Would you call this pixel peeping:

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 4,572
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 8 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

The 100% viewing of high pixel count cameras (such on 24mp) is not the only and last possible way of finding out best image quality.

Of course it is. There's nothing more beyond and below 100%.

Like i said before, you don't get the full image and therefore some other issues are missed out.

That would depend on the pixel density of your monitor. With a 2MP monitor I can see the entire image at 100% on my iPad.

Are you taking 2mp images?

It's simply a truthful example,

What do you mean truthful. Are you taking 2mp images?

Read *everything* I wrote.

What do you mean?

You said:

"That would depend on the pixel density of your monitor. With a 2MP monitor I can see the entire image at 100% on my iPad."

That is a complete statement meaning you can see "the entire image at 100%" on a 2MP monitor. The only way that would be possible is if you were dealing with a 2MP image. I thought that was not likely to be the case, so I asked.

If I misunderstood, please explain rather than just telling me to read everything.

Consider the whole paragraph.

NO damn you. Just explain.

and one that's becoming more and more important as monitor resolutions keep increasing. With my 27" iMac I can see over 50% of my images from my Sigma camera. Lenovo just recently announced the first 4K (8.3MP) all in one computer.. At the CES show going on another company has an 8K display being teased, which is 33MP.

When resolutions get that high we'll be zooming past 100% when pixel peeping because we can't see the individual pixels at that size.

Clearly.

And once again, pixel peeping is an ignorant term.

Nope, because you'll be blowing it up to 400% so that you can make out individual pixels.

One doesn't have to see actual individual pixels to determine ultimate image quality. You want to get as close to but let's be realistic. When I view an image at 100% on my 27" iMac I can't see individual pixels at the normal viewing distance but it is close enough to determine ultimate image quality such as resolution and sharpness. Viewing at 100% is enough to determine ultimate image quality with the ppi of most monitors in use today.

If you can't see individual pixels then you are no different than someone not viewing at 100%. The discussion here is about blowing an image up till you can distinguish actual pixels. If you're not doing that, then congratulations you are not a pixel peeper.

It's a silly, but accurate term.

It's an ignorant term, with nothing accurate about it. The fact that what people call pixel peeping are situations when you can't even see the individual pixels should explain to a reasonably intelligent person that it makes no sense.

AHA apparently your are not understanding the term pixel peeper. It's specifically referring to people who view individual pixels.

If you have a 24 megapixel monitor then of course you are going to be looking at images at 100% but that's not the case for anyone I know. But if you're looking at 100% or higher on a 92 dpi monitor you are clearly pixel peeping (ie. looking at pixels)

I have no problem with people who pixel peep their own images. It's a minor step in quality assurance in my opinion. If I'm going to print large I don't want to look at it at 16% on my monitor. However, if I'm printing 5x7 I couldn't care less what 100% looks like.

You would be wrong in thinking what can be seen at 100% on most monitors with most digital cameras can not be seen on a 5x7.

A 16 megapixel photo printed 5x7 is about 650 dpi. I don't need to view it at 100%. Do you think detail at 650 dpi is visible in a print under normal viewing? Do you think typical prints can even resolve 650 dpi?

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