SemperUbiSubUbi

SemperUbiSubUbi

Joined on Nov 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2
On Macro photography: Understanding magnification article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

SemperUbiSubUbi: I should start by saying I have a very limited knowledge of optics - but the definition of magnification as size of the projection on the sensor over size of the subject seems strange to me. Surely pixel density must come into the equation? What if your sensor had a single really large pixel? If I print an image on a larger piece of paper - have I magnified it? I seems o me that what is spectacular about the picture of the bugs eye in the article is not the fact that the picture of the eye is larger than the eye of the fly - but that the detail on the picture at the size it is displayed is such that to the human eye it seems perfectly clear. It is not intuitive to me that magnification should be invariant to pixel density.

Thanks - that's helpful. Makes sense that magnification is simply a property of the lens.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 29, 2011 at 11:40 UTC
On Macro photography: Understanding magnification article (120 comments in total)

I should start by saying I have a very limited knowledge of optics - but the definition of magnification as size of the projection on the sensor over size of the subject seems strange to me. Surely pixel density must come into the equation? What if your sensor had a single really large pixel? If I print an image on a larger piece of paper - have I magnified it? I seems o me that what is spectacular about the picture of the bugs eye in the article is not the fact that the picture of the eye is larger than the eye of the fly - but that the detail on the picture at the size it is displayed is such that to the human eye it seems perfectly clear. It is not intuitive to me that magnification should be invariant to pixel density.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 29, 2011 at 02:47 UTC as 43rd comment | 2 replies
Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2