24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[Kwesi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Huh? I think perhaps you should read what I wrote a little more closely. I've said precisely the opposite what to you're suggesting and done so several times in this thread.  Not more than a couple of minutes ago I reiterated this just above.

In fact, it was the first thing I bought up on this topic. 

Been a while, but over the years, I've contributed a number of images to the threads you referenced.  

Thank you for correcting me. I was reacting to what has become this thread's over emphasis on upsizing, downsizing, side sizing and other types of "sizing" of sensors and image processing  to achieve a particular look that seems to be going on here ad nauseam.

[Kwesi]

27 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

IMO, folks are worrying more about sensors than about photographs.  Does a photograph grab your attention or does it not?  If not, it doesn't matter what sensor was involved.  If it does, it still doesn't matter!

Amen

[Tailwagger]

Just now, Kwesi said:

Thank you for correcting me. I was reacting to what has become this thread's over emphasis on upsizing, downsizing, side sizing and other types of "sizing" of sensors and image processing  to achieve a particular look that seems to be going on here ad nauseam.

No worries. Just wanted to set the record straight. 

[Kwesi]

12 minutes ago, Steven said:

It’s not because we enjoying talking about technical side of things (and sometimes try to master the technique) that we don’t worry or care about our photos. 
Those who don’t enjoy talking about sensors can stay out taking photos. I enjoy both. Just my opinion. 

Hi Steven,

The issue isn't about talking about technical side of things, after all this part of the forum deals mostly with technical issues - we have a photo forum that focuses mainly on photos.

The issue here is that you are conflating sensor resolution with the  aesthetic quality of an image when lens choice is a far more direct cause.

[Jeff S]

It’s all about the picture.  But in determining how that picture ultimately renders/presents, there are many variables in the overall (print) workflow that matter....the sensor/film, the scene lighting, the lens, the editing/processing, the paper (or other surface), the print size, the matting/framing, the display lighting (which can be critical) and more.  It’s always been a marriage of elements, film or digital, the most important being user judgment at EVERY step.  It’s silly IMO to use screen shots to demonstrate most of this. Not only the obvious technical limitations of a screen, but why would one assume that other screens show exactly what mine shows me?  Fun exercises, maybe, but no substitute for doing the work to experiment at every stage and to produce fine prints.  I’m still learning after 45+ years of shooting and printing, collecting prints (and books), and viewing prints (and paintings/drawings) from countless other serious practitioners. If gear... even same camera/lens...was all that mattered, we’d each produce the same looking stuff... how boring that would be. I’d give up photography.

Jeff

[Raymondl]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

very quick and dirty edit on an M10R file because I was in a rush. 

I edited exactly like I edit with my M10P. I saw no difference between the files. Nothing that bothered me on the higher resolution file, but nothing I craved either. Of course, I cant base myself on one photo only, I will have to investigate this. 
Thanks again for the link. 

 

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!

Thanks @Steven and @Tom1234 For going through the sample galleries and providing your thoughts/opinions. 
 

@Steven The other gallery that I found which was too late for me to edit my previous post was taken by Matt ( https://eostesting.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/m10r.zip ) you might want to check that out as well. 

It’s been an interesting thread as I was “forced” to research on a camera that (M10-R) that I really wouldn’t have been looking at very closely, but upon my research it’s an amazing camera.. it’s something that’s worth (for me) paying the higher premium than the M10/P.

But in the meantime I have my M9 to keep my hands nice and warm. 

[Tom1234]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Steven said:

I understand that you want to make a 40MP file to look like a 24MP file. But with the Topaz Gigapixel test, I am looking at the problem the other way. Before I show you my first result, which I think is mind-blowing, let me give you more details on the context of this test. 

I am in total agreement with the original post of this thread. 24MP vs 40MP produces different files. It's a matter of taste, and I usually prefer the 24MP files, but that's not always true. Is it possible to make the 40MP files look like 24MP in post ? Some here are showing great results at this. I myself, have not been able to. My recent experience with high MP has been with: 

- the Canon R5, which I hated, and never managed to make a picture I like with. 

- the Sony A7RIV, which I hated even more than the R5

- the Leica Q2, which I absolutely love. I like every photo that comes out of it, even before LR. This is the Leica magic. The spectacular lens, paired with a tailor-made sensor for it, and the most beautiful, incomparable, color science I have ever seen. That being said, the files from my Q2 look sharp, clinical, and very modern. In other words, the opposite of the 24MP from my M10P, and I never managed to make them look less modern in LR. So to answer your question of wether or not we can "degrade" a 40MP image to make it look more like 24MP? Maybe, probably, but I havent found how yet, at least to match my editing style which as you know is very particular. 

The reason why I found a passion for this thread is because I hesitate to upgrade to M10R. While I love the files from my Q2, I don't always want that look, and while I understand that the 28 'lux from the Q2 is a modern rendering lens and I could pair the M10R with more classic lenses, I feared that in the upgrade to the M10R, I would end up upgrading to a more modern, sharp look, which I don't look for when I go out to shoot with an M. 

In parallel to this, I loved this thread because it made me think deeply about megapixels. This might actually deserve a thread on its own, but I'll allow myself to share it here. If you want me to move this to another thread, I totally understand. This is the reason why: 

I have been in search for the holy grail. The holy grail to me is the perfect hybrid camera. A camera that can do exceptional photos and videos. To be a little more precise, I look for a camera that is compact, that is pleasant to use, that takes incredible photos, that take incredible videos, and that has the best autofocus on the planet. In other words, I want a camera built like an M, compact like a Q, that has the resolution of an SL2, that can take videos like an Arri and all that with the best eye autofocus that exists. I thought it could be the R5 but it definitely was not. I thought it would be the SL2, but I doubt it can be. It could be the future A74, but that doesn't exist yet, and since a few days, I am wondering if this could be the new A7S3. As you see, I have been testing it next to the M, thanks to this thread. 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think in 2020 there exists a camera that can meet all my needs, because I need a lot. And I know that some cameras are better for things than other. I also enjoy a lot when im home to have a choice. Some days I feel like shooting my Q, some days my M. It's great. But sometimes, I can leave on a trip, or even on a photowalk with just one camera. And I wonder which one is the most versatile to meet all my criteria. I think today, thanks to Topaz, it might be the A7SIII. Let's see why: 

- Excellent video? I can assure you that paired with the right lenses, the A7S3 is comparable to an Alexa. The image is gorgeous, the codecs are insane, and the camera is very future proof. 

- Excellent lenses? Although I like some Sony lenses, like the 24 GM and the Zeiss 55 1.8, there are in a lower category as Leica. But as you all know, I have been testing adapted lenses and most of us could not tell a difference with the 35 'lux. So yes, the A7SIII can shoot with the best lenses in the world. Which also take me to my next point.

- Compact ? Yes ! paired with a Leica M lens, it fits in the pocket of my jacket. 

- Enjoyable to use ? No, unfortunately. It will never beat a Leica. Neither the Q nor the M, and im sure not the SL either. 

- High resolution ? Well, this is where I had most doubts. While 12MP is great for almost everything I do, in 2020 it did feel a bit short. And it prevented me from considering a real Hybrid until this thread, until today. We have proven thanks to this thread that 12MP actually has a beautiful aesthetics. High MP count is particularly useful for two things as far I am concerned. For cropping, and for printing. I personally don't print much, but I do crop with landscape photography. What I am trying to say is that for portraits, as we discussed it extensively, I actually like lower res aesthetics. It's look better on people than 50MP. For landscape, its great to have the resolution. 12 MP is definitely a bit tight. 

Yesterday, I went out at sunset to shoot with the A7S3 paired with the Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 Nokton MCII M lens. You will notice on the photo below how soft and glowy it looks with the 12MP sensor. I love it. 

I took a shot which I really loved, but unfortunately, at a resolution of 4240 × 2832 (12MP), I just was not detailed enough for my needs, especially not since I plan to crop it when I edit it. 

So I downloaded the trial of Gigapixel and run it on the photo, and OH MY GOD. This thing is sorcellerie. I am MINDBLOWN by the results. I transformed the image into a 17024 × 11392 (192MP!!!!) file and its not even the max output. Of course, I understand its not a real 192MP image, but its so incredible and it seems perfect for the occasional need of higher res. This enables me to be confident with a 12MP sensor, or with a 24MP M10 sensor. What I mean is that the M10P is perfect for 90% of my shots, and when I need to raise the resolution, I can ! 

I know of course that the M10R is not only about resolution. The sensor is better in many other ways. But for those of us that like the M10P's aesthetics, instead of getting an R and trying to modify the image, we can also keep the M10/M10P and bump up the res when needed!

Please, look at the result for yourself here and let me know your thoughts.. I mean, this is 12MP image turned into 192 million pixels in less than a minute! 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PPaq1vIOVqRfCVBgMPRbIaCzpT6fAX49?usp=sharing

Brilliant idea.  Have your cake and eat it too.

I lean in this same direction since the M10's look is so atmospheric and artistic which I want most times.  The M10-R a bit too technically correct with too many intimate details it seems.  

But, I like the M10-R for the Still Life concept but maybe The Gigapixel will give the same?  What do you think?

[Tom1234]

22 minutes ago, Steven said:

I mean look at this, it's incredible... A rooftop full of trash in India, ten years ago on a 12MP Nikon D3S... It's like rediscovering the photo. Look at the little white square again. It's a tiny portion of the screen. The 12MP photo becomes 192MP! 

 

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!

As you say in the other answer it does not create detail that is not there yet it is a tremendous improvement.  

I would call this an ability to find better focus through more megabytes file size but not more detail.  

QUESTION: Is this a good definition of its ability or am I missing something?

[Tom1234]

6 hours ago, Steven said:

very quick and dirty edit on an M10R file because I was in a rush. 

I edited exactly like I edit with my M10P. I saw no difference between the files. Nothing that bothered me on the higher resolution file, but nothing I craved either. Of course, I cant base myself on one photo only, I will have to investigate this. 
Thanks again for the link. 

 

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!

Steve:

How about the other direction, from 40meg M10-R file downsized to 24meg M10 type file.  Can you get back to the 24 meg aesthetic?  Can you pull the 24 meg aesthetic out of the 40 meg file?   I bet you can but… it looks too technical as the software massages the file with some downsampling or de-sharpening or whatever system is used.  Usually with software the randomness of the original is lost as a fixed systematic program is applied to the pixels.  But maybe it satisfies?

At this point I vacillate.  Like you I am considering M10-R, but I only own M9 and M8.2 so have no M10 to compare, and no camera store within even 3 hours drive to test a new Leica body.  And I add Z6 Nikon that has all things maybe but same problem of a Z7 with much higher resolution to confuse the choice.  

Love that line of yours… "Marry the camera lens… date the camera body".  

[eyeheartny]

16 minutes ago, Steven said:

The extra MP would be useful for me because as you can see on my instagram I do a lot of landscape, and compositing as well so sometimes I take one small piece of a photo and put it in another, so detail matters. 

You’re missing an important thing here. It’s not just the resolution. The R has better highlight recovery and less tendency to blow out highlights according to knowledgeable reviewers, including @jonoslack . For someone who does your kind of photography that is a significant benefit of the new sensor array that has nothing to do with resolution but would give you much more exposure latitude and flexibility. 

[LBJ2]

11 minutes ago, Steven said:

Thanks, but im not missing it, I said in three of my 5 previous posts. 

Although to be honest, on the files I tried tonight, I havent seen any notable difference. But I believe in other's testimony and im sure that as I use it myself for a long period of time id def see the benefit. 

 

"Although to be honest, on the files I tried tonight, I haven't seen any notable difference" 😉😉 

[Al_OOF]

When I worked with slides, going from 35mm to 6x6 or even more to 10x12 or 13x18, what was most noticeable was a greater softness caused by a more gradual tonal transition.  This seems to me to notice this even now in the digital photos taken with sensors with more mega.  The problem, which also existed with the slides when they had to be printed, is that we have a long bar which must then end up in a small box, so the bar has to be compressed or cut.  This comes from from a dynamic range greater than its destination.  The real scene has a very wide range, the sensor that collects it much smaller, the monitor a little more and finally the print the smaller.  This also seems to me the reason why the 10R files look flatter as soon as they come out and need to be “compressed” more to get a good contrast.  What I ask myself is whether, thinking mainly of the "box" inside which the image must end, a certain amount of megapixels is more harmonious and suitable for entering more easily.  What do you think ?

(This reasoning only on aesthetics and not on the other advantages with more mega)

Edited October 31, 2020 by Al_OOF

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

Steve:

How about the other direction, from 40meg M10-R file downsized to 24meg M10 type file.  Can you get back to the 24 meg aesthetic?  Can you pull the 24 meg aesthetic out of the 40 meg file?   I bet you can but… it looks too technical as the software massages the file with some downsampling or de-sharpening or whatever system is used.  Usually with software the randomness of the original is lost as a fixed systematic program is applied to the pixels.  But maybe it satisfies?

 

That again is the skill of the user. Photoshop offers a choice of resampling algorithms, controlling the look of the resized image. You cannot use a camera of this level to its full potential without adequate postprocessing.

 

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!

[Jeff S]

Plus many other basic controls and options ... for instance in LR (these work in all directions, global and local).... contrast or tone curve, grain, clarity, sharpening, de-haze, texture, etc... plus subject lighting, lens choice, paper choice, ink set (matte vs photo black) and so on.  Myriad possibilities.

Jeff

[Tom1234]

3 hours ago, Al_OOF said:

[SUBJECT: DYNAMIC RANGE ADJUSTMENT - AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS (this heading is added not part of original quote)]

When I worked with slides, going from 35mm to 6x6 or even more to 10x12 or 13x18, what was most noticeable was a greater softness caused by a more gradual tonal transition.  This seems to me to notice this even now in the digital photos taken with sensors with more mega.  

The problem, which also existed with the slides when they had to be printed, is that we have a long bar which must then end up in a small box, so the bar has to be compressed or cut.  This comes from from a dynamic range greater than its destination.  The real scene has a very wide range, the sensor that collects it much smaller, the monitor a little more and finally the print the smaller.  

This also seems to me the reason why the 10R files look flatter as soon as they come out and need to be “compressed” more to get a good contrast.  What I ask myself is whether, thinking mainly of the "box" inside which the image must end, a certain amount of megapixels is more harmonious and suitable for entering more easily.  What do you think ?

(This reasoning only on aesthetics and not on the other advantages with more mega)

BASIC FILE QUALITY OR DIGITAL ADJUSTMENTS AS CAMEA PURCHASE GUIDES 

Methinks… that it is a valid approach, and the one I have taken with my first three digital cameras, M8.2, M9, M9M… that I buy the body for the character of the sensor-&-color-science-&-rendition and thus for the quality of the file it puts out.  With a film camera you pick the body.  With digital camera you pick the sensor-&-color-science-&-overall-rendition.  After that...

I think that built into the digital concept is the idea that a digital file can always be modified infinitely and thus taken from ANY one state to ANY other state.  But in practice it has turned out quite differently.  The bundle of dots are so damn complex that once set in place moving them through more-or-less fixed routines can create something new but not necessary anything you want to look at.  Simple adjustments can of course be made but finally one must admit that starting at A and going to B to C is possible but going to D, E, F, etc. may not be possible or result in anything wants to display.  In my experience adding a lot of major changes to the file makes it look like a cartoon. 

Way back in college (school) I took an electronic music course that told us that by combining multiple sine waves ANY sound could be produced, they called this sound producing equipment a  "synthesizer".  Well if you went through that era of music of the 1960's and 70' you know that, mostly electronic sounds were just a few weird sounds, they only had a few special places in music… this "do anything" technology just resulted in mostly output meant for the trash heap.  

As good as post production software is, the original file is still the basis for the excellence eventually achieved.  As effects are added on, the picture begins to be more synthetic looking, and this adjusted-synthetic-realism aesthetic is the new approach in camera created art.  

I will be picking bodies for their original file making abilities and not expecting to fix-it-in-post.  I will pick the body like I would pick film, for the basic beauty of its file presentation.  I will not trick myself into thinking that all can be fixed, changed, solved, or made more perfect in post production software.

Due to user comments and internet pictures, it is evident that the Leica M10 is a landmark camera worth buying and saving as part of the history of digital cameras for the rendition of its sensor-color-science module that maintains a sort of perfect balance between realistic-detail and an atmospheric-lack-of-detail also known as "art".  

The Leica M10-R is a proof that going up in resolution creates a new ultra-detail look that is an aesthetic all its own, in some cases called by painters "still life" (see my other post). 

I hope to own both bodies someday… the M10 for atmospheric artsy look and the M10-R for the super realistic still life's that I also love.  These are opposite aesthetics. I wish they could be both pulled from one camera through a menu option and probably they will be someday.  Could the M10-R get a firmware update to add the old M10 aesthetic to it?  If so it would help justify its tremendous cost. Someone may have achieved these through post production efforts, but if so, I do not have their weblink! 

Erwin Putts commented the same about a certain 90mm aspherical lens making the picture so sharp that the skin in portraits was too intimate and lacked the beauty created by lessor resolving lenses.  This is the downside of high resolution which I hope can be fixed in post. 

You either like this super detail or you don't.  It is a bit polarizing.  If you paid $8k USD for the body then you say you like it, if you haven't bought the camera yet then you can have any opinion you want.  Me I want both.  The next iteration of high resolution camera will probably be even better for the still life super detail aesthetic so I will wait and see what Leica comes up with.  Steve has shown that raising pixel count on a file gives clearer focus but of course no new detail so a truly higher resolution sensor is needed to raise the bar. 

Good day!

[Tom1234]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

That again is the skill of the user. Photoshop offers a choice of resampling algorithms, controlling the look of the resized image. You cannot use a camera of this level to its full potential without adequate postprocessing.

 

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!

Can you make the M10-R 40meg file look like the M10 24meg file?  I hope you can.  Please show an example.  Of course this is a lot of work and I do not really expect you to do it. 

Maybe the original file does not matter much if it is all changeable in post?  I don't think so as you can see in my previous post.  Prove me wrong please!  It means saving the cost of buying both cameras!

This and other websites drop the file size so much when viewed in the web browser that only downloaded files are a definitive proof of anything in my experience so a download site is needed to evaluate such a test. 

Steve tried taking the M10 24meg file to higher resolution like the M10-R 40meg using software which showed more focus could be achieved but of course no more detail. 

[Jeff S]

15 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Can you make the M10-R 40meg file look like the M10 24meg file?  I hope you can.  Please show an example.  Of course this is a lot of work and I do not really expect you to do it. 

Maybe the original file does not matter much if it is all changeable in post?  I don't think so as you can see in my previous post.  Prove me wrong please!  It means saving the cost of buying both cameras!

This and other websites drop the file size so much when viewed in the web browser that only downloaded files are a definitive proof of anything in my experience so a download site is needed to evaluate such a test. 

Steve tried taking the M10 24meg file to higher resolution like the M10-R 40meg using software which showed more focus could be achieved but of course no more detail. 

Post 270... myriad steps to take... before the shot, after the shot (PP) and in print.  It’s what photographers have always done.  Prints made with Tri-X can be atmospheric, sharp and detailed, high key, low key, or anything in between.  Digital is even more flexible.  Look at real prints.

Jeff

[Tom1234]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Post 270... myriad steps to take... before the shot, after the shot (PP) and in print.  It’s what photographers have always done.  Prints made with Tri-X can be atmospheric, sharp and detailed, high key, low key, or anything in between.  Digital is even more flexible.  Look at real prints.

Jeff

I still want an original image file from the camera that needs no modification.  I do not want to be forced to photoshop to make it work visually so picking the right body is a most important step toward great photography for me.  Right now that means these bodies with color science and sharpness characteristics that I like:  

Best artistic rendition- M10 and Nikon Z6.  

Best technical rendition- M10-R and Nikon Z7.  

Many thanks to all for the contributions on this long thread.  Everyone has kicked the ball around the field and caused some interesting thought. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by Tom1234
word change

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

I still want an original image file from the camera that needs no modification.

So, ignore photographic history for the most part.  Processing in one form or another is fundamental.  No beautiful print I've ever seen....and I've collected for 40 years....has magically sprouted from a camera.  But I've seen a lot mediocre work from people using expensive gear, online and in print, while others using modest equipment have dazzled.  Best tools between the ears.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tom1234]

55 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

So, ignore photographic history for the most part.  Processing in one form or another is fundamental.  No beautiful print I've ever seen....and I've collected for 40 years....has magically sprouted from a camera.  But I've seen a lot mediocre work from people using expensive gear, online and in print, while others using modest equipment have dazzled.  Best tools between the ears.

Jeff

You should be able to "crop and print" without any changes on some pictures.  If not then your camera shooting technique needs improvement or the camera's files are mediocre as delivered by its sensor-software-processor system. 

Yet, in a purely professional working environment, where you have multiple helpers and must turn out perfect product for a business, that is a different story.  Then the flattest (which might initially before manipulation look dull or excessively detailed) file that has the most data and can be manipulated the most is likely what you want.  

There is also the question of  historic realism.  The more you modify the file the more of a computer concoction it becomes.  Sure it may look better but it has lost some or much of its historic value by being artificially produced and not a fair reflection of the original scene. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by Tom1234