Jump to content

Leica Lens MP Resolution?


ChicagoMatthew

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Photos are not only used for Printing in max. possible size or watched on a screen.
Photos are today footage for composings that are made of several shots.
The requirements at filesize from clients are sometimes ridiculous high.
I saw 10000px 25GB PSDs images ending as a webbanner. 
High resolution is most times not really necessary but helps to cure the dreams of a lot of clients.
Even when 60-100 MP is not often needed, is it good to have that leeway for cropping and enlarging part of an image to build another picture.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2019 at 12:42 AM, ChicagoMatthew said:

What’s not to understand? Lenses have a limit to what they can precisely translate to the focal plane... higher quality glass and engineering will result in an image that is sharper, has higher contrast, better color reproduction and generally more detailed image. If that wasn’t the case I don’t think we would be spending so much money on Leica lenses. So, I am asking if Leica lenses, in all their Leica glory, can take advantage of the 61mp of this new sensor.

of course I understand that, what I'm confused it why associate with 61mp?  a good lens will render the same on 24mp or 61mp.  the advantage on more pixels is capable to crop more or some say digital zoom and it's not quality advantage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me or your 35/2 asph v2 looks less contrasty than v1? Or the light is not the same perhaps. Problem with that kind of comparison it is more difficult to avoid variables than when comparing still subject matters in artificial light. Human beings like your model may be much nicer though. :)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2019 at 11:41 AM, jaeger said:

of course I understand that, what I'm confused it why associate with 61mp?  a good lens will render the same on 24mp or 61mp.  the advantage on more pixels is capable to crop more or some say digital zoom and it's not quality advantage.

Mmmm, I don't know... this doesn't seem right to me. If you have a 24mp sensor and a 61mp sensor and they are both the same physical size, the 61mp sensor will have a more pixels crammed into a smaller space than the 24mp sensor... so, logically you would need a lens that could handle that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2019 at 3:03 AM, jaapv said:

I am more than  a bit puzzled about the negative perception of "lens era vintage lenses"  Some of the very best lenses ever built are from the "film era" and are higher resolving and better corrected than their present-day counterparts. Just think of the Leica APO-Telyts. For instance the 280/4.0. That lens is diffraction-limited, one of the very few lenses that is.
Nor is resolution  in the plane of focus the only quality criterium for a lens. It is about the state of correction of ALL aberrations. Both in the sharp and unsharp areas. ESPECiALLY  in the unsharp areas.

This smells of the misconception that lenses are "built for digital" nowadays. Which is complete baloney.

I don't have a negative perception of film era or vintage lenses, but they were made to resolve for film and digital has a higher resolution than film, it also comes with its own set of problems that need to addressed. I am sure there are some old lenses that stand the test of time, like the one you mentioned... but for the most part I would prefer to use a modern lens on a digital camera. 

Also, you're right in that resolution isn't the only quality for a lens, but it's a big one. The look of the out of focus areas is also important as you say. Personally, I think that modern lenses are vastly improved over older lenses in that regard... but that's preference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ChicagoMatthew said:

If you have a 24mp sensor and a 61mp sensor and they are both the same physical size, the 61mp sensor will have a more pixels crammed into a smaller space than the 24mp sensor... so, logically you would need a lens that could handle that.

Let me "resample" that statement, and see if you agree with the logic.

If you have a 48,000-hz audio recorder and an 88,200-hz audio recorder, the 88,200-hz recorder will have more samples crammed into a second than the 48,000-hz recorder... so, logically you would need a Stradivarius to handle that.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, adan said:

Let me "resample" that statement, and see if you agree with the logic.

If you have a 48,000-hz audio recorder and an 88,200-hz audio recorder, the 88,200-hz recorder will have more samples crammed into a second than the 48,000-hz recorder... so, logically you would need a Stradivarius to handle that.

First off, I am a sucker for a good pun. So, well played.

As for your metaphor, I am not really sure its the same... but it makes sense to me if you were recording the Stradivarius being played you would want to use the 88,200-hz recorder to get the best result. Just like you'd want a high quality lens, paired with a high quality sensor to get the best total result.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChicagoMatthew said:

First off, I am a sucker for a good pun. So, well played.

As for your metaphor, I am not really sure its the same... but it makes sense to me if you were recording the Stradivarius being played you would want to use the 88,200-hz recorder to get the best result. Just like you'd want a high quality lens, paired with a high quality sensor to get the best total result.  

But the Stradivarius would be designed for the concert hall, so does it do as well as a modern fiddle, which is designed for high-frequency digital recorders?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a lot of lenses... And I know that the concept "designed for film" bears no relationship to reality.

The whole concept of lens resolution is far too convoluted to be caught in simplistic ideas like this. If you want  to refer to (useless) resolution tests, the film used in the past was Technical Pan, which outresolves any present-day sensor with up to 200 cycles/mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

I use a lot of lenses... And I know that the concept "designed for film" bears no relationship to reality.

The whole concept of lens resolution is far too convoluted to be caught in simplistic ideas like this. If you want  to refer to (useless) resolution tests, the film used in the past was Technical Pan, which outresolves any present-day sensor with up to 200 cycles/mm.

Has anybody invented AI based sub-pixel sampling yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, laowai_ said:

Has anybody invented AI based sub-pixel sampling yet?

I don't know what a sub-pixel is. Would it be a virtual pixel calculated from neighboring pixels? We have that in conventional algorithmic PP software. Would it be pixels created by statistical analysis of any given pattern of global and neighboring pixels? We have that, too. So, I'm curious regarding the goal of AI pixel sampling.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...