Pixel density revisited

Started Oct 22, 2008 | Discussions thread
natureman Veteran Member • Posts: 3,979
Re: Pixel density revisited

ejmartin wrote:

chuxter wrote:

ejmartin wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

natureman wrote:

In a comparison, things should be as fair as possible, and comparing
cameras at their maximum factory designated native output size is
fair.

Images and pixels have no size, except what the displayer assigns to
them.

Actually, they do have a "native" size -- 36mm x 24mm for full frame.
I don't think anybody wants to view them at this native size,
however. ;-}

I am forced (kicking and screaming) to agree with John on this. You
have chosen to assign a size equal to the sensor size, for some
reason.

I was (half) joking. There is an objective size to the image as it
was captured on the sensor, which has a concrete physical size and a
"native" resolution in lines/mm. The thrust of the comment was to
point out the absurdity of the notion of "native" image size.

You and John are playing a cute little game, but anyone with the slightest clue knows what I'm referring to when I say native. Let me repeat: Maximum factory designated native output size. What that means is the maximum size images the camera produces without alterations (resizing or resampling) in post processing. In other words, 100% magnification of the images that are produced by the total effective pixel count of a camera.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
igb
igb
igb
igb
igb
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow