|
Re: The thing is ...
In reply to Great Bustard,
6 months ago
|
Great Bustard wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
Great Bustard wrote:
...that it's not so much PPI (pixels per inch on the final photo) that matters, but lw/ph (line widths per picture height), which I discuss a bit here:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#ppi
For example, let's say a 16 MP sensor with a sharp lens resolves as well as a 24 MP sensor with a mediocre lens. Even though the 24 MP photo will have a 22% higher PPI, that doesn't mean it displays any better.
Understood. However, Moti was speaking in terms of pixels/per inch (in relation to how Moti sometimes calculates that parameter when printing), so I spoke in terms of pixels/inch. One could certainly translate that (i.e., 108 ppi multiplied by an 8 inch dimension to yield 864 pixels) if they like.
Yes, but, as I understood it, he was talking about PPI of the file, which is not the same as the resolution of the photo.
Once again: One could certainly translate that (i.e., 108 ppi multiplied by an 8 inch dimension to yield 864 pixels) if they like. I don't really see a significant distinction that negates my points. Note that in all cases when I refer to an increased print/display size, I reduce the the pixels/per inch. Thus, what I am saying does not conflict with your understandable (but not essential) preference of units.
Regarding line-widths or line-pairs, (whether expressed in terms of individual discrete pixels per distance units, or pixels per image units) it still comes down to the same thing. The number of reliably perceivable lin-pairs (each consisting of one dark line and one light space of equal size) is equal to the number of discrete pixels divided by 3 (whether expressed in terms of individual discrete pixels per distance units, or pixels per image units).
See Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ50 Digital Camera - Nikon TC-E15ED and TC-E17ED Teleconverters - Resolution Monochrome and Colour and Vignetting Assessments, Dr James C Brown CEng FIMechE (Sect. 2, Image Quality and Resolution, The Limit of Resolution, Pages 5-9) here:
http://ianperegian.com/My_FZ35_38_Webpage/Home_files/FZ50%20Doc%202new.pdf
The point I'm trying to make is that, if we are printing, for example, a photo at 16 x 24 inches, then it will be at 204 PPI for a 16 MP file and 250 PPI for a 24 MP file, but that doesn't mean the print from the 24 MP file will show greater detail -- it depends on the lw/ph of the captured photo, not the PPI of the displayed file.
I agree that it depends on the lw/ph of the captured photo. Note that in all cases when I refer to an increased print/display size, I reduce the the pixels/per inch. Thus, what I am saying does not conflict with your understandable (but not essential) preference of units.
Other than the "per unit distance as opposed to per unit image" bit, do you find my post to be accurate ?
In your post, you are introducing the compounding variable of DOF, but neglecting the other compounding variables of diffraction and motion blur. Indeed, MTF-50 tests are based on photos of flat motionless surfaces, so the lw/ph measurements represent the best possible result (although field curvature of the lens can skew the results considerably).
Those things are true, but I purposely (as do DOF calculators) left them out of consideration.
Regardless, my point is that the proper measure is not PPI but lw/ph, and the discussion needs to revolve around that point. That is, we can discuss how DOF and motion blur adversely affect the lw/ph as measured in an MTF-50 test (MTF-50 tests already account for diffraction), but we need to be thinking in terms of lw/ph, not PPI. After all, we can upsample a photo to any dimension we like and achieve any PPI we like, but it won't change the real detail in the scene (although upsampling will introduce false detail that may look pleasing).
Up-sampling creates nothing in the way of image-data, and thus seems not relevant to what I am talking about. I understand the thrust of your preference for lines, or line-pars, per image dimension - but I think that you may be missing how I have presented the pixels/inch units in my post.
Could you look at it again, and try to see that I am not violating your concerns ? Or, if I am, please point out specifically where and how I am ignoring that (regardless of the enlargement-factor between printed/displayed image and the image-sensor surface), what the COC diameter relates to is indeed a physical dimension which bears a distinct relation to the physical dimensions of the image-sensor itself (with a minimum size equal to a 2x2 photo-site array) ?
The specific number of resolved lines, or line-pars, per image dimension will depend on the pixel-resolution of the particular image-sensor (as well as the additional factors which you have rightly pointed out). Again, all I am trying to point out in my post is the importance of a DOF or Hyperfocal Distance calculation being referred to a known, disclosed, and understood by the user print/display viewing-size and viewing distance - so that it is useful for relating to physical distances in object-space.
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 6 | ||
| 6 months ago | 8 | ||
| 6 months ago | 4 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 3 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 3 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 3 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 6 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 |