How to watch 16MP,Full HD TV only have 2MP

hjulenissen said:

Photato said:

You should know that not all 1080P are created equal.
Many have even less pixels than the 1920x1080 HD standard seems to indicate.
Like screens using the Pentile matrix for instance.

If you have one of the traditional dot layout you should have 5760 vertical RGB lines to play with but to exploit that the image has to be rendered at the subpixel level matching your screen layout, preferable demosaicing from the Raw file.

Click to expand...

I dont see any point in demosaicing from the raw file. An 18MP demosaiced Canon file should provide plenty of details in luminance to feed a subpixel renderer targeting 1920x1080.

Problem is, only specialized problems (such as rendering black fonts on white background) have been properly solved AFAIK.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll get better, sharper results from the Raw source, better remapping, since Bayer sensors have also specific geometries for sub-pixel locations.

We are talking about here about 5760 subpixels to be addressed, a 18MP sensor has only 5184 horizontal subpixels.

Photato said:

I'm sure you'll get better, sharper results from the Raw source, better remapping, since Bayer sensors have also specific geometries for sub-pixel locations.

We are talking about here about 5760 subpixels to be addressed, a 18MP sensor has only 5184 horizontal subpixels.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. Somewhere between 1920 and 1920x3 luminance pixels is probably sufficient for the conversion, as you wont be able to bake in a full 5760 pixels of luminance information.

Problem is, debayer and subpixel rendering are difficult problems on their own, with technology dependencies. Doing both at once might be even more difficult.

-h

Jefftan said:

that's how I watch my photo on my plasma TV

Are there ways that allow you to watch more than 2 MP?

Click to expand...

Congratulations! You've just figured out how futile the Megapixel war is )

Take away cropping and massive prints, no one actually needs more than 2mp.

dholl said:

Jefftan said:

that's how I watch my photo on my plasma TV

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

dholl said:

dholl said:

Are there ways that allow you to watch more than 2 MP?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

dholl said:

Congratulations! You've just figured out how futile the Megapixel war is )

Click to expand...

dholl said:

Take away cropping and massive prints, no one actually needs more than 2mp.

Click to expand...

Take away, also, tomorrow's monitors which will show how impoverished 2MP images really are compared to higher-MP images.

--
John

2mp camera

(can't find the original file right now, but it's nice and big):

dholl said:

2mp camera

(can't find the original file right now, but it's nice and big):

Click to expand...

OK, now let's display that on Sharp's 32MP monitor, after seeing a version of the same scene from a 60MP medium format digital.

Assume that the pictures were taken on a slant and you needed to rotate them first; - it just gets worse and worse the more things you consider.

All you can really say is that for a 1/4 MP display, that a 2MP source isn't a whole lot better than a lot more pixels, if no geometrical editing is needed.

I don't know about you, but I judge equipment by the best it can do, not the least it may be called upon to do.

--
John

John Sheehy said:

dholl said:

2mp camera

(can't find the original file right now, but it's nice and big):

Click to expand...

OK, now let's display that on Sharp's 32MP monitor, after seeing a version of the same scene from a 60MP medium format digital.

Click to expand...

Who has a 32MP monitor? Who uses 60mp MF?

Next to no one, that's who.

Who uses Full HD or HD TV? Who uses 15"-17" laptop screens and HD monitors for their computers? All of which can only show a maximum resolution of 1920x1080.

Just about everyone, that's who.

--
StephenG

sjgcit said:

At a normal viewing range you won't see any difference.

Click to expand...

Maybe you won't see any difference; speak for yourself.

--
John

John Sheehy said:

sjgcit said:

At a normal viewing range you won't see any difference.

Click to expand...

Maybe you won't see any difference; speak for yourself.

Click to expand...

John, you don't have to turn nasty on perfectly sensible comment. Look this picture again





and tell me if you think these guys in the picture are looking from a "normal viewing distance?
No? I bet they regret not bringing a strong magnifying glass with them.

Back in 70's, Tektronix had an early graphics workstation with resolution being some 4096x3125 display resolution on 19" direct viewing storage tube (monochrome, but we are talking resolution). Almost 40 years later and it seems the world has temporarily settled at 1920x1080. I recently had to upgrade my (PC) monitor and finding anything above that resolution here in Sydney proved to be waste of time - there is a model or two at ridiculous price, and that was it. But the point is, for a PC monitor in "normal" size of 24", that is enough looking from a "normal" viewing distance. It may not be for 55" looked at from the same distance, but again - I would still see only 24" out of it....

If you see meaningful differences at normal viewing ranges (if your nose is touching the screen's glass, it doesn't qualify as "normal"), chances are it's just the placebo effect.

Though I don't think there's anyone with a 32 Mpx monitor that doesn't print his photos, since such hardware is usually exclusive to high-end professionals, making this entire discussion meaningless.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/Draek

dholl said:

Who has a 32MP monitor?

Click to expand...

Today? Noone really. When I'm looking back at todays photos in 40 years time? Probably everyone. I remember thinking 1024*768 was amazing when I first saw it, most screens were around 640*480 at the time. Displays get better.