Is 24mp the sweet spot of 36x24 format?

[mauri57]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24 Mpixel are more than enought

24 M on a 24 x 36 mm (on a SL2-S0) means  6000 x 4000 dots

60 M on a 24 x 36 means 9500 x 6300

matematically  3500 more pixel orizzontally and 2300 vertically

if you traslate this on paper (you print your picture)

if you consider 300 dpi   6000 pixel  means 20 inches,  and 9500  31 inches

How many people, out of there  print more than 20 inces?

On the other hand, on the 24 Mpixel the dimension of a single one is about 6x6 micron, 36  micron^2

the 60 Mpixel the dimension is 3,78 micron, 14,28 micron^2

less than half in dimension, equal less than 1/2 light capturer

meditate gente meditate!

 

[SrMi]

4 minutes ago, mauri57 said:

24 Mpixel are more than enought

24 M on a 24 x 36 mm (on a SL2-S0) means  6000 x 4000 dots

60 M on a 24 x 36 means 9500 x 6300

matematically  3500 more pixel orizzontally and 2300 vertically

if you traslate this on paper (you print your picture)

if you consider 300 dpi   6000 pixel  means 20 inches,  and 9500  31 inches

How many people, out of there  print more than 20 inces?

On the other hand, on the 24 Mpixel the dimension of a single one is about 6x6 micron, 36  micron^2

the 60 Mpixel the dimension is 3,78 micron, 14,28 micron^2

less than half in dimension, equal less than 1/2 light capturer

meditate gente meditate!

 

Printing large is only one advantage of higher-resolution sensors—also, the sensor size matters, not the pixel size.

[mauri57]

when you print more than 20 inches

means that you will look to the print from a distance that is not 30 cm

so it is possible to use 200 or less dpi

with 24 M px I printed 1,5 x 1 meter (60 x 40 inches)

the print are more than good enought

60 Mpx often are full of microshake so the quality ...

[psyclism]

Another use for 40-60MP -- go to an event with a 24-70, or better yet a 85mm 1.8, where you can't get close enough to frame correctly in camera, and then crop in post. I'd rather do this than lug around a boat anchor 70-200 or larger lens. 60MP gives me tons of flexibility. Cropping a 24MP image turns the subject into Minecraft characters.

Edited December 10, 2024 by psyclism

[SrMi]

18 minutes ago, mauri57 said:

when you print more than 20 inches

means that you will look to the print from a distance that is not 30 cm

I guess that you have never looked at a Burtynsky print. Even with large paintings, people tend to inspect an image at close detail.

20 minutes ago, mauri57 said:

60 Mpx often are full of microshake so the quality ...

You are again comparing pixels instead of images (same output resolution).

[Einst_Stein]

32 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I guess that you have never looked at a Burtynsky print. Even with large paintings, people tend to inspect an image at close detail.

You are again comparing pixels instead of images (same output resolution).

That's a wrong way to enjoy a picture. Ignore that, and ignore them. 

 

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

There is very little difference in low-light performance between a low-resolution and high-resolution sensor using the same technology. I have tested it with my cameras, and many other tests document that. As said, per-pixel performance is irrelevant for practical purposes. 

Simple, you should test again, or else, see your eye doctor. 

[BernardC]

24 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I guess that you have never looked at a Burtynsky print. Even with large paintings, people tend to inspect an image at close detail.

I've seen many of his prints (he exhibits a lot in Canada). Two thoughts:

• 35mm is not the right format if you are trying to get that look
• I find that he prints a little bit larger than he would if pin-sharp prints were his main concern. That's not a criticism, I like how the texture is transformed as you move-in close, almost as if you were looking at bacteria in a microscope.

His prints handle that far/close transition better than most. They don't turn to mush (a friend used to call it "oatmeal"), partly because of equipment and attention to detail. Many many photographers seem to print large because they think the "art market" demands it, regardless of their source material.

Long story short: I wouldn't spend too much time theorizing about how large a print you can make from a 35mm camera. If you want to print large, you should shoot large, or you should use the inherent softness of 35mm to your advantage. A few more megapixels don't amount to a hill of beans.

[mauri57]

Burtinsky...

60 Mpx LARGE FORMAT...

means pixel large as 24 Mpx full frame

and ultra high quality printing!!!

P.S.

when I am sure I need to print in large format at high resolution I do not use digital systems but 6x6 film

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

That's a wrong way to enjoy a picture. Ignore that, and ignore them. 

There is no right and wrong way to enjoy a picture. The important thing is how people are enjoying the images. Even with large painting I may lean close to examine the brush strokes.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

Simple, you should test again, or else, see your eye doctor. 

Can you provide the tests that disprove my statement? 

You can go to the DPR studio scene and compare 24 with 60MP files at high ISO. Do you see a difference?

Here is a comparison of M11's 60MP vs SL2-S 24MP. The noise is very similar.

 

[SrMi]

50 minutes ago, mauri57 said:

Burtinsky...

60 Mpx LARGE FORMAT...

means pixel large as 24 Mpx full frame

and ultra high quality printing!!!

P.S.

when I am sure I need to print in large format at high resolution I do not use digital systems but 6x6 film

Large Burtynsky prints were primarily shot with 100—or 150MP cameras. If you consider technical detail only, 6x6 does not fare as well for very large prints.

The point was not how large you can print but whether you examine a large print from a close distance. Yes, people do that, regardless of whether some consider it the right or wrong way to look at art.

[BernardC]

1 minute ago, SrMi said:

Large Burtynsky prints were primarily shot with 100—or 150MP cameras. If you consider technical detail only, 6x6 does not fare as well for very large prints.

The point was not how large you can print but whether you examine a large print from a close distance. Yes, people do that, regardless of whether some consider it the right or wrong way to look at art.

I think that his earlier work was done on 4x5 film. Some of his later work is on Hasselblad medium format digital, but no doubt he uses whatever gives the best results at that point in time.

I agree that some prints and paintings are meant to be examined up-close, even if they are very large. It's always an interesting test when viewing work. It's an artistic choice, and you'll see some fascinating things. One of my favourite late-medieval painters, Simone Martini, painted very fine eyelashes on works that were meant to be displayed several meters up in dim churches. Caravaggio often added bold black lines to his paintings that look strange up-close, but totally work from a distance. Lots of later painters and photographers have used texture/grain as part of their look.

[jaapv]

Given that many of us rarely print above A3+ ( and the argument about reducing DPI for large prints) and that 24 MP Is still more than 5K it can be argued that, apart from cropping, it makes little sense to have more than 24 MP in a camera, especially if it has pixel shift for occasional use. I think that it is pretty clear that the main driver behind the current megapixel race is the very effective marketing appeal to our “more must be better “ simian instinct. 
This does not mean that there are no specialized applications where a high MP count is useful but an average photographer will rarely encounter those. 

[SrMi]

SL3 vs SL2-S at 24MP, screen grab from a 100% view. Aliasing hides detail in SL2-S.

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!

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Given that many of us rarely print above A3+ ( and the argument about reducing DPI for large prints) and that 24 MP Is still more than 5K it can be argued that, apart from cropping, it makes little sense to have more than 24 MP in a camera, especially if it has pixel shift for occasional use. I think that it is pretty clear that the main driver behind the current megapixel race is the very effective marketing appeal to our “more must be better “ simian instinct. 

The question is whether a high-resolution camera provides better results when scaled down to the resolution needed to print.  I think so, but for some, the difference may be too small to matter.

[jaapv]

Given the influence of the postprocessing on the final result I don’t think that the final result will be very different in most cases and certainly not if the photograph is regarded for impact, content, etc. 

[vkdev]

I think it’s worth taking care not only about printing but also about other means of viewing your photo. 8k display has higher resolution than 24mp.

but that's not what this is about. I would dream a little:

Im waiting for a 100+MP sensor to create HDR 50+MP images using every even pixel for one exposure value and every odd pixel for another. And then stitch the two pictures together. this is just an example. or a video recording that, using a similar scheme, can double FPS. Having a large number of megapixels, high data reading speed and a powerful processor, you can come up with many more useful scenarios.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Bah!

About 20 years ago some muppet started a post saying *is 6MP the sweet spot?*. Then 10 years ago another post *is 11MP the sweet spot*?* And now this. Page three and the overly sensitive are already getting personal with, “get your eyes checked”. Like they know it all and know it for everyone. We may as well have the annual DoF thread. In 10 years from now there’ll be a *is 60MP the sweet spot* thread. Move on already.

There is no resolution sweet spot.

Even if you don’t print big. Even if you don’t crop. If you want 60MP? Great. Awesome. Go for it. It’s your money. Enjoy it how you wish. If you set your SL3 to 18MP? Well done. Enjoy your camera. Have a great time. Neither of you need to justify your decision and it’s your decision to make.

A few of us (very very few) have some technical requirements for certain gear. For the rest of us it’s just because we can. Most of us have more than we need. Most of us should get better techniques rather than better gear. For others it’s aspirational. Just because *X* hs never made a print does not mean he/she won’t in the future. Some of us like to pixel peep. Nothing wrong with that. Some of us just like pretty stuff. Let’s face it, if it was purely a technical exercise we wouldn’t be shooting Leica.

So what? You’re not hurting anyone. Do what you want.

Gordon

p.s. I’m running an exhibition of medium-large prints (800mm to 1200mm on the long edge) and we’ve set up the space with some nice benches at ideal viewing angles so you can sit and enjoy them. Without exception viewers have their noses so close to the prints that we need to clean the glass. People will view stuff how they want to view stuff. Another thing we could stop telling others how to do it right.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

MP for itself is of no interest to me. 

What I am interested in is the best dynamic range, no moiré. In short, the highest quality file, regardless of MP. 

I’m not big on cropping, preferring to select the focal length of the lens I need. 

Similarly, while some like looking at the detail in a printed image (actually, most people do, even briefly), the image is about the whole. You only get the full sense of an image at viewing distance. 

So, in my view the gains in MP become marginal very quickly. 

The downsides in increasing MP also become obvious very quickly. Motion blur (the shutter shock with the Nikon d800e made it unusable at certain shutter speeds), camera processing (M11, I’m looking at you) and file handling (X2D) are all issues. 

Between them, I wish Leica and its wafer manufacturers, processor makers and code writers would just give us the best of each for the M camera, ignoring the spec race (currently MP being the easiest to sell).  Just promoting MP isn’t working.

So far, they aren’t doing so well.