How can you appreciate 100MP without cropping?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know, I know, you can crop it or “de-stitch” it to make smaller or multiple pictures.  

Oh, yes, I forget you can print it 4 meter x 3 meter or even the size of theater screen. But have your ever really done that? Would you?

Maybe 100 MP is too much, what about 47mp?

[01maciel]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb Einst_Stein:

Maybe 100 MP is too much

This delicate subject belongs to the the thread Things the world doesn't need imho 😀

[frame-it]

5 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Maybe 100 MP is too much, what about 47mp?

for you or the rest of the world?

[Einst_Stein]

6 minutes ago, frame-it said:

for you or the rest of the world?

Maybe, maybe.

[goodbokeh]

6 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I know, I know, you can crop it or “de-stitch” it to make smaller or multiple pictures.  

Oh, yes, I forget you can print it 4 meter x 3 meter or even the size of theater screen. But have your ever really done that? Would you?

Maybe 100 MP is too much, what about 47mp?

So Einst in your question are you trying to eliminate all possible uses for having a 100MP sensor, so to be able to conclude there are no reasons for having one?

I've had a GFX 100S for two years now and yes having 102 MP can be very handy at times. I format my photos for my wife's future 8K videos and the 100S sensor gives me generous DR, formatting and cropping options (when needed). I can also function in the 8K envelope with my Q2 and M10M&R but the 100S brings an unmatched capability to the table. Of course the 100S comes at the price of size, weight, operational speed and appearance. That needs to part of the cost benefit calculation of what equipment to take out each day.

Edited February 14, 2023 by goodbokeh
typo omit

[Einst_Stein]

No, I am inviting the usage, because I am skeptical but not conclusive.

I can see the value of higher DR, but that has nothing to do with MP. I can even see the value of 8K or even 12k video for viewers have the proper TV. But those high-K video does not need 100MP. I can also see the value of cropping when needed. But I still cannot see how you appreciate the 100MP except cropping. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by Einst_Stein

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

No, I am inviting the usage, because I am skeptical but not conclusive.

I can see the value of higher DR, but that has nothing to do with MP. I can even see the value of 8K or even 12k video for viewers have the proper TV. But those high-K video does not need 100MP. I can also see the value of cropping when needed. But I still cannot see how you appreciate the 100MP except cropping. 

Having increased potential in a camera is not new, GAS has always been about 'what I'd do if I had it', and all too often getting the gear leads to it's potential being un-used or used badly. Take DR and fear of a blown highlight, photographic skill could solve the problem with the camera we have. But each increase in DR now leads to blander and blander images where a sunny day no longer has brilliant white clouds or hard shadows, the camera can now see more than the human eye but the photographer hasn't got the critical eye to recognise it. And MP is about needing to be in the race, of having bragging rights, and the potential to fill a wall with a photograph even though the wife says 'no!'. But it's not new, it's simply fetishising the potential in objects like primitive peoples do. Most people drive to a national speed limit but many people want cars that can go faster than the speed limit, it's not useful, in fact it's wasteful, and not many people have the skill to drive a fast car, so 100 MPH is the same for most drivers as 100MP is for most photographers.

[hansvons]

On 2/14/2023 at 9:42 AM, 250swb said:

Most people drive to a national speed limit but many people want cars that can go faster than the speed limit, it's not useful, in fact it's wasteful, and not many people have the skill to drive a fast car, so 100 MPH is the same for most drivers as 100MP is for most photographers.

Good post, @250swb. Agree very much with the DR sentiment and blandness. But as you mentioned another infamous car analogy, does your avatar name refer to the Ferrari I'm thinking of?

[Einst_Stein]

Hey, C'mon, will someone stand up to convince me (us) why should I get a 100MP camera please?

I am sure a lot people have spend extra $2000 to get the 100MP version over the 50MP of some cameras, or extra $2800 for the 47MP version over the 24MP versions. Really for cropping only?

[Zeitblom]

Cropping allows taking photos without heavy telephoto lenses.
Very comfortable for backpacking tours in the high mountains.
Therefore - bring on more megapixels, but only if the image quality is also increased.

[Einst_Stein]

We all know it can reduce the pain of cropping, though cropping cannot replace longer focal length. For example, longer focal length makes things (in the context) look bigger and closer while cropping only makes things bigger. 

The question is, anything else? (Rule out the storage device vendor's interests, of course!)

[Jon Warwick]

I do 60” wide prints at times, and I prefer my GFX100S over my SL2 at that print size - the larger amount of data provides more accurate and smooth tonal gradients, and less moire too. It all combines to create a less digital representation when the GFX100 (which opens natively to c 40” wide at 300dpi) is only being resampled 50% extra and not 100%. If I only did (say) 30-40” wide prints, it would make little difference to me if I used the GFX100 or SL2, and I might go for the SL2 at that juncture due to lens rendering. If I mainly only viewed online, both cameras have excess of resolution for that output IMHO.

I don’t typically crop, so that’s not a reason for me using 100mp digital medium format.

For me, the best way to resolve this has been to think carefully first about the targeted output size of print, and only then to choose the camera to best execute that output size.

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Jon Warwick

[Einst_Stein]

I view my pictures on 85" 4K TV, I found both Contax/Hasselblad CF39 (39MP) and Leica SL (24MP) are more than enough. I tested in stores on 8K TV, still not there yet. The lens quality and color rendition dominate the image quality (besides the lighting environment), not the sensor. 

Of course, printing is quite different from TV.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Einst_Stein

[SrMi]

100MP image has less false colors than a 50MP image (same sensor size). A higher resolution image allows for better post-processing (NR, LPC, SDC).

However, a 50MP image is often more than good enough.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

100MP image has less false colors than a 50MP image (same sensor size). A higher resolution image allows for better post-processing (NR, LPC, SDC).

However, a 50MP image is often more than good enough.

Not sure how many people understand what you mean, certainly I don't. Do you mind giving us some education please? Thanks.

[SrMi]

27 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Not sure how many people understand what you mean, certainly I don't. Do you mind giving us some education please? Thanks.

Aliasing (false color, moire) is more pronounced at lower resolutions. Some of it can be likely fixed, but it reduces the practical resolution.
More data makes it easier for post-processors to manipulate it with less adverse effect (NR=noise reduction, LPC=Leica Perspective Control, SDC=Software Distortion Correction).

 

 

[Einst_Stein]

You are talking about sampling theory, sampling rate and the corrupted frequency band in the spatial domain in the image, 

Remember, this is about the spatial domain, not the time domain.

The corrupted frequency range must be visible in the display or print out to reveal the difference. Do you have the adequate display or print out method?

By the way, you know the sampling rate at this level has nothing to do with the light wave lambda of different colors, don’t you! 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Einst_Stein

[pgk]

14 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Hey, C'mon, will someone stand up to convince me (us) why should I get a 100MP camera please?

If you have an imaging requirement which actually requires 100MPixels then you will be well aware of it. If you don't then 100MPixels is merely something which sounds good but is actually irrelevant. I still use my M9s despite having cameras with more than twice as many MPixels, and have printed at greater than 24" x 16" without any complaints to those who bought the prints. MPixels in themselves do not increase the technical 'quality' of images without a great deal of understanding about how to extract the maximum data from them. This in itself imposes constraints which may be detrimental to the photography being undertaken.

[pippy]

13 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

...cropping cannot replace longer focal length. For example, longer focal length makes things (in the context) look bigger and closer while cropping only makes things bigger.

Nope. Unless camera to subject-matter distance alters there will be no difference whatsoever whether a longer f/l lens is used or an image taken with a shorter f/l lens is cropped to show the same area. Think about it; changing to a longer lens merely selects a smaller part of 'the view'. It doesn't change perspective nor compress depth. It works in exactly the same fashion as does using the zoom-in feature on the rear screen of a digital camera.

If you don't believe me try it out for yourself. Put a camera on a tripod and take two snaps of a fixed scene; one frame with, say, a 28 and the other with, perhaps, a 90 and compare them.

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dem331]

15 minutes ago, pippy said:

It doesn't change perspective nor compress depth. It works in exactly the same fashion as does using the zoom-in feature on the rear screen of a digital camera.

Won’t it affect OOF and DOF? 
 

If I photograph my wife with a 28mm 50 metres away with my huge sensor and crop to 500mm equivalent and then photograph her with my 500mm lens at F2.8 focussing on her face I think the result will be totally different even though the perspective will be the same.   (I don’t know if it’s 20 or 50 or 100 metres away, but you get my point)