Do you need Q2 ? It's all about pixels

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is what Leica cameras produce, pixel wise. Versus typical monitor requirements. 

Please note that even modest Leica T with 16 MP is enough for 4K monitor.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

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

[prk60091]

thank you for this valuable resource 

 

[don daniel]

You never crop, do you?

[nicci78]

I always crop to taste. 

But I only use an iMac 27” 2K. 

With a 5K monitor, your ability to crop is quite limited. 

 

Just as reminder :

- 27” 5K has to be used at 44cm from the eyes to worth it. The image will look bigger  

- 27” 2K at 79cm. The image will look smaller

Edited May 28, 2019 by nicci78

[nicci78]

8 hours ago, prk60091 said:

thank you for this valuable resource 

 

You’re welcome. 

[nicci78]

Max print size ISO format.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apple Pro Display XDR is now a must for all Q2 owner.

Sadly you will be limited to 28mm and 35mm crop only. 

Because 50 and 75mm crop will be too limited, resolution wise.

[nicci78]

Easier to read update with Apple Pro Display XDR.

Q2 75mm crop is suitable for most successful Apple devices, such as MacBook Pro and iPad Pro

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Hazesus]

Good info as usual. 👍  I wish the Q and Q2 image threads wore merged already 😄. 

[Jst13]

On 6/4/2019 at 10:30 AM, nicci78 said:

Apple Pro Display XDR is now a must for all Q2 owner.

Sadly you will be limited to 28mm and 35mm crop only. 

Because 50 and 75mm crop will be too limited, resolution wise.

So mft and all other cams with less than 20 Mp are dead... from now, right😫. 

 

[ramarren]

These charts seem a bit complicated to me. Display size is irrelevant ... you always size the output from a camera to fit whatever display you present it on, and almost NEVER display at 1:1 pixel resolution. The critical differences in resolution have to do with maximum printable area size at a given resolution, without interpolation. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

You can always scale images down in size to fit with smaller printing sizes. It's harder to print larger without enough pixels and get the quality you want. 

Edited June 6, 2019 by ramarren

[nicci78]

We never get to experience such high resolution monitors before. 

With 6K and 8K monitors becoming more mainstream. 20MP and even 24MP will not be sufficient.

Because you need at least 1 pixel input for 1 pixels output on a monitor, to get a sharp image. 

Just try to look at your old 3 MP jpg photos on a 5K iMac. Lightroom will display a tiny image or a blurry blown out one. Just pick your poison. 

Q2 with 46MP is future proof. 

24MP is just enough for today’s use. 

[ramarren]

3 hours ago, nicci78 said:

...

Because you need at least 1 pixel input for 1 pixels output on a monitor, to get a sharp image. 

Completely untrue.

Edited June 6, 2019 by ramarren

[nicci78]

Feel free to elaborate. 

We are dealing with the problem since Apple’s retina displays. Suddenly perfectly fine web images were not sharp enough. Web developers needed to upgrade their images resolution. Otherwise their web site will looked blurry with retina displays  

Images are not vectorial objects. You can perfectly downsize resolution. But upscaling is not good at all. And such manipulation should be avoided at all cost  

When you do not have enough pixels, it will be hard to guess them. You know the computer saying : garbage in, garbage out.

Just look at the amount of power requires to upscale 1080p into 4K. And you know what ? It never looks good. 4K TV needs 4K content. 

Same here for 5K and 6K displays. You will need to have the pixels to back them up. 

 

PS : do not be confused with DPI required for print. Print and monitor display are totally different. 

[marchyman]

9 hours ago, ramarren said:

Display size is irrelevant

I got a new machine, yesterday.   The monitor is 5120 x 2880 pixels over a 27 inch diagonal size.  When looking through my Lightroom catalog I have to be careful.  The default is "Fit".  In Lightroom Classic that means expanding the image size if it doesn't use all the available space.   I wish it wouldn't do that.  A slight crop of an image often reduces it to a size that is still plenty big but smaller than the lightroom display area.  The image looks fuzzy because Lightroom is making up pixels to fit the screen resolution.

So I disagree.  Display size may be relevant.

[Jst13]

Who really needs this kind of monitors? Full Hd is complete enough .....only the industry will makes us thinking that we need more.....to sell there products nothing more.... but nevertheless we are so stupid to discuss and buy it............

 

[nicci78]

High resolution is needed if you want a bigger monitor. 

Higher resolutions let you sit closer to the display. And get the feel of a bigger image. Otherwise it is pointless to buy big screen and sit far away. 

 

And if you are happy with old 1080p monitors, you really do not need Q2 at all. Even Q or CL is way overkill. Guess what 16MP T or X cameras are too. 

I think that before buying the Q2, it is wiser to buy at least a 5K monitor. 46MP photos will shine on 6K display. With 1080p it will be a waste of perfectly formed pixels. 

Hopefully 4K monitors are now pretty common now. 

 

 

Just FYI : Minimum distance for visual acuity :

• 27" 1080p : 1.05m (3.4 ft)
• iMac 27" 2K : 0.79m (2.6 ft)
• iMac 27" 5K : 0.44m (1.4 ft)

Optimum distance for viewing 27" screen according to THX standards : 0.43 to 1.15 m (1.4 to 3.7 ft) 

With the 5K 27" the image will look bigger. With 1080p, it will look smaller. But all these three monitors will give you good viewing experience (not too big nor too small) 

Edited June 7, 2019 by nicci78

[zampelis]

@nicci78 I find your whole comparison irrelevant to the average photo editing/consuming experience and I can't understand the point you are trying to make. From your post you assume that the average user displays his photos full screen on his monitor. I am not convinced that the average photo content creator/consumer uses his full screen to see/edit his photos. And personally, I definitely don't use full screen to post/consume photos on internet or locally.

I find it completely irrelevant if the monitor is 4K, 6K or 100K as long as I don't have a need to print my photos large. How many times do you personally press the full screen button when you go through your photo collection? So in such case it doesn't make any difference whatsoever if my camera is 10 or 100MP even if I use a 6K 32'' monitor.

On the other hand, if you were talking about video, where the standard is to display it full screen, then I could agree that the resolution of the monitor is an important factor that could force you to upgrade your photographic equipment as a professional in order to much its maximum resolution. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by zampelis

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[nicci78]

You never see your photos full screen ? Really ? What the point to take a picture ? Just to edit them ? 

I take a picture for 3 reasons : 

- sharing them with friends and family 

- displaying them full screen on any kind of monitor (Mac, TV, iPad or iPhone) 

- printing the very best one in large size (mostly A2) or in small prints for elderly people. 

 

Editing is not my final destination. 

And please to not get confuse with dpi requirement for print. And absolute pixel counts for screen display.

The two are totally different.

Prints do not need an exact count of pixels. But monitor display will required an absolute minimum amount of pixels for sharp image viewing. 

 

Please make your own experience, before commenting. Easiest way to do it, with very old digital images where pixel count can be as low as 2 or 3 MP in 4:3 aspect ratio. 

Or just export any picture into 1024x768 (a very common size) and see them in full screen on a 1080p or a 4K monitor ? 

Then export them with the exact pixel count of your monitor. Just to appreciate the difference. 

[zampelis]

@nicci78

3 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Please make your own experience, before commenting.

So I wonder, how do you experience your portrait images on your computer monitor? Do you turn your monitor 90 degrees every time you display a vertical image in order to get the full sharpness out of it and not to waste precious pixels on the black vertical borders? Because you do realise that as long as the image size gets reduced, it is still not as sharp as if you render them 1:1, and all depends on the rescaling algorithm.. I do understand that on a mobile device due to size and mobility (which implies easiness on switching the display between landscape and portrait mode), one would habitually like to use the full screen while going through ones photos. But do you do the same on your 32'' computer monitor? If yes then you are obviously experiencing your photos in a completely different way than me.. 

But yet.. even on 1:1... Do you know that the (as you mentioned it) absolute pixel count on a good retina display is about half the dpi you get on a good printing? In that case when you look on the 1:1 representation of the image on your screen you don't experience the sharpest possible version of it even if you use a retina display.. Do you use a mac? Just go to Preview -> "Preferences" and from the "image" tab select "Size on screen equals size on printout". Close and restart preview. Now your images will look even more sharper!!! But also the Q photos will get about the same size as an iMac's screen.

My point is that everything is relative... There is no absolute sharpness the same way as there is no absolute colour... The colour perception depends on ambient light.. Sharpness depends on a reference point that you are getting used to.. If you over sharpen an image on photoshop, stare at it for a while and then you turn it back to normal it will look soft for a while, even though that could be the best possible sharpness for it. Of course, it does exist a threshold where below that a photo may look objectively soft, but in our era with the modern cameras we are using today and the high ppi monitors, it is irrelevant if the screen is 4K, 5K or 10K. I bet changes on the level of the environmental moisture and dust particles on the screen glass (or fingerprints on a touch screen) will have more impact on the sharpness than an increase in resolution. Also this makes your 1024x768 experiment irrelevant as that kind of resolution is too low and you can't find it even on the most cheaper cameras today. It is obviously lower than the threshold I mentioned above.

But in the end, to each his own... If your absolute aim is to get a feeling that you are looking on the sharpest possible version of your photos, full screen on your 40'' computer monitor and you consider this as the final destination on experiencing an image at its full potential, even though the image you display has been re-scaled, re-rendered and re-sharpened in order to fit in it, then good for you as long as it makes you happy... 

Edited June 7, 2019 by zampelis