What is an 'optimal' resolution?

Started May 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 21,948
Re: LOL!
In reply to bobbarber, May 25, 2012

bobbarber wrote:

Correct != arrogance.

Assuming you are correct, when there is ample evidence to the contrary, and actively ignoring opinions of experts in the field, is arrogance in the extreme.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm an arrogant puppy, and I can appreciate arrogance. I, too, always think I'm right until proven wrong. But I don't ignore evidence, and I don't blow off experts in the field out of hand. Yes, I question evidence, yes I question experts in the field, but I don't ignore it.

So let me recap. You claim that there are some compacts out today that have worse IQ than their predecessors. Let's take that as a given. But how do you know it's because of the pixel size and not some other factor?

Secondly, even given that 10 MP represents the "sweet spot" of 1/1.7" (4.55x) sensors as are in the XZ1 and G12, how do you know that this sweet spot will not migrate to higher pixel counts in the future?

Furthermore, given that 10 MP is the "sweet spot" for all time on said compacts, then, as I said, the sweet spot for 4/3 would necessarily be 52 MP.tly, you claim that there is no more "meaningful" detail to be captured in a scene than 16 MP will deliver. While, for sure, there is the issue of diminishing returns, there most certainly is more detail in many non-trivial scenes than 16 MP will capture. Whether or not more pixels are worth the operational disadvantages, or whether or not that detail will make a significant difference in the impact of the photo, is another matter entirely.

Lastly, what about lenses? If 16 MP represents the absolute maximum ever necessary, then I take it to mean that better lenses are not necessary. Because, as we all know, more pixels behing any lens will resolve more detail. So, if 16 MP is enough, then current lenses are also enough.

My position is, and always has been, that more pixels deliver more IQ assuming the sensor is at least as efficient (and sometimes even when it is not). However, my position has also been that even 8 MP is overkill for the vast majority, given that 8 MP results in over 300 PPI for an 8x10 inch print (although I am cognizant that it is not PPI so much as lp/mm on the displayed photo that is the proper measure).

I am also of the opinion that few take photos where the difference between 8 MP and 200 MP would make any significant difference on the impact of their photos. To expland on your earlier example, g = 10 m/s² is easily good enough for msot people. A few will find good use for 9.8 m/s². Fewer still are thost that might need a few more decimal places. And the percentage that need nothing less than GR is ridiculously small.

But none of that is reason to say that g = 10 m/s² is "good enough" for everyone, just as 16 MP is "good enough" for every photo, just as "640K out to be enough for anybody" panned out.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow