D3s and D3x at base ISO

Thom Hogan · Dec 22, 2009

noirdesir said:
You see, the funny thing is people can use the same term for different things and still understand each other because of the context. So, yes #1 has the same resolution as #2 and also has a (slightly) higher resolution. There is no definition necessary because it is obvious what I mean.

Nope. I'm not buying that one. You see, I don't know what you mean when you say that "#1 has the same resolution as #2 and also a higher resolution." I'm guessing that you think that #1 allows us to perceive more detail but that they're both the same number of pixels. Thus, you appear to be saying that resolution is pixel count and it's perceived detail. So, now, when you use the word resolution later in the threads, which am I to believe you to mean? It won't always be clear from context, I can assure you.

noirdesir said:
When people say the D3x has a higher resolution than the D3, they mean 'capture' resolution not the resolution (in the number of pixels and their bit depth) of the final image (which you can upscale or downsize). And they assume that any image with a higher 'capture' resolution will also have a 'final' 'practical' resolution that is at least as large and most likely larger than an image with a lower 'capture' resolution (assuming comparable processing), in mathematical terms a > =.

But this isn't what triggered this discussion and what we're talking about. The D3x image was downsized. So in the context of your discussion of "resolution" above, the two images have both the same resolution and the D3x has "a (slightly) higher resolution." So, your answer higher up in the thread would have been "both." That would have confused more people than helped.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

noirdesir · Dec 22, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
noirdesir said:

If I can read something in sharpened one which I cannot read in the unsharpened one (as determined by large sample double-blind tests), then the sharpened one contains more information.

Click to expand...

Then your contention is that "information = resolution."

As I said below, resolution is whatever is the most appropriate definition for a given context.

Thom Hogan said:
So, if I were able to deploy a piece of software that made great guesses on D3s images and produced a 24mp output from them that looked pretty much like the D3x images out of your converter, would you say that the D3s "resolved as good as the D3x"? (Yes, I know I could apply that to the D3x images, too. But I'm asking this question to try to pin you down on your "information = resolution" contention.)

If there is a character recognition app that produces actual characters (in the ASCII sense) from a blurry image that I cannot decipher, that app is producing information for me. If it then also randomly chooses a font for this, this is not 'relevant' information (or in your terminology it is false information).

We all know that there is appearance of (relevant) information, something visually pleasing, and actual 'relevant' information. Why start beating up somebody about it if he does not know which of these he actually wants? In reality we want all the three, sometimes a bit more of one, sometimes a bit more of the other but since neither can easily be quantified ('relevant' information can but not by simply looking at most images) what is the point of nailing somebody down on how much he wants of each?

rhlpetrus · Dec 22, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
gazunder said:

Well, he could well be. The downsampled 24MP image should have a flatter spatial frequency response (which might be interpreted as having more resolution - it would make the MTF50 of the combined system occur at a higher frequency).

Click to expand...

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. This is indeed how we try to figure out "resolution" in lab. The question still remains as to whether that's what we're seeing in the examples. And my quick analysis is no, it is not. They do not seem to be prepared in a way that would allow us to say that the downsampled D3x is out-resolving the D3s. There are too many areas where the downsampling should be better and isn't.

Thom Hogan said:

Of course, as you suggest, to do this it is critical to downsample properly, with that sharp filter effect, but it remains true that a 24MP camera can achieve higher resolution at 12MP than a 12MP one can. It is akin to the effect of removing the AA filter, without the aliasing.

Click to expand...

Yes, it should be. But I see aliasing in the downsampled images.

In genearl, depending on the algorithm, downres'ing requires some extra sharpening afterwards, since pixel merging may result in loss of detail. This is very common when we reduce resolution for internet posting.

Thus, in principle, it could be that a resident 12MP image could be better than one downres'ed from 24MP. I've never seen a careful testing of that, with different resolution reducing procedures and controlled sharpening done to images.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Lightbox · Dec 22, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
Lightbox said:

No, your noise did not produce more information - the information is in the real-world scene, the camera records it. The D3x self-evidently records more of that real-world information than the D3,

Click to expand...

You seem to be forgetting one of the issues in discussion here: the D3x image has been downsized. Does it have more information still, and if so, what type of information is that? The contention by some is that this is "resolution." I'm not so sure. I'm withholding some of my thoughts on that for the time being. I'm trying to get people to define what resolution is (or information if you want to use that).

And yes, noise is information. Indeed, there are all kinds of "information" that we haven't gotten to yet. When we print these images, the print engine is dithering. The dithering pattern is information, and it can enhance or ability to decipher and distinguish what's in the image or hinder it.

And, by the way, you're looking at compressed JPEGs on (probably) a striped array. Anyone think that might have some impact on what you think you perceive as "resolution"?

Once again, you ignore the point being made and introduce yet another unrelated argument. It's got nothing to do with downsized images, print engine dithering, striped arrays, magic shows, disappearing women or Beethoven. Here is what I said again:

"No, your noise did not produce more information - the information is in the real-world scene, the camera records it. The D3x self-evidently records more of that real-world information than the D3, just like a 10x 8 film records more real-world information than a 5x4 film."

And regardless of your bell curves and your percentages and your definitions and your rabbit holes and your introduced noise, there is more real-world detail in a D3x image than the same shot on a D3.
--
Lightbox Photography : http://www.the-lightbox.com
Aerial Photography : http://www.aerial-photographer.co.uk
Stock: http://photo.the-lightbox.com/

noirdesir · Dec 22, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
noirdesir said:

You see, the funny thing is people can use the same term for different things and still understand each other because of the context. So, yes #1 has the same resolution as #2 and also has a (slightly) higher resolution. There is no definition necessary because it is obvious what I mean.

Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not buying that one. You see, I don't know what you mean when you say that "#1 has the same resolution as #2 and also a higher resolution."

I'm guessing that you think that #1 allows us to perceive more detail but that they're both the same number of pixels. Thus, you appear to be saying that resolution is pixel count and it's perceived detail. So, now, when you use the word resolution later in the threads, which am I to believe you to mean? It won't always be clear from context, I can assure you.

Just assume it means what you think it should mean if you had written the same sentence. That is enough for a start, if you get it wrong, I will correct you.

Thom Hogan said:
But this isn't what triggered this discussion and what we're talking about. The D3x image was downsized. So in the context of your discussion of "resolution" above, the two images have both the same resolution and the D3x has "a (slightly) higher resolution." So, your answer higher up in the thread would have been "both." That would have confused more people than helped.

Well, your 'answer' might have confused and not helped people as well. Either answer (your question or my hypothetical 'both') is not an answer but a provocation (which is both literally an attempt to provoke something and slight insult).

noirdesir · Dec 22, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
Remember, the D3x has only 42% more potential spatial resolution than a D3s. Repeated testing shows that anything less than about a 20% increase in spatial resolution isn't seen by most people.

Thom, I think you have used the word resolution here without defining it.

rhlpetrus · Dec 22, 2009

There was a discussion here some time ago and many people claimed D3x's low iso files had more latitude (re PP'ing) than D3's fiiles. Would that be true as well when comparing to the D3s?
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

teodorian2 · Dec 22, 2009

Here are crops from Imaging Resource and their test images. The cameras are Canon 1000D, 7D and 5DMKII and Nikon D300, D3 and D3x.

Please point out which crop the D3x produced in this comparision. The original files have all been interpolated to the same size (10630 x 7087 pixels or 90 x 60 cm) with Qimage hybrid algoritm. After cropping the remaning crops have then been sharpened with the exact same amount and put together in this comparison.

teodorian2 · Dec 22, 2009

rhlpetrus said:
There was a discussion here some time ago and many people claimed D3x's low iso files had more latitude (re PP'ing) than D3's fiiles. Would that be true as well when comparing to the D3s?
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

And exactly how would you measure that "more latitude" variable?

teodorian2 · Dec 22, 2009

Lightbox said:
Thom Hogan said:

Lightbox said:

No, your noise did not produce more information - the information is in the real-world scene, the camera records it. The D3x self-evidently records more of that real-world information than the D3,

Click to expand...

You seem to be forgetting one of the issues in discussion here: the D3x image has been downsized. Does it have more information still, and if so, what type of information is that? The contention by some is that this is "resolution." I'm not so sure. I'm withholding some of my thoughts on that for the time being. I'm trying to get people to define what resolution is (or information if you want to use that).

And yes, noise is information. Indeed, there are all kinds of "information" that we haven't gotten to yet. When we print these images, the print engine is dithering. The dithering pattern is information, and it can enhance or ability to decipher and distinguish what's in the image or hinder it.

And, by the way, you're looking at compressed JPEGs on (probably) a striped array. Anyone think that might have some impact on what you think you perceive as "resolution"?

Click to expand...

Once again, you ignore the point being made and introduce yet another unrelated argument. It's got nothing to do with downsized images, print engine dithering, striped arrays, magic shows, disappearing women or Beethoven. Here is what I said again:

"No, your noise did not produce more information - the information is in the real-world scene, the camera records it. The D3x self-evidently records more of that real-world information than the D3, just like a 10x 8 film records more real-world information than a 5x4 film."

And regardless of your bell curves and your percentages and your definitions and your rabbit holes and your introduced noise, there is more real-world detail in a D3x image than the same shot on a D3.
--
Lightbox Photography : http://www.the-lightbox.com
Aerial Photography : http://www.aerial-photographer.co.uk
Stock: http://photo.the-lightbox.com/

Please post your "real world" images with 100% crops comparing D3x and D3/D3s at base ISO confirming that D3x clearly shows more detail.

noirdesir · Dec 22, 2009

teodorian2 said:
rhlpetrus said:

There was a discussion here some time ago and many people claimed D3x's low iso files had more latitude (re PP'ing) than D3's fiiles. Would that be true as well when comparing to the D3s?
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Click to expand...

And exactly how would you measure that "more latitude" variable?

Lift the shadows without them becoming ugly (but I guess ugly is hard to measure).

reck · Dec 22, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
Lightbox said:

Are you honestly suggesting that the 12mp D3s can resolve more

Click to expand...

Let's start with a question, Iliah style ;~).

Define resolve.

...namely people taking offense. No surprise, since Iliah-style proceeds by questions, the socratic method, and recall what they did to Socrates.

Still, what's up with that?

Kristian Dowling · Dec 22, 2009

Why don't you just pay $29 and subscrive to http://diglloyd.com/

It's well worth it, and in the next 30 mins you'll have all you need instead of reading countless useless posts arguing the fact. It's common sense that the 24MP sensor form the D3x will resolve more detail, it's simple math.

They are different cameras, and while a comparison is interesting, it shouldn't be used as a deciding factor when chosing either camera. Most people don't 'need' the capabilities of either camera. But sure they will find reasons why they 'think' they do.

teodorian2 said:
Please post your "real world" images with 100% crops comparing D3x and D3/D3s at base ISO confirming that D3x clearly shows more detail.

photonut2008 · Dec 22, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
photonut2008 said:

Nonetheless, I can more easily read the text and the texture of the ropes is more clearly defined in the D3x crop.

Click to expand...

Definition is not necessarily more resolution.

No, but they are related.

Thom Hogan said:
Consider an unsharpened image versus a sharpened one. Are you seriously going to tell me that the sharpened image has more "resolution" than the unsharpened one?

Seriously though, both of Simon's samples appear equally sharpened -- I haven't seen Lloyd Chamber's samples, I'm simply not willing to pay for the privilege.

I understand you are making a different argument than which camera has more resolution, because the D3x clearly does if the lens and technique allow it; rather you are clearly trying to get to just what is "resolution?" Okay, basically we are talking about LPH (which is what is used here at DPR), and the Nyquist frequency. We could also talk about color separation, and related to that would be that resolution is not fixed inasmuch as it can be different under different lighting, and at higher ISOs or in deep shadows it can be reduced by noise; i.e., it is a proverbial moving target.
--
Anthony Beach

Martin Datzinger · Dec 23, 2009

the fact that I hate such upscaling products and that #1 and #4 have different lighting than the rest (reflection in the gold and red parts is largely mising), I'd say that #1 and #4 are the two > 20MP bodies.

Kind regards,
Martin

--
http://www.datzinger.net

Martin Datzinger · Dec 23, 2009

I already found added amount of detail I could get out of the D200 in comparison to the D70 very easily visible. Even if the D200 has a much stronger AA filter than the D70. But for me this isn't all about how much new detail is resolved that wasn't with the lesser MP camera, but how the detail is rendered.

The only thing that keeps me sceptical regaring such highly resolving cameras (not diffraction issues, not lens issues, not noise issues, certainly not storage and processing speed issues, these are all way overblown or can be overcome easily) is whether I can get the added resolution out of the camera or not. I already felt I had to work much more concentrated with my D200 in comparison to the D70, so I really ask myself if I can be good enough for a 18 or 24MP camera? Plus, the jobs that pay for my cameras mostly are shot under moving conditions with moving subjects, so how will that work out?

Kind regards,
Martin

--
http://www.datzinger.net

Lightbox · Dec 23, 2009

teodorian2 said:
Please post your "real world" images with 100% crops comparing D3x and D3/D3s at base ISO confirming that D3x clearly shows more detail.

I did this here in January. It's been referred to several times already in this thread.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30759631

--
Lightbox Photography : http://www.the-lightbox.com
Aerial Photography : http://www.aerial-photographer.co.uk
Stock: http://photo.the-lightbox.com/

marco1974 · Dec 23, 2009

...that he just doesn't realize that he sometimes ends up making a fool of himself.

There, I said it.

(and mind you, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether a DOWNSAMPLED D3x image has, or does not have, more resolution than a straight D3s image - and I personally think it doesn't).

No disrespect intended for the man, either, who I am sure is both a good photographer (even though, unlike most professionals, he chooses not to have any proper gallery of his images on line...) and a VERY knowledgeable technician who knows more about what he is talking about than 99.9% of us fellow forum users.

Marco.

The_Suede · Dec 23, 2009

So you mean that you first upsampled all samples to 75MP with an algorithm optimized for lineart, and then you downsampled the results to 15MP (which is the scale as you presented it in) - while processing the cr*p out of them colour- and artificial sharpness-wise? No wonder they look very similar.

No4 is D3x, btw. The other High-MP camera, the 5D2 is no1.

Here's a more reasonable example, D3x vs D700. D700 upsampled to 24MP, and the D3x at 100% pixel-to-pixel mapping. On an A3 fine art print or A2 magazine quality print I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. On an A2 fine-art I do it 99/100.

Slideshow Bob · Dec 23, 2009

Well, downsizing with bicubic interpolation in PS (which I gather is how most people resize) results in distinct sharpening-like artifacts along edges, and so far I haven't really seen a downres'd 21/24mp image that contained any more real detail than a native 12mp image.

Another point perhaps worth making is that there are several sharpening tools that can be used to produce very sharp images at the RAW level, which can't be used after downsizing. I use a little R-L Deconvolution sharpening on my print 12mp RAW files, and I don't see how a downsized 24mp file could really match the level of detail I get that way. In PS, you loose detail when you downsize, and you exacerbate that problem when you sharpen.

SB

D3s and D3x at base ISO

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts