How can you appreciate 100MP without cropping?

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

To me, cropping is never the purpose, it is merely a correction, particularly crop for composition, such as crop to square format or fit to 16x9  TV or so.

And 42Mp is more than enough for that

[pippy]

2 hours ago, otto.f said:

And 42Mp is more than enough for that

In all honesty to print up to A2 I've found that I can make (say) a horizontal crop - in standard 3:2 proportion - from a 'portrait' file shot on the M Monochrom (set to Base ISO of 320) without any noticeable drop in IQ once printed / framed / displayed. In 35mm frame terms this equates to using a section with 24mm x 16mm dimensions; i.e. 44% of the full-frame image.

As the M Monochrom has a circa 18Mp sensor prints made in this fashion come from a section which measures roughly 8Mp.

I can see the attraction for those who wish to make enormous prints which can be inspected at very close range but, personally speaking, 100Mp is not something I require nor, indeed, desire. I'm not even remotely interested.

Philip.

Edited February 18, 2023 by pippy

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

21 hours ago, 01af said:

No, it won't be the same. Instead, the cropped image with shorter focal length will show more depth-of-field ... see examples posted by Enrique dem331 above.

You are right. I was for some reason getting myself muddled up with crop factor and aperture equivalence! Since I never crop and always use primes on full frame (I cannot get on with smaller formats) its not something that I look at much, but this thread has reminded me why I prefer not to crop; because DOF does not equate to what I'm used to. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by pgk
typo again!

[Einst_Stein]

7 hours ago, otto.f said:

And 42Mp is more than enough for that

42MP? I am perfectly happy with M9’s 18MP. (Though it has been replaced by m24p due to sensor defect). 
I watch my pictures on 85” 4K TV. Guess how many MO?
After cropping, the 16x9 full screen is about 8MP. A square format picture is only 4MP. A 3x2 format 12MP is already over killed.

Someday if I upgrade to 8K TV, the full screen is 32MP, square format picture will be 16MP. Then it will use 3x2 42MP. Will I see the difference from 4K TV? Not unless it is over 100”, according to the 1K/25”/1~1.5M (TV resolution/TV size/ viewing distance) guide. If used as computer (editing) monitor, it could be 2X more resolution since we are likely focusing on the small region. This is different from viewing a picture. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Einst_Stein

[shanefking]

On 2/17/2023 at 6:06 AM, Einst_Stein said:

I am trying to find out what that value would be.

 

 

Didn’t someone else already explain the value earlier?

bigger prints.   
 

Additionally , having more megapixels of data makes it easier for retouchers to do fine-detail work.  Which is to say, the final product could be blown up much bigger without the flaws becoming visible.  

Think Hollywood actresses featured on mega billboards on the sides of large buildings.  
 

But based on your earlier posts, it sounds more like you want someone to convince you of a good reason to justify you buying one.

I say go for it, get that 100mp camera.  Show us all how delightfully tight you can crop, all that tiny background detail, the pores on someone’s face… yes! It will make better photos! 🤓

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, shanefking said:

Didn’t someone else already explain the value earlier?

bigger prints.   
 

Additionally , having more megapixels of data makes it easier for retouchers to do fine-detail work.  Which is to say, the final product could be blown up much bigger without the flaws becoming visible.  

Think Hollywood actresses featured on mega billboards on the sides of large buildings.  
 

But based on your earlier posts, it sounds more like you want someone to convince you of a good reason to justify you buying one.

I say go for it, get that 100mp camera.  Show us all how delightfully tight you can crop, all that tiny background detail, the pores on someone’s face… yes! It will make better photos! 🤓

Actually, I am more and more convinced 100MP is not for me. 

[shanefking]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Needing 100MP is like Love… you know it when you’re in it

[Tessar.]

Gotta love all those 100MP cat and cafe lunch pics.  And all those hectares of datacentres with geo-redundant storage of the cat and cafe lunch pics. 😉

[otto.f]

3 hours ago, Tessar. said:

Gotta love all those 100MP cat and cafe lunch pics.  And all those hectares of datacentres with geo-redundant storage of the cat and cafe lunch pics. 😉

In the Netherlands the Airport Schiphol buys CO2 space through buyouts of farmers, so that they can keep on growing in their amount of flights. Closing down a farm diminishes the CO2 emission, which they can fill up with flights and stay within European rules at the same time. Maybe it’s an idea to introduce such a construction:  pay the environmental burden for pet photography in advance by buying space in datacentres. Perhaps that’s more sympathetic than a tax which starts at every Mp above an iPhone shot. In both procedures btw, AI can easily detect in your camera with GPS when you’re above your limit, with a period of two weeks to trash it before the bill arrives. 

[pippy]

9 hours ago, shanefking said:

Needing 100MP is a load of horse-sh1t… you know it when you’re in it

There; Fixed!

Philip.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, otto.f said:

In the Netherlands the Airport Schiphol buys CO2 space through buyouts of farmers, so that they can keep on growing in their amount of flights. Closing down a farm diminishes the CO2 emission, which they can fill up with flights and stay within European rules at the same time. Maybe it’s an idea to introduce such a construction:  pay the environmental burden for pet photography in advance by buying space in datacentres. Perhaps that’s more sympathetic than a tax which starts at every Mp above an iPhone shot. In both procedures btw, AI can easily detect in your camera with GPS when you’re above your limit, with a period of two weeks to trash it before the bill arrives. 

Correction: Nitrogen space. Not CO2.

[jaapv]

On 2/18/2023 at 11:31 AM, pippy said:

In all honesty to print up to A2 I've found that I can make (say) a horizontal crop - in standard 3:2 proportion - from a 'portrait' file shot on the M Monochrom (set to Base ISO of 320) without any noticeable drop in IQ once printed / framed / displayed. In 35mm frame terms this equates to using a section with 24mm x 16mm dimensions; i.e. 44% of the full-frame image.

As the M Monochrom has a circa 18Mp sensor prints made in this fashion come from a section which measures roughly 8Mp.

I can see the attraction for those who wish to make enormous prints which can be inspected at very close range but, personally speaking, 100Mp is not something I require nor, indeed, desire. I'm not even remotely interested.

Philip.

You are aware that a monochrome sensor count should be nearly doubled to compensate for the resolution loss of Bayer interpolation. The 18 MP of the M9P are equivalent to about 30 MP on a Bayered camera.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

You are aware that a monochrome sensor count should be nearly doubled to compensate for the resolution loss of Bayer interpolation...

Yes, of course I'm aware, jaap. Even so that still means that the A2 prints I described were made with - in 'normal camera' terms - a sensor-size of only 16Mp. which is less than the 'regular' M9. This fascination with the game of Pixel-Count is, for 99.99% of camera users, wholly irrelevant.

Someone earlier mentioned the need for high pixel-count for large-scale bill-board advertising posters but that - to a large extent (Ho!Ho!) - is a red herring. In the early days of digital cameras one of my friends shot an Ad. campaign on a Canon EOS-1D. The photograph was used on 96-sheet posters - that's 12 metres x 3 metres or 40 feet x 10 feet for those unfamiliar- and the camera's sensor measured a whopping 4Mp. How is that possible? Because to be able to take in something 40 feet wide the viewer needs to stand back a very long way!

Why on Earth would anyone walk right up to within touching distance of a 96-sheet poster? To count pixels? I don't think so.

When I have the time to play I'll see what a print made from my M-D Typ-262 is like when treated in the same manner. That would equate to 10.5Mp.

Philip.

Just FWIW; from the mid-'90s until 2008 my day-to-day 'work' shooting was done with a 5" x 4" (and occasionally 10"x8") and film choice was regularly 50 ASA Fuji Velvia so I do understand 'The Benefits of having a Big Negative' side of things full-well.

Edited February 21, 2023 by pippy

[jaapv]

I couldn't agree more, Philip.

[Tessar.]

3 hours ago, otto.f said:

In the Netherlands the Airport Schiphol buys CO2 space through buyouts of farmers, so that they can keep on growing in their amount of flights. Closing down a farm diminishes the CO2 emission, which they can fill up with flights and stay within European rules at the same time. Maybe it’s an idea to introduce such a construction:  pay the environmental burden for pet photography in advance by buying space in datacentres. Perhaps that’s more sympathetic than a tax which starts at every Mp above an iPhone shot. In both procedures btw, AI can easily detect in your camera with GPS when you’re above your limit, with a period of two weeks to trash it before the bill arrives. 

That would certainly encourage me to cull all the rubbish pics on my computer/cloud storage 😀

[Tessar.]

I wish we weren't constrained by capitalism/the upgrade cycle/more is better.  I'd love something with like an M10 with maybe a full frame Foveon sensor and a 0.65x viewfinder. 

[jaapv]

5 minutes ago, Tessar. said:

I wish we weren't constrained by capitalism/the upgrade cycle/more is better.  I'd love something with like an M10 with maybe a full frame Foveon sensor and a 0.65x viewfinder. 

You wouldn't.  A Foveon sensor has deep wells, as it has three filtered layers. A hypothetical full frame Foveon would have horrible edge and corner effects with M lenses.

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

 When I have the time to play I'll see what a print made from my M-D Typ-262 is like when treated in the same manner. That would equate to 10.5Mp.

Back then I was pursuing Techpan for its super resolution. It took quite sometime for me to understand the balance between tonal appearance and the resolution. I was finally released from Techpan. What a relief! 

Techpan does have its value, though rarely meaningful to me. The most to me is understanding how least important it is.        

[Tessar.]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

You wouldn't.  A Foveon sensor has deep wells, as it has three filtered layers. A hypothetical full frame Foveon would have horrible edge and corner effects with M lenses.

That's very true!  I did like the output of my DP1 Merrill though.  A sensor that works with my G-Rokkor 28mm would be great too.

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Tessar.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pippy]

2 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Back then I was pursuing Techpan for its super resolution. It took quite sometime for me to understand the balance between tonal appearance and the resolution. I was finally released from Techpan. What a relief! 

Techpan does have its value, though rarely meaningful to me. The most to me is understanding how least important it is.        

Thank you, Einst_Stein, for the mention of Tech. Pan.

Going off at a slight tangent (just for a change) but back in my student days (mid-'80s) 'Kodak 2415 Technical Pan' was one of my most frequently-used emulsions. I loved everything about it in terms of 'Ultimate IQ' but for the stuff I was shooting it needed to be rated at 6 ASA(!) so subject-matter was 'selective' to say the least and the processing routine - always in Technidol LC (which stands for Low Contrast*) - was a bit of a PITA to put it mildly(!) and had to be executed with great care.

For those unfamiliar the recommended (and, quite frankly, essential) method was, initially, to load the film onto a developing tank's take-up spool; pour the developer into the tank and slowly but steadily lower the spool into the liquid before performing a very gentle development / agitation process. Hard agitation / bad handling / pouring-in the Dev. into an already loaded tank from the top would risk drastically bad streaking of over-development due to unequal chemical activation from the sproket-holes and I kid you not. Pics on request......

Still; an absolutely phenomenal emulsion which could be employed to make truly massive and essentially 'grain-free' enlargements from 135 film...assuming everything goes to plan....

Philip.

* Tech. Pan was created (AFAICR) with the primary goal of providing near-lithographic (Black/White/No Mid-Tone) records in scientific applications hence the need for very precise exposure/processing routines when used for more 'generally experienced' forms of Photography. For the latter purpose Kodak introduced a very special (powder-based only) developer - as mentioned - which expanded the tonal-curve enormously so that not only 'Zones 0 and 10' could be attained.

Edited February 21, 2023 by pippy