Why Canon made 1Dx best specification ... II

[John Sheehy]

Telhma wrote:

Oh, they also clame that you have less chance to get a blury shot, because it take more time for the subject to move from one pixle in to an other one. sound logical to me, but i have no clue if that's true

Telhma wrote:

At minute 1:40

So, you used an advertisement from a company whose bottom line is the Yen to prove a scientific hypothesis. Canon is either ignorant here, or dishonest. Did you even try what I suggested in the post you replied to:

The bigger the pixels, the bigger the effect of motion blur. The thing your model ignores is the fact that when a point of light does cross into the next pixel, the bigger pixel puts the effect of the blur farther from the actual blur.

You identify it less as motion blur with the bigger pixels, but regardless of what you can identify, the total blur is greater with bigger pixels (lower pixel density).

It's easy enough to simulate this in an image-processing program. Take a small sharp image crop, and apply a motion blur of about 3-4 pixels at an arbitrary angle. Now, make 4 copies and pixelate them at 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5. Which is the blurriest? Which is clearest?

--
John
http://www.pbase.com/image/55384958.jpg

 

[The Davinator]

Oh, can we see some more macro shots of mushy low rez photos? ;-)

The last thread was highly entertaining.

 

[rbarta]

Oh God, I think I've died and gone to pixel peeping hell.

 

[qianp2k]

John Sheehy wrote:

So, you used an advertisement from a company whose bottom line is the Yen to prove a scientific hypothesis. Canon is either ignorant here, or dishonest. Did you even try what I suggested in the post you replied to:

The bigger the pixels, the bigger the effect of motion blur. The thing your model ignores is the fact that when a point of light does cross into the next pixel, the bigger pixel puts the effect of the blur farther from the actual blur.

You identify it less as motion blur with the bigger pixels, but regardless of what you can identify, the total blur is greater with bigger pixels (lower pixel density).

It's easy enough to simulate this in an image-processing program. Take a small sharp image crop, and apply a motion blur of about 3-4 pixels at an arbitrary angle. Now, make 4 copies and pixelate them at 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5. Which is the blurriest? Which is clearest?

--
John
http://www.pbase.com/image/55384958.jpg

High pixel density cameras such as D800 does need to use better technique such as on tripod and use best lenses in order to fully leverage high pixel density potential. Sure it doesn't have more blurs than a 22mp camera at the same export size but then you'd waste its 36mp potential.

Meanwhile my larger-pixel 1DIII (10mp) and 5D Classic (12.8mp) are fully capable of generating very sharp photos when view at 100% cropped or per-pixel level or to print to 19x13" or even 26x18" sizes.

Blurry? :-D 1DIII + Canon 100/2.8 macro (non-IS version) hand-held .









Or two 100% cropped airplanes snap-shot from a 10mp camera, blurry?

















--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Great Bustard]

qianp2k wrote:

High pixel density cameras such as D800 does need to use better technique such as on tripod and use best lenses in order to fully leverage high pixel density potential. Sure it doesn't have more blurs than a 22mp camera at the same export size but then you'd waste its 36mp potential.

...that's true of any camera with any pixel count.

Meanwhile my larger-pixel 1DIII (10mp) and 5D Classic (12.8mp) are fully capable of generating very sharp photos when view at 100% cropped or per-pixel level or to print to 19x13" or even 26x18" sizes.

Except it's not the 100% view that matters -- it's how sharp the final photo appears at the size it's displayed and the distance from which it's viewed, assuming detail even matters.

Blurry? :-D 1DIII + Canon 100/2.8 macro (non-IS version) hand-held .

So you're saying that all we need is around 2 MP? The above photos are displayed at 2.5 MP, 1.6 MP, and 2.3 MP, respectively.

Or two 100% cropped airplanes snap-shot from a 10mp camera, blurry?

How ironic that you are displaying your 100% cropped photos at 6.7 MP and 6 MP.

 

[Telhma]

I do not try to prove annything,

I just show where i found the information, I told in the post before i had no clue if it was right, but yea... I wonder why thay guy would tell jokes about his sensor.

Greets

 

[Apewithacamera]

nt

 

[qianp2k]

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

High pixel density cameras such as D800 does need to use better technique such as on tripod and use best lenses in order to fully leverage high pixel density potential. Sure it doesn't have more blurs than a 22mp camera at the same export size but then you'd waste its 36mp potential.

...that's true of any camera with any pixel count.

Except higher pixel density cameras such as D800 has higher demand for better technique to fully leverage potential. For example you can hand-held 6D/5D3 and likey still can get sharp photos at 100% cropped or print to 20x30". With D800 you have lower chance to get sharp 100% cropped hand-held photos or print to 40x60". If you have to reduce sizes to get similar sharpness level then you wasted 36mp potential. Instead why you don't buy a 22mp or 24mp camera? That's reason why many Nikon shooters prefer 24mp over 36mp as not everyone needs to print to billboard size. Just ask yourself why you don't buy D800 but a low pixel 6D???

Meanwhile my larger-pixel 1DIII (10mp) and 5D Classic (12.8mp) are fully capable of generating very sharp photos when view at 100% cropped or per-pixel level or to print to 19x13" or even 26x18" sizes.

Except it's not the 100% view that matters -- it's how sharp the final photo appears at the size it's displayed and the distance from which it's viewed, assuming detail even matters.

It matters. A good quality 100% cropped photo = better cropping = print quality at size that camera designed for. My experiences tell me.

Blurry? :-D 1DIII + Canon 100/2.8 macro (non-IS version) hand-held .

So you're saying that all we need is around 2 MP? The above photos are displayed at 2.5 MP, 1.6 MP, and 2.3 MP, respectively.

LOL. You don't need to display 100% cropped everytime to demo photos' IQ. I saw in your posts, you didn't do that either, right? At other sides, a soft photo is already soft even at 1200-pixel wide. But above photos are still very sharp at 100% cropped level (actually they are highly cropped, the middle one is already 100% cropped). They are macro photos.

Or two 100% cropped airplanes snap-shot from a 10mp camera, blurry?

How ironic that you are displaying your 100% cropped photos at 6.7 MP and 6 MP.

I just cut some edges but the above are 100% cropped. I can print above two to 19x13" or even 26x18" and still look very nice.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[The Davinator]

I guess you missed it. This what a 90" print lloks like. I even printed a16x20 crop out of the centre to confirm the print matches the screen view. This is detailed, yours is pixellated mush. That is, as I pointed out, the difference in our standards.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[qianp2k]

Similarly not everyone needs a 120" TV, or even a 60" TV. To many a 40" or even a 32" TV is big enough. Oh yeah deepens on your viewing distance. A 40" TV could have higher resolution than a sloppy 50" TV. Sure I know you'd ask question why not down to 1mp? That's similar as why you cannot have a 1" TV? The issue is that can you view 1mp photo or watch on 1" TV? So everything is relative. For me, 20x30" prints or max 30" monitor is only I needed on my needs at least in foreseen future. Therefore I'd only need a 46mp camera in future not for 40x60" print or on 60" monitor but view on future 30" 4K/8K ultra HD monitor or print to 20x30" ultra HD prints when they become affordable. I predict I will have such ultra HD monitor first than ultra HD printer. Monitor or digital display technology will move way ahead of old print technology years down to the road.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[The Davinator]

True. 100% views dont matter. I rely on what I see in print. Screen views dont matter as we dont sell full rez images to the public as then they could ve copied. That pretty much makes any discussion of higher rez monitors a waste of time as it wont matter.

 

[jjnik]

qianp2k wrote:

How ironic that you are displaying your 100% cropped photos at 6.7 MP and 6 MP.

I just cut some edges but the above are 100% cropped. I can print above two to 19x13" or even 26x18" and still look very nice.

What you posted are not 100% crops - they are larger images. To see the 100% you would have needed to just post a section of these images that woudl fit on typical native screen resolutions. However, If I click on you images then I can use the "1:1 View 100%" option to see a 1:1 pixel mapped view (effectively a 100% crop view).

 

[qianp2k]

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

How ironic that you are displaying your 100% cropped photos at 6.7 MP and 6 MP.

I just cut some edges but the above are 100% cropped. I can print above two to 19x13" or even 26x18" and still look very nice.

What you posted are not 100% crops - they are larger images.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos1dmkiii

They are. 1DIII max resolution is 3888 x 2592. As I said I just cut some edges but above two are indeed 100% cropped.

To see the 100% you would have needed to just post a section of these images that woudl fit on typical native screen resolutions. However, If I click on you images then I can use the "1:1 View 100%" option to see a 1:1 pixel mapped view (effectively a 100% crop view).

If can afford one of below 4K monitor, they will be fit nicely. 8K OLED monitors will be affordable in 5-10 yrs that will change graphic and photography world in a huge way. Large and affodrable OLED display will make print dinosaur extinct.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/07/sony-unveils-professional-4k-oled-monitor-prototypes/

Better 100% cropped or per-pixel quality = better cropping capability = better print quality.

Oh yeah, 41mp Nokia 808 has 41mp but does it print better than 21mp 5D2? It even doesn't print better than 5Dc at 20x30".

Many times it's the quality of pixels not quantity of pixels matters.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Danga]

qianp2k wrote:

Blurry? :-D 1DIII + Canon 100/2.8 macro (non-IS version) hand-held .

So you're saying that all we need is around 2 MP? The above photos are displayed at 2.5 MP, 1.6 MP, and 2.3 MP, respectively.

LOL. You don't need to display 100% cropped everytime to demo photos' IQ. I saw in your posts, you didn't do that either, right? At other sides, a soft photo is already soft even at 1200-pixel wide. But above photos are still very sharp at 100% cropped level (actually they are highly cropped, the middle one is already 100% cropped). They are macro photos.

100% of a macro photo...I wonder what the original macro photo looks like.

 

[qianp2k]

Danga wrote:

LOL. You don't need to display 100% cropped everytime to demo photos' IQ. I saw in your posts, you didn't do that either, right? At other sides, a soft photo is already soft even at 1200-pixel wide. But above photos are still very sharp at 100% cropped level (actually they are highly cropped, the middle one is already 100% cropped). They are macro photos.

100% of a macro photo...I wonder what the original macro photo looks like.

Maybe our definition is different. Those photos were taken from 100/2.8 macro lens in macro mode or in very close-up mode. At least that yellow one is 100% cropped on that very tiny yellow wild daisy. The other two are also highly cropped if not 100% cropped (need to check on original photos in LR to be sure about).

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Danga]

qianp2k wrote:

Danga wrote:

LOL. You don't need to display 100% cropped everytime to demo photos' IQ. I saw in your posts, you didn't do that either, right? At other sides, a soft photo is already soft even at 1200-pixel wide. But above photos are still very sharp at 100% cropped level (actually they are highly cropped, the middle one is already 100% cropped). They are macro photos.

100% of a macro photo...I wonder what the original macro photo looks like.

Maybe our definition is different. Those photos were taken from 100/2.8 macro lens in macro mode or in very close-up mode. At least that yellow one is 100% cropped on that very tiny yellow wild daisy. The other two are also highly cropped if not 100% cropped (need to check on original photos in LR to be sure about).

 

[qianp2k]

Danga wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Danga wrote:

LOL. You don't need to display 100% cropped everytime to demo photos' IQ. I saw in your posts, you didn't do that either, right? At other sides, a soft photo is already soft even at 1200-pixel wide. But above photos are still very sharp at 100% cropped level (actually they are highly cropped, the middle one is already 100% cropped). They are macro photos.

100% of a macro photo...I wonder what the original macro photo looks like.

Maybe our definition is different. Those photos were taken from 100/2.8 macro lens in macro mode or in very close-up mode. At least that yellow one is 100% cropped on that very tiny yellow wild daisy. The other two are also highly cropped if not 100% cropped (need to check on original photos in LR to be sure about).

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

Taking a macro shot of a daisy field?

Sorry I mean taraxacum, weed as 1st photo which is another form of taraxacum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taraxacum

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[jjnik]

qianp2k wrote:

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

How ironic that you are displaying your 100% cropped photos at 6.7 MP and 6 MP.

I just cut some edges but the above are 100% cropped. I can print above two to 19x13" or even 26x18" and still look very nice.

What you posted are not 100% crops - they are larger images.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos1dmkiii

They are. 1DIII max resolution is 3888 x 2592. As I said I just cut some edges but above two are indeed 100% cropped.

You're confusing the difference between a 100% crop and a full size (100% un-scaled) image. You posted slightly cropped, full size images which could be viewed at 100% as I indicated below- but what you posted were not what most people call 100% crops. A 100% crop is a small portion of the full size image that one would not have to click on and then click to see at 1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification. For example, one might post a 500 x 500 pixel portion of the full size image that would show 1:1 pixel quality right in the original post

To see the 100% you would have needed to just post a section of these images that woudl fit on typical native screen resolutions. However, If I click on you images then I can use the "1:1 View 100%" option to see a 1:1 pixel mapped view (effectively a 100% crop view).

If can afford one of below 4K monitor, they will be fit nicely. 8K OLED monitors will be affordable in 5-10 yrs that will change graphic and photography world in a huge way. Large and affodrable OLED display will make print dinosaur extinct.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/07/sony-unveils-professional-4k-oled-monitor-prototypes/

Those screens will make viewing high rez images better, but what does this have to do with viewing at 100% (1:1 pixel level)?

Better 100% cropped or per-pixel quality = better cropping capability = better print quality.

Only likely noticeable if you print big and have a printer capable of printing at higher dpi - not that it's not nice to have, but in many cases, not a big deal.

Oh yeah, 41mp Nokia 808 has 41mp but does it print better than 21mp 5D2? It even doesn't print better than 5Dc at 20x30".

Can't comment as I have no direct experience with the Nokia 808

Many times it's the quality of pixels not quantity of pixels matters.--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Great Bustard]

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

High pixel density cameras such as D800 does need to use better technique such as on tripod and use best lenses in order to fully leverage high pixel density potential. Sure it doesn't have more blurs than a 22mp camera at the same export size but then you'd waste its 36mp potential.

...that's true of any camera with any pixel count.

Except higher pixel density cameras such as D800 has higher demand for better technique to fully leverage potential.

That's true of any camera with any pixel count.

For example you can hand-held 6D/5D3 and likey still can get sharp photos at 100% cropped or print to 20x30".

If you print the same size with the D800, the photos will have at least as much detail, usually more (all else equal, of course).

With D800 you have lower chance to get sharp 100% cropped hand-held photos or print to 40x60".

This is absolutely false. For example, if we take a handheld pic of the same scene a Sigma 35 / 1.4 and the same settings, and print the photo at any given size, the D800 photo will be resolve more detail. If we crop each photo to the same portion of the scene, the D800 photo will resolve more detail.

How much more detail, of course, depends on a great number of factors, but the fact of the matter is that the D800 will resolve more detail (anywhere between 0% and 28% more linear detail).

If you have to reduce sizes to get similar sharpness level then you wasted 36mp potential. Instead why you don't buy a 22mp or 24mp camera? That's reason why many Nikon shooters prefer 24mp over 36mp as not everyone needs to print to billboard size. Just ask yourself why you don't buy D800 but a low pixel 6D???

I bought the 6D 'cause I had all Canon lenses and was too lazy to sell them to switch systems. Furthermore, I liked the smaller size of the 6D. Lastly, I like the operation of Canon, have never used Nikon, and am not sure how I would like Nikon in that regard.

However, if there were two versions of the 6D, one with the sensor that's in mine, one with the sensor that's in the D800, guess which I'd choose? Guess which pretty much everyone would choose?

Meanwhile my larger-pixel 1DIII (10mp) and 5D Classic (12.8mp) are fully capable of generating very sharp photos when view at 100% cropped or per-pixel level or to print to 19x13" or even 26x18" sizes.

Except it's not the 100% view that matters -- it's how sharp the final photo appears at the size it's displayed and the distance from which it's viewed, assuming detail even matters.

It matters. A good quality 100% cropped photo = better cropping = print quality at size that camera designed for. My experiences tell me.

Then your experiences count for ++++. If you cropped out the middle 10% of a photo from your 5D3 (2.2 MP), then the D800 photographer would crop out the middle 10% of their photo (3.6 MP) and get a more detailed photo.

 

[qianp2k]

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

How ironic that you are displaying your 100% cropped photos at 6.7 MP and 6 MP.

I just cut some edges but the above are 100% cropped. I can print above two to 19x13" or even 26x18" and still look very nice.

What you posted are not 100% crops - they are larger images.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos1dmkiii

They are. 1DIII max resolution is 3888 x 2592. As I said I just cut some edges but above two are indeed 100% cropped.

You're confusing the difference between a 100% crop and a full size (100% un-scaled) image. You posted slightly cropped, full size images which could be viewed at 100% as I indicated below- but what you posted were not what most people call 100% crops.

From my understanding a full-size image = 100% cropped as many use the term interchangeably similar to AOV = FOV as many use alternatively in DPR forums.

A 100% crop is a small portion of the full size image that one would not have to click on and then click to see at 1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification.

That depends on the resolution of your monitor to fit or not, right? But anyway what's difference to post a portion of a full size photo for that convenience from you click '1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification'?

For example, one might post a 500 x 500 pixel portion of the full size image that would show 1:1 pixel quality right in the original post

I gave entire photos rather a small portion of photos such as just head of planes.

To see the 100% you would have needed to just post a section of these images that woudl fit on typical native screen resolutions. However, If I click on you images then I can use the "1:1 View 100%" option to see a 1:1 pixel mapped view (effectively a 100% crop view).

If can afford one of below 4K monitor, they will be fit nicely. 8K OLED monitors will be affordable in 5-10 yrs that will change graphic and photography world in a huge way. Large and affodrable OLED display will make print dinosaur extinct.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/07/sony-unveils-professional-4k-oled-monitor-prototypes/

Those screens will make viewing high rez images better, but what does this have to do with viewing at 100% (1:1 pixel level)?

See you're confused now. With such 4K resolution monitor, my two above full-size photos in your words (or 100% cropped in my words) will nicely fit into entire frame without having to click '1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification' button Give a try on your current resolution monitor against resolution of your test photo, you will know.

Better 100% cropped or per-pixel quality = better cropping capability = better print quality.

Only likely noticeable if you print big and have a printer capable of printing at higher dpi - not that it's not nice to have, but in many cases, not a big deal.

That's my experience that better pixel quality directly translate better print quality. Let's put into this way. If you have a tack sharp photo at pixel-level from 22mp 5D3 that you shoot with best technique such as with 24-70L II on tripod, and you have a 36mp D800 photo from 24-85G that looks pretty mushy and soft taken from hand-held, then I am pretty sure 5D3 photo will beat D800 photo clearly not only view at their respective full sizes on monitor, but also view at 3000 or even 2000-pixel wide on HD monitor, but also better when print to 26x40" or even 20x30" size.

Oh yeah, 41mp Nokia 808 has 41mp but does it print better than 21mp 5D2? It even doesn't print better than 5Dc at 20x30".

Can't comment as I have no direct experience with the Nokia 808

Nobody could as nobody can show us a 2000-pixel wide photo from 41mp Nokia 808 can match to 12.8mp 5Dc IQ at the same size, then will also no match to print quality, period.

Many times it's the quality of pixels not quantity of pixels matters.--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/