer the scope to print larger than a significantly less densely resolved sensor (low MP number), I don't believe the relationship is remotely linear (given the same lens and print method). I think those are crucial words. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 17, 2016 Share #84 Posted March 17, 2016 Agreed, hence my earlier question in this thread about pixel size and density, which drew the response that this is no longer an issue. I don't know whether I accept that entirely, but it is a slightly different point. I don't accept it at all. If larger print size was my objective (which it rarely is) I'd take a medium format sized sensor over a 35mm sized sensor any day of the week, irrespective of the number of pixels on the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 17, 2016 Share #85 Posted March 17, 2016 So it is important to acknowledge that other things being equal (which they rarely will be) double the print size means double the area and double the number of pixels required to produce it, and not quadruple as has mistakenly been proposed. I think the quadrupling arises from a consideration of resolution rather than print size. As I'm sure you know, doubling the number of pixels doesn't double the resolution (as is often supposed). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted March 17, 2016 Share #86 Posted March 17, 2016 I think the quadrupling arises from a consideration of resolution rather than print size. As I'm sure you know, doubling the number of pixels doesn't double the resolution (as is often supposed). Yes, I think that is where the confusion comes from, but it is a mistake to apply it in that way don't you think? To achieve a 40% increase in resolution by doubling the number of pixels appears to confirm that a doubling of the size of the print requires a far greater number of pixels than a doubling, but it doesn't. I fully accept all the other practical reasons why you don't just get identical prints at twice the size when you double the pixels count, and I also agree that larger formats are by far the most effective way of getting bigger prints of the same quality as the the common sizes we're most familiar with, pretty much regardless of pixel count. But the arithmetic relationship between 2x pixels = 2x print size remains, if we use the correct terminology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 17, 2016 Share #87 Posted March 17, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Couldn't we use the word "area" please? We could. But if we use instead the word "print size", then we must use it correctly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 17, 2016 Share #88 Posted March 17, 2016 I think the quadrupling arises from a consideration of resolution rather than print size. As I'm sure you know, doubling the number of pixels doesn't double the resolution (as is often supposed). The misunderstanding is indeed about the term "resolution" which is normally used to indicate linear resolution. To avoid this misunderstanding, the term "resolution" must not be used when talking about the number of recorded pixels. See ch. 5 (1 - c) here: http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DCG-001_E.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 17, 2016 Share #89 Posted March 17, 2016 Yes, I think that is where the confusion comes from, but it is a mistake to apply it in that way don't you think? the confusion comes from the fact that english is wonderfully elastic and imprecise ........ these 'definitions' only apply to prints....... If I bought a carpet for the bedroom and asked the salesman for one exactly twice as big for lounge I would expect him to bring one with twice the linear dimensions ...... and be charged 4x as much for the carpet...... but unlike photography he would only charge me a nominal extra amount to fit it ....... as the additional work for a bigger carpet is not much in terms of time and labour. whereas a sensor analogously (where pixel density increases) outputs 4x the data and requires 4x the amount of processing to render it intelligible. That's why Leica have stuck to 24 mpx ....... they are habitually playing catch-up with their rivals in the processing and software manipulation of the sensor output. No problems at all with 48 ....... or preferably 96mpx, but I do not think I will see a Leica camera that can handle this for some time to come, and have no desire to invest in another manufacturers cameras just for the limited benefits of a few more pixels in the interim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted March 17, 2016 Share #90 Posted March 17, 2016 If I show a client a proof print which is 4x5 inches in size, and he/she asks for a final that is double that size, they mean they want an 8x10, which is 4x the area. Similarly if I show them an 16x20 and they say, "Oh, that's beautiful but it's too big. Can you make us one half that size?", they mean 8x10, which is 1/4x the area. What's so difficult to understand about that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted March 17, 2016 Share #91 Posted March 17, 2016 ... and to dpi and viewing distance. The interesting thing is that the iPhone 6+ also has a HD display (2 MP resolution), and even if people cannot see each single pixel, it renders a much crisper image. The new iMac 5k has about 15 MP, each of which contains 3 subpixels for R, G and B. For a total of about 45 MP in terms of "camera pixels" (arranged differently, but still a valid comparison). Hence the iMac 5k display outresolves the SL. Hi Mr. Cat, in your brilliant logic the M246 outshines even the D5s. Just add three filters (RGB) to the front of the lens, use them in turn and it resolves into 72 MegaPixels. So why are you jokers still using anything less ? ( sorry, I have to explain: "f.o.o.l." or "j.o.k.e.r." is just a technical term (some would even call it a "pet name") for "quality adherer", that means adherers to the slogan "More Pixel is better") Ah, that reminds me of another slogan. It sounds somehow Orwellian (Animal Farm) "Four legs good, two legs ..." But that is already from 1945. (No, not 1945 MegaPixel, not yet.) Stephan Sorry, I even made a mistake and underestimated the M246. According to the current state of print technology you could take a filter for each print color and also 2 or 3 grey tones. That adds easily up to 8, maybe 9 or maybe even 10 (to make it simpler) filters. I do not know exactly what the current limit is, some specialist might help. So the potential for the M246 is much higher. Let's say around 240 MegaPixel. So I have to look at this simple camera with completely fresh eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted March 17, 2016 Share #92 Posted March 17, 2016 Just add three filters (RGB) to the front of the lens, use them in turn and it resolves into 72 MegaPixels. No, it resolves to 24MP of full colour information, rather than the interpolated (6/12/6 RGB pixels) of the M240. But the technique is valid - its effectively what Pentax are doing in the upcoming K-1 DSLR with their 4x single pixel shift exposures and if it delivers in real world usage (yes of course not for moving subjects) it will be very interesting. They claim to have processing to cope with leaves moving in landscape photos (presumably dropping back to an interpolated result for those ambiguous pixels). See Steve's wonderful 3 filter image taken with a Monochrom here: https://flic.kr/p/f6zSab So why are you jokers still using anything less ? ( sorry, I have to explain: "f.o.o.l." or "j.o.k.e.r." is just a technical term (some would even call it a "pet name") for "quality adherer", that means adherers to the slogan "More Pixel is better") Is that really how you would talk to someone if you met them face to face? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 17, 2016 Share #93 Posted March 17, 2016 Is that really how you would talk to someone if you met them face to face? I'm sure Mr Cat's had worse on the forum and will be completely 'Spock' like in his response to this and similar illogical human statements ...... he's an expert in knowing which buttons to press to wind people up ..... god love 'im..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 17, 2016 Share #94 Posted March 17, 2016 So why are you jokers still using anything less ? ( sorry, I have to explain: "f.o.o.l." or "j.o.k.e.r." is just a technical term (some would even call it a "pet name") for "quality adherer", that means adherers to the slogan "More Pixel is better") Fascinating ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted March 17, 2016 Share #95 Posted March 17, 2016 Jonathan, you should maybe follow the whole discussion. And calling somebody a joker (you know what it is) is really nothing extraordinary. Here we have carneval (Fastnacht), and a lot of people walk around as jokers or harlequins or monsters or cowboys or cinderellas or skeletons or cats (from the musical) etc. whatever. Nothing really serious. Not all cultures are the same. And what some regard as a bit frivolous to others is a terrible sin. I find it more serious to try to categorize any person or topic into a rigid pattern (rigid mindset, a "drawer" in the mind, a mind full of drawers). That's much more serious and preventing open discussions. To be honest, I find it even insulting. But it is quite common. You (I assume, maybe I do you wrong) and many others seem not even to notice it anymore. If you don't like what I say, put it in the drawer frivolitee (frivolous). Stephan (motley) fool, joker, harlequin are just synonyms, words with the same or similar meaning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted March 17, 2016 Share #96 Posted March 17, 2016 If I show a client a proof print which is 4x5 inches in size, and he/she asks for a final that is double that size, they mean they want an 8x10, which is 4x the area. Similarly if I show them an 16x20 and they say, "Oh, that's beautiful but it's too big. Can you make us one half that size?", they mean 8x10, which is 1/4x the area. What's so difficult to understand about that? It's not difficult to understand. But neither is the correct usage. So why not try to use the correct one? I'm genuinely surprised to learn from this thread that you and many others are happy to preserve this confusing and unnecessary ambiguity. I accept that I'm the unusual one here, but It had never occurred to me that anyone seriously meant twice the length and twice the width when they said "twice the size". Particularly people in a business like photography where it makes a critical difference and patently leads to misunderstanding. Are you seriously saying that if you show a client an A4 proof and they ask for it to be printed twice the size you'll assume they're asking for an A2 print? Surely there's sufficient ambiguity to always want to clarify it with them isn't there? It certainly isn't standard usage, in my long experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted March 17, 2016 Share #97 Posted March 17, 2016 Fascinating ! Your logic is so brilliant, that not even you can follow it. Interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 17, 2016 Share #98 Posted March 17, 2016 It's not difficult to understand. But neither is the correct usage. So why not try to use the correct one? I'm genuinely surprised to learn from this thread that you and many others are happy to preserve this confusing and unnecessary ambiguity. I accept that I'm the unusual one here, but It had never occurred to me that anyone seriously meant twice the length and twice the width when they said "twice the size". Particularly people in a business like photography where it makes a critical difference and patently leads to misunderstanding. Are you seriously saying that if you show a client an A4 proof and they ask for it to be printed twice the size you'll assume they're asking for an A2 print? Surely there's sufficient ambiguity to always want to clarify it with them isn't there? It certainly isn't standard usage, in my long experience. I think there is a distinct difference between a layman's interpretation of these terms and those that are knowledgeable Even I can be quite dim if I try ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 17, 2016 Share #99 Posted March 17, 2016 If I show a client a proof print which is 4x5 inches in size, and he/she asks for a final that is double that size, they mean they want an 8x10, which is 4x the area. Similarly if I show them an 16x20 and they say, "Oh, that's beautiful but it's too big. Can you make us one half that size?", they mean 8x10, which is 1/4x the area. What's so difficult to understand about that? Problem is, it's not difficult to understand, but no one guarantees that what you understand is correct. Two rather simple observations: the term "size" appears not to be bound to any particular dimensionality, as opposed to "height", "length" or "width". Hence, double the size of a corn field and you double an area. Double the size of the corn or whiskey and you even double a volume. Or do you, now? The term "resolution" can refer to different things. When used with reference to an optical device such as a lens, you'd use a term such as line pairs per mm. The same applies when talking about the "resolution" of a printing device, where dots per inch is the usual unit. When used with reference to a display device or a printed image, you'd often but not always mention the number of pixels or - perhaps - pixels per area. What's the dimensionality of the resolution taken at the eve of the New Year? The word "resolution" is not only loaded, it's overloaded. Your logic is so brilliant, that not even you can follow it. Interesting. Can we keep this thread on topic, please? For exchanging courtesies PMs are the accepted means. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted March 17, 2016 Share #100 Posted March 17, 2016 No, it resolves to 24MP of full colour information, Jonathan, I think I have to try to explain what I tried to do. (I tried not to insult anybody, though maybe I did involuntarily, sorry). CheshireCat (his name, I did not give it to him, no insult) came in a "logical" way to the absurd conclusion that a 5k Apple display has 45 MegaPixel resolution. As a response I deducted in the "same logical way" that, if this is true, then a M246 has a resolution of 72 Megapixels, or even more absurd, that it can have up to 240 Megapixels. The nonsense of the conclusion proves the nonsense of the assumption at the beginning. I hope this clears the weather ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.