24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, pgk said:

Learning is only possible if people are willing to learn. Stating an erroneous opinion and saying that others who not only disagree with it but understand why it is not correct are simply bad tempered is pointless. If someone can give a reasoned argument backed up by examples and a technical explanation of how sensor pixel density interacts with an 'aesthetic' then I'm happy to hear it and explain why it is wrong. Otherwise we have 500+ posts on something which belongs in Hogwarts. As I said much earlier I am tired of misinformation, and opinion is not fact.

Short answer - It is mostly magic.

Seeking 100% scientific (my word) explanation is pushing it a bit, most of use here are for social interaction & entertainment value.  Even specialist websites which are in business of providing technical analysis provide often results which are not taken at face value. 

As I said earlier this thread is interesting to me, several people who seem to have become bored should have drifted elsewhere.

Edited November 11, 2020 by mmradman

[pgk]

19 minutes ago, mmradman said:

Short answer - It is mostly magic.

Seeking 100% scientific (my word) explanation is pushing it a bit, most of use here are for social interaction & entertainment value.  Even specialist websites which are in business of providing technical analysis provide often results which are not taken at face value. 

As I said earlier this thread is interesting to me, several people who seem to have become bored should have drifted elsewhere.

Technical analysis is difficult because we go out  and photograph complex subject matter which interacts with various different aspects of the techniques and equipment that we are using and sometimes the interactions reinforce and produce effects that we find tricky to explain (but there will be a scientific explanation - it won't be 'magic'). What you do with any such effect is  where an 'aesthetic' can be found. I find such things interesting and try to 'harness' them. Its not always easy and perhaps this is the 'magic' bit?

[Tom1234]

I am OP, original poster, having started this question and I am going on a so called "working vacation" so I can not monitor this stuff for at least a week. Basically I have become busy in a personal business area that forces me to vacation from other pursuits.  Kinda makes sense anyway. 

Many thanks for all the answers and information.  Steve I hope your movie finds an audience.  

After this intense work period is done, I plan to spend my forum time on Rangefinder Forum.  

RF has a greater variety of brands represented, do to this they ultimately provide more diverse answers based on reality as they look for real solutions to problems.  They have less photo-politic and stubborn iconoclastic viewpoints. They spend less time, in some cases none, trying to kick users into supporting their troll politic that wastes pages of effort not finding conclusions.  They spend less time trying to deny the obvious, this denial being some people's fun.

At times it has been like what in the USA we call "The Fake News" where people just make things up and their chorus of friends sings a fictional song of discontent with them.  As hundreds of thousands of fake votes have entered our political system in the USA this is not really appreciated to be seen on the forum.  Though I can ignore such users, I ignored five, it redirects the forum question with other comments that I can not see, and it injures other users, so finally I do not get sensible answers but just verbal postering.  I will find a forum that is not brawling but instead discussing.  I am moving on.  

One pilot's aeronautical forum I occasionally use is turning off all troll accounts since misleading others with abusive content could result in deadly decisions as a pilot.  So be it. 

On the Rangefinder Form they are not perfect but overall they are aiming more directly at technically true answers so there is not found so many pages of odd controversy that waste time saying things like there are not aesthetic differences between 24 and 40 meg sensors when obviously there are.  If there was no difference then camera companies could not sell the new cameras.  The fact that most files can be made to look the same by Photoshop does not degrade the truth that camera's output does look different when the megabytes are raised and differences can bee seen in lenses that were not seen before. 

Many thanks to all you helpful people and to all a good night...

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, tom0511 said:

What I meant: Sharpening a original high res. file is easier than Sharpening after upscaling a low resolution file to high resolution for bigger prints. I dont know if this makes sense what I write here?

It is too limited. For instance enhancing colour detail by narrowing the curve in the A and B space of LAB and adding judicious sharpening in the L channel will create a simulation of a higher- res image without artefacts, as will sharpening in Photoshop with the settings 20-50-2 ( well, the LAB procedure is better ).   
You are correct that simply slamming the sliders to the right in a sharpening dialog will destroy an image. But then, one can use the same more subtle techniques on a high-res image. It is all a matter of postprocessing skills. I am willing to defend the position that 24 - or 18 MP is ample for superb results in  95% of the cases, meaning the type of print the average advanced photographer will produce.  Heck, I have M8 10 MP images blown up to 1.20 meter on the long side that will stand up to scrutiny at close range, easily.
The advantages of a high-resolution sensor are more to be found in strong crops and extreme enlargements.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

 If there was no difference then camera companies could not sell the new cameras.  

Hah! you are underestimating the Monkey instinct of reaching for the next shiny fruit!  

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

The advantages of a high-resolution sensor are more to be found in strong crops and extreme enlargements.

Indeed, as noted early on.  Even the OP was dismayed to learn that pics from a high MP camera couldn’t be distinguished from a lower MP camera via screen shots in this very thread.  But he then proceeded to ignore me, others as well as the acknowledged evidence.  Too funny, given that he apparently doesn’t bother to print, let alone to learn about basic processing fundamentals, and seemed surprised by predictable camera/sensor/lens interactions.  Another forum, yes that’s the answer.
 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Hah! you are underestimating the Monkey instinct of reaching for the next shiny fruit!  

And underestimating the power of the smartphone, the product that is sinking large parts of the camera industry and compelling companies to find a basic marketing distinction.  Try printing huge with phone files. Even using multiple lenses is no longer a distinguishing characteristic.

Jeff

Edited November 11, 2020 by Jeff S

[FlashGordonPhotography]

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Indeed, as noted early on.  Even the OP was dismayed to learn that pics from a high MP camera couldn’t be distinguished from a lower MP camera via screen shots in this very thread.  But he then proceeded to ignore me, others as well as the acknowledged evidence.  Too funny, given that he apparently doesn’t bother to print, let alone to learn about basic processing fundamentals, and seemed surprised by predictable camera/sensor/lens interactions.  Another forum, yes that’s the answer.
 

Jeff

With lines like "As hundreds of thousands of fake votes have entered our political system in the USA this is not really appreciated to be seen on the forum.", are you really surprised???

Gordon

[Jeff S]

21 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

With lines like "As hundreds of thousands of fake votes have entered our political system in the USA this is not really appreciated to be seen on the forum.", are you really surprised???

Gordon

I missed that.  Figures.

Jeff

[pgk]

Belief is not evidence.

[pgk]

Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

[Guest BlackBarn]

18 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Another issue is surface and texture: in the 19th century, painters were affected by photography and did not want to show brush strokes

Just a small non camera point. The use of fine ‘invisible ‘ brush strokes dates back at least to the 15th Century through the introduction of oil paint. Prior to that the non brushstroke - mainly in egg tempera - was through cross hatching or brushstrokes moving in the natural direction and has nothing to do with photography appearing in the 19th century. (See the work of Van Eyck or Da Vinci)  You are right that ‘unfinished’ was reflected in the application of the brush strokes but that was the byproduct of those artists believing that the first impression (sketch) was more important than having to convert  that sketch into a finished’  non looking brush stroke appearance.  You will also find textured painting in many of Rembrandt’s pieces and say Willian Turner - way before the impressionists.

As to aesthetics ...agreement occurs when a cluster of like visual minded individuals merge and only then. It’s like ‘time’.....everybody knows what that means and some can reach consensus and met at a certain moment but again each one uses time as they see fit. Time exists but it has a different meaning and value  to each of us.

This may be why some people find this post extremely interesting and others pointless and a waste of time. The two possibilities  coexist.

 

[pgk]

More Pixels increases data. It can offer various changes in terms of enhanced detail, greater tonal transition, smoothness or greater textural content of tonality and so on. These are technical descriptors and have nothing to do with 'aesthetics' which may or may not differ depending on the images created. A 10" x 8" print from any decent digital file of say 10MPixel upwards is unlikely to show any of these nuances though, so they do not inherently change an 'aesthetic'.

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, Steven said:

(I'm pretty sure at this point that it's because of this thread that I spent 3K to upgrade since it wasn't on my radar before Tom1234 raised the original question)

Be careful then not to wander into forum discussions regarding ‘medium format’ look and feel compared to 35mm. In print (at sufficient print size), there can be noticeable differences with MF in tonal transitions, gradations, and ‘smoothness’, of course depending on subject matter, lighting, etc, as well as user capabilities.  
 

The M10-R sensor is, for instance, derived from the same chip architecture as the S3, so print comparisons could be informative (and possibly require a mortgage), although even the S006/S007 are plenty good enough to see the difference.  When looking for a complementary system to my M gear, I demo-ed and compared prints from the S system (and Hasselblad X1D and Fuji GFX) to the SL/SL2 as well as the Nikon Z7 (and to my M gear) before making a purchase decision. All of these systems proved more than capable of producing superb prints, when I did my job well. My purchase decision criteria related much more to comfort with viewing/focusing, control interface, ergonomics and handling, native lens choices, etc.  

For online viewing, I could get by IQ-wise using phone pics...but a phone fails regarding my other important usage criteria. Forum surveys,  opinions or pics could not have substituted in any way for my going through actual shooting... and printing.  

Jeff

[Dennis]

What about this (still) 24meg aesthetic? Do you like it?

It's a 6000x4000 jpeg from a Xiaomi ($450) DNG file

It's incredible how technology has changed, I didn't expect this result, I'm impressed.

 

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!

 

 

 

[jdlaing]

Too dark.

[Dennis]

4 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

Too dark.

I like it dark, exposed for the highlights. But this is not the point. The raw is amazing, it looks like taken with a mirrorless camera, not with a smartphone

[jdlaing]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

I like it dark, exposed for the highlights. But this is not the point. The raw is amazing, it looks like taken with a mirrorless camera, not with a smartphone

It is the point. You asked if I like it. 

[Dennis]

Just now, jdlaing said:

It is the point. You asked if I like it. 

😂 It totally makes sense, you're right! Now, look at the DNG file, and tell me what you think 

https://www.dropbox.com/t/EYYyTCxAE2SOhNox

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

I commented more than once earlier than phone pics suffice for online posting.  So, no surprise.  (And too dark.)

Jeff