Evaluating D800 images shrunken to 12 or 16mp defeats the purpose.

DocS · Mar 11, 2012

Octane said:
DocS said:

Shrinking virtually any photo artificially makes the camera's ISO performance look better. The D800 should be an improvement over the D700 at their respective native resolutions.

Click to expand...

It is an improvement in every aspect over the D700 as others have pointed out but you prefer to just ignore.

It is a perfectly valid test to compare two cameras at the same resolution because you are not always in need of more resolution.

It's like comparing cars. One might have more power than the other, you you still going to do a typical city mileage test or see how well the suspension is and so on. Just because it has more power than another car all of a sudden everything you test is based on power.

No. Not like comparing cars.

I can assure you, a Kia and a Lamborghini accelerate and hug corners equally well when driven under 5mph.

If you want to see whether or not the D800 is actually producing better images, and not images that are artificially improved by being shrunken down, you need to judge its images at their full resolution....or at least a resolution substantially higher than the D700’s.

Or, you can feel free to crop the image down to 12mp rather than shrink it.

Octane said:
if you do 8x10 prints for clients then scaling down to 12 mp to see how it performs in low light is perfectly valid. You can not see more detail in an 8x10 print so it's pointless to zoom in to 100% at 36 mp and search for noise.

In my original post and this one, I’m not saying that the original size has to be used, but by not using at least 20-ish mp, you’re defeating the purpose of the higher resolution. To shrink it down is to use a crutch.

Octane said:
The D800 offers more resolution when you need it , but most of the time you won't. Just like a car with more power, 95% of the time you will not use it. But it doesn't make it useless.

Well, what we need to know is when we need it, is it there! If I’m photographing in the dark at high ISO settings and I need the added resolution above the D700’s, am I going to find a noise-ridden photograph that I have to shrink down to 12mp? Or do I get at least a 20mp image with noise as low as the D700? Or even better, do I get the full 36mp? Or with the D800, am I simply getting a camera with a lot of resolution above and beyond the D700 that can only be utilized in ideal conditions.

Personally, I think the D800 will perform better than the D700 at all ISO settings at its full resolution - or at least at a significantly higher resolution than the D700.. But that’s how it should be judged to begin with.

See my point now?

DocS · Mar 11, 2012

Luke Kaven said:
DocS said:

Shrinking virtually any photo artificially makes the camera's ISO performance look better. The D800 should be an improvement over the D700 at their respective native resolutions.

Click to expand...

Think in terms of "aggregating" instead of "shirinking."

A major source of noise is high frequency noise, as in shot noise. By downsampling, you eliminate high-frequency noise because you are eliminating all high frequencies .

The D700/D3/D3s/D4 achieve good 100% pixel-level results because they are -- in your way of speaking -- pre-shrunk .

That’s not a good description at all, because these cameras simply don’t have high resolution to begin with. Their pixels are simply larger, and there are fewer of them on the same size sensor. Comparing the D700 and D800, for every three D800 pixels covering a certain surface area on the sensor, there is only one D700 pixel. This has the advantage of inherently producing lower noise, and the question at hand is whether or not Nikon found a way to put three pixels in place of one pixel while maintaining overall less noise from that patch of sensor real estate. (I realize that’s an oversimplification of what actually takes place on a sensor, but you get the idea). If they didn’t, then the D800 really hasn’t been an improvement (sensor-wise) over the D700. It simply has more pixels that can’t be taken advantage of unless the shooting conditions don’t produce noise (e.g. low ISO settings in awesome light).

powertoold · Mar 11, 2012

You can have the D800 scale your 36mp images to 20mp or less, but the output is JPG only.

alan54g · Mar 11, 2012

The D800 should be a better camera than the D700. It's $300.00 more!
LOL.

DocS · Mar 11, 2012

jfriend00 said:
When you've offered a fair way to compare the noise between different resolution cameras, then you can dump on the methods being used. It's a fact that it's not a legit comparison to compare pixel level noise in two cameras that has massively different resolution. You have to compare the two at some common level (e.g. a web size image or a 6 foot high print or something in between). But, you can't look at 100% pixel level noise at 36MP and compare that to 100% pixel level noise at 12MP and draw any meaningful conclusions from that comparison.

Oh?

How would comparing D700 and D800 images at their native resolutions NOT tell you anything meaningful? It might tell you that the D800, with its higher resolution, produces more noise per unit-area of sensor, and that the only way the image quality becomes comparable to the D700’s is is by shrinking it down (which gets rid of much of the noise).

If anything shrinking the image down hides what the sensor is really doing.

jfriend00 said:
The point of reducing the D800 images to 12MP is to make two things that are meaningfully comparable. You could uprez the 12MP to 26MP if you want to do it that way, but a 100% view there would just look jaggy and pixelated.

You can’t “uprez” a D700 image to 26mp, because you’d be trying to produce information that was never there to begin with. In contrast, you can shrink an image because you’re getting rid of some information (including noise).

jfriend00 said:
The fact is that the relevance and impact of noise in any image depends upon exactly what output you're producing. You can get away with murderous noise at even 12MP when producing a web image or a small print. But print something or severely crop such that you're seriously using all the resolution of the 36MP and even small amounts of noise may be relevant and visible. So, to compare them, you have to assume some type of output. The default is to pick the smaller resolution of the two since that's kind of like the least common denominator. If you want to pick a 6 foot high print, you can pick that too (a bit more work to do the comparison though).

I’m not talking about final product.

If all you’re going to use your camera for is creating 1”x1” avatars, then any piece-of-sh*t camera will work as well as a D4, D700, or D800. The whole point is to evaluate what the sensor is ACTUALLY producing. Not an altered version of it.

If the D800 sensor only produces useful high-ISO/low light images when shrunken down to 12mp, then it’s not really fair to call it a bona-fide 36mp sensor....except under ideal shooting conditions with lots of light and low ISO settings.

jfriend00 said:
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio

dominikov · Mar 11, 2012

DocS said:
If the D800 were a 12mp or even a 20mp camera, it wouldn’t offer anything spectacular over the D700. It seems that the D800’s claim to fame is its resolution.

The only two advantages to the D700, aside from the price, are 8fps (with grip) and much smaller RAW files and in situations where you don't need more than 12mp you'll have a more streamlined workflow. The D800 improves on everything else.

You're getting a 100% viewfinder. Dual card slots. 1080p video. Improved AF that focuses down to -2EV. 91K metering. 25mp and 15mp crop modes. More durable shutter. Quiet shutter mode. Face recognition for more accurate TTL flash. Larger LCD. Faster USB 3.0 port for tethered shooting.

Horshack · Mar 11, 2012

danharperphotography.com said:
However, about this whole comparing ISO comparison, honestly, has anyone actually tried to downsize one of those high ISO images from the D800? I have, and the noise looks almost exactly the same. No joke, look for yourself. Downsizing algorythms just don't work like people are saying. Yes, you loose a bit of detail and the image is smaller but the noise is just as noticeable when the photo is printed smaller. Think about it.

It's a legitimate question and unfortunately there's a dearth of reliable information on the topic. One of the best resources I've found thus far is this thread ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=30147854 ). I'm still searching the interwebs for more. From what I've learned thus far there are analytical components to the data/comparisons, along with a subjective component related to how we perceive and interpret noise, and a third variable in how demosaicing interacts. Looks like a pretty complicated topic with no quick answers.

Btw, here's a D800 36MP vs 12MP bicubic-sharper comparison. Same processing on both images, luminance NR zero, default chrominance NR

DocS · Mar 11, 2012

powertoold said:
This is just wrong. No one needs to explain it really. Here is a list:

1) Benefits of 36mp are obvious even after resized to 12mp

Of course they are. But the D800 is touted as a 36mp camera. Is it? Or is it a camera that uses extra pixels as a crutch to achieve low-noise photos only when shrunken down?

powertoold said:
2) If you compare pictures at 100%, it doesn't represent printing results

First off, it does when you print large. Second, most prints probably don’t exceed 8.5x11 anyway! A 6mp p&s camera can produce quality images for that size. Why don’t we include those cameras in the comparison too then?

powertoold said:
3) D800 pictures look much better resized

Any camera’s images look better shrunken.

powertoold said:
4) No one is going to view many of their pictures at full resolution

That may be true. But what I’m saying is that if you want to evaluate “pixel-for-pixel” performance, you need to evaluate photos at their full size.

powertoold said:
5) For a fair comparison, the pictures need to be sized similarly

Don’t give this a separate number. It’s part of your main argument.

powertoold said:
6) There are no consequences of resizing D800 pictures

Redundant point.

powertoold said:
7) An enlarged D700 picture will look just as poor in comparison

An enlarged D700 photo isn’t the same as a shrunken D800 photo, because with the former, you are creating information that was never there, whereas with the latter, you are simply getting rid of information. This is not the same process. Boy, talk about “illogical statements”.

powertoold said:
8) ISO performance is measured when pictures are sized similarly

Says who? You?

DocS · Mar 11, 2012

Fearless_Photog said:
If you can't understand the what and why of the D800's advantages then don't buy one. Plenty of people can, who are you trying to convince here?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/

Dude...

Did you actually read my post, or do you just not understand English well? Or are you just trying to be a prick no matter what I say?

I said that the D800 were a 12mp camera, it “wouldn’t offer anything spectacular” over the D700. That means that is has some advantages, but that the major advantage is the added resolution.

Synnberg · Mar 11, 2012

DocS said:
powertoold said:

2) If you compare pictures at 100%, it doesn't represent printing results

Click to expand...

First off, it does when you print large. Second, most prints probably don’t exceed 8.5x11 anyway! A 6mp p&s camera can produce quality images for that size. Why don’t we include those cameras in the comparison too then?

When you print large, you view the print from several feet away. Do you walk up to a 55" flatscreen TV and view the pixels up close? That's how pointless it is when you examine a 36MP image at 100% on a monitor or a large sized print up close.

DocS said:
DocS said:

3) D800 pictures look much better resized

Click to expand...

Any camera’s images look better shrunken.

Yes, the point is that when you downsize at 36MP image, it retains much more microdetail than a 12MP one. For example,

DocS said:
DocS said:

4) No one is going to view many of their pictures at full resolution

Click to expand...

That may be true. But what I’m saying is that if you want to evaluate “pixel-for-pixel” performance, you need to evaluate photos at their full size.

I may also would want to examine the farting habits of a Platypus, but that has no real world relevance. Likewise.

DocS said:
DocS said:

8) ISO performance is measured when pictures are sized similarly

Click to expand...

Says who? You?

Anybody with a functional brain.

Luke Kaven · Mar 11, 2012

DocS said:
Luke Kaven said:

DocS said:

Shrinking virtually any photo artificially makes the camera's ISO performance look better. The D800 should be an improvement over the D700 at their respective native resolutions.

Click to expand...

Think in terms of "aggregating" instead of "shirinking."

A major source of noise is high frequency noise, as in shot noise. By downsampling, you eliminate high-frequency noise because you are eliminating all high frequencies .

The D700/D3/D3s/D4 achieve good 100% pixel-level results because they are -- in your way of speaking -- pre-shrunk .

Click to expand...

That’s not a good description at all, because these cameras simply don’t have high resolution to begin with. Their pixels are simply larger, and there are fewer of them on the same size sensor. Comparing the D700 and D800, for every three D800 pixels covering a certain surface area on the sensor, there is only one D700 pixel. This has the advantage of inherently producing lower noise, and the question at hand is whether or not Nikon found a way to put three pixels in place of one pixel while maintaining overall less noise from that patch of sensor real estate. (I realize that’s an oversimplification of what actually takes place on a sensor, but you get the idea). If they didn’t, then the D800 really hasn’t been an improvement (sensor-wise) over the D700. It simply has more pixels that can’t be taken advantage of unless the shooting conditions don’t produce noise (e.g. low ISO settings in awesome light).

If you read Martinec, he explains why, for a wide range of pixel sizes, the light-gathering ability of a sensor of a given size is more or less equal. Implementations varied, lending false credence to the notion that "big pixels" had an inherent edge in performance. With the Exmor sensor in its third generation, and the D3/D3s/D4/5DI/II/II sensors in their third generation, both design approaches have honed the edge very closely with respect to one another.

The D700 is two generations behind at this point. The D800 sensor compares with it pixel-for-pixel at this point. But overall, in terms of performance per unit area of the sensor , the D800 and the D4 are more or less on a par. You can freely aggregate pixels from the D800 (e.g., to match the 16MP D4) when the photons are scarce, and exploit all the pixels when the photons are plentiful.

SethG · Mar 11, 2012

SUPERHOKIE said:
If you need to resize to 12 MP, then you have that option at your disposal.

If you need more resolution than 12MP, then you have that option at your disposal.

If you need video, then you have that option at your disposal.

Now, if you are buying the D800 only to resize to 12MP for most of your images, then you probably don't need the D800, and D700 will suffice. That's why i haven't jumped on the D800 yet, because I don't NEED 36MPs, not yet at least. One day I might want to venture out to the mountains and capture a shot I want to print 5xx4 feet, then I'll get a D800.

I'm really ticked that the direct meter button and the focus mode selector mode button went away with the D800 and D4. I don't want to fumble with the buttons every time I want to swap between S and C mode.

I almost always shoot in S mode with my D300, but constantly find myself accidentally flipping the switch to C and getting blurry shots. Now, of course, I'm just going to accidentally flip it to M. LOL
--

Seth -

tony field · Mar 11, 2012

Seems to me the arguments are rather tangential. However, two things seem to emerge:

1. If you are comparing the technology of similar or dissimilar cameras, the appropriate methodology is to compare pixel level sensor information. Thus, it is reasonable to compare a 12mp and a 36mp camera at the pixel level.

2. If you are comparing the ability to deliver images of similar or dissimilar cameras, the appropriate methodology is to display the images at the same visual size - if that requires up/down resolutions, so be it.

The pixel level analysis helps explain some of the thing you see in the image analysis. Conversely, the image analysis helps you interpret the findings of the pixel analysis.

IMHO, it is about that simple. Two complimentary ways of evaluation are totally reasonable.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

DocS · Mar 11, 2012

tony field said:
Seems to me the arguments are rather tangential. However, two things seem to emerge:

1. If you are comparing the technology of similar or dissimilar cameras, the appropriate methodology is to compare pixel level sensor information. Thus, it is reasonable to compare a 12mp and a 36mp camera at the pixel level.

2. If you are comparing the ability to deliver images of similar or dissimilar cameras, the appropriate methodology is to display the images at the same visual size - if that requires up/down resolutions, so be it.

The pixel level analysis helps explain some of the thing you see in the image analysis. Conversely, the image analysis helps you interpret the findings of the pixel analysis.

IMHO, it is about that simple. Two complimentary ways of evaluation are totally reasonable.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Well said.

What I’m saying is that, in order to judge whether or not the D800 is a true improvement over the D700 - at least where its sensor (and related firmware) is concerned - and not just a full-frame sensor with more pixels shoved in, one has to compare the images at the pixel level.

Because the reality is that if all you plan on doing is printing 8.5x11 photos, then a 6mp camera will probably look about as good as any 12, 16, 22, or 36mp camera, and the comparison becomes leveled.

tony field · Mar 11, 2012

DocS said:
What I’m saying is that, in order to judge whether or not the D800 is a true improvement over the D700 - at least where its sensor (and related firmware) is concerned - and not just a full-frame sensor with more pixels shoved in, one has to compare the images at the pixel level.

Completely agree. IMHO, the D800 actually performs somewhat better than the D700 at the pixel level. An obvious technological advance is visible which is impressive considering our pre-disposition to thinking "bigger pixels are better".

DocS said:
Because the reality is that if all you plan on doing is printing 8.5x11 photos, then a 6mp camera will probably look about as good as any 12, 16, 22, or 36mp camera, and the comparison becomes leveled.

In a general sense, I agree. None the less, when I compare (at, say ISO 200), the 8.5x11 print from my d2x with the 5d-II, there is, for a lack of a better term, more "micro contrast" or "smoothness" to the downsized images with the larger pixels count. Of course the camera with lesser pixels can approximate the camera on these prints by (very) careful use of slight sharpening. This sharpening affects the d2x images slightly more than it does the 5d-II - but the two images are, for all intent and purposes, "identical".
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Fearless_Photog · Mar 11, 2012

DocS said:
Fearless_Photog said:

If you can't understand the what and why of the D800's advantages then don't buy one. Plenty of people can, who are you trying to convince here?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/

Click to expand...

Dude...

Did you actually read my post, or do you just not understand English well? Or are you just trying to be a prick no matter what I say?

I said that the D800 were a 12mp camera, it “wouldn’t offer anything spectacular” over the D700. That means that is has some advantages, but that the major advantage is the added resolution.

It's not a 12 megapixel camera though, it's a 36 megapixel camera with unquestionably the highest resolution available from a 35mm DSLR, and apparently the highest dynamic range as well, over it's entire ISO range. Both of those characteristics of great interest to me as primarily a wildlife photographer. Most of my shooting is during the day, and I want to both put as many pixels as possible on my subject, and also want the most possible headroom for highlights and shadows since a lot of my subjects have contrasting colors, often at opposite ends of the histogram.

If that doesn't interest you then don't buy it, you seem to want a 12 megapixel camera and don't seem to care about anything other than per-pixel noise performance.

I did read your first post, and several of your others as well, but your arguments are so off base, contradictory, and full of factual errors that I don't think they're worth picking apart.

If you want an example I'll give you a couple: You say right from the start that you're not interested in seeing resized 12 megapixel D800 images used for comparison, but later on you say that you want to see a comparison that uses the same "unit area" of the sensor. Well, both the D700 and D800 have the same size sensor, so to see a comparison of performance using the same physical sensor area, you'd have to resize one image or the other. until the pixels represent the same sensor area. The most logical way to do this would be to make the D800's images 12 megapixels.

You also say that you think 100% crops are relevant to people who print, well, certainly not to me. My monitor is 22" and has a pixel density of 72 dpi. I would never print an image with a 22" diagonal at a ppi that low. If you would, you might want to totally reevaluate your printing standards.

Since I print with Epson, I generally try to print at the native ppi of 360, that's 5 times the per-area resolution of the average desktop monitor. Therefore I'd be pretty interested in your detailed explanation of how viewing images at 100% on your monitor is relevant to your printed results. Hopefully I'll understand your english welll enough to figure it out.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/

DocS · Mar 11, 2012

Synnberg said:
DocS said:

powertoold said:

2) If you compare pictures at 100%, it doesn't represent printing results

Click to expand...

First off, it does when you print large. Second, most prints probably don’t exceed 8.5x11 anyway! A 6mp p&s camera can produce quality images for that size. Why don’t we include those cameras in the comparison too then?

Click to expand...

When you print large, you view the print from several feet away. Do you walk up to a 55" flatscreen TV and view the pixels up close? That's how pointless it is when you examine a 36MP image at 100% on a monitor or a large sized print up close.

If I’m trying to see the smaller details that would be captured in a large print, then yes, I’m going to view it up close. That’s the whole point of having more pixels. So that you capture more detail (which inherently be viewed from up close, unless the image is blown up even more).

Synnberg said:
Synnberg said:

Synnberg said:

3) D800 pictures look much better resized

Click to expand...

Any camera’s images look better shrunken.

Click to expand...

Yes, the point is that when you downsize at 36MP image, it retains much more microdetail than a 12MP one. For example,

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.

The downsized D3x image isn’t showing more detail. It’s sharper. But it’s not showing more detail. Nor could it. It is physically impossible for a 36mp image to be shrunken down to 12mp and show more detail than a 12mp camera. Why? Because when you shrink the 36mp image down, you are also eliminating 24mp worth of information and keeping only 12mp worth. Now, it’s conceivable that the software may selectively eliminate just the right things to make the image sharper than that of a 12mp sensor, but the amount of data present in both images is going to be the same, and by that virtue, the amount of detail they will show will be virtually identical....and the sample you showed me is a perfect example of this.

Synnberg said:
Synnberg said:

Synnberg said:

4) No one is going to view many of their pictures at full resolution

Click to expand...

That may be true. But what I’m saying is that if you want to evaluate “pixel-for-pixel” performance, you need to evaluate photos at their full size.

Click to expand...

I may also would want to examine the farting habits of a Platypus, but that has no real world relevance. Likewise.

If the platypus were a 10-foot tall animal that you planned on riding to work every morning, you might be more interested in its farting habits.

Similarly, if you plan on using your D800 as a means of capturing maximum detail in your photos without having to use a telephoto lens or getting right up close to a subject, or if you plan on making very large prints, then the pixel-level performance becomes more important. Maybe not in the “real world” that takes place in your little mind, rather, in the real world for other photographers.

Just because you print all of your photos 5x7 doesn’t mean that there’s no use to seeing how 36mp images come out on the D800. Hell, I don’t even print my photos, and I see the relevance of evaluating the pixel-level performance of the D800.

(And FYI, “platypus" is not a proper noun. You don’t capitalize it. Nor do you capitalize any animal’s name that is not eponymous. You don’t capitalize the word “dog” or “cat", do you?)

Synnberg said:
Synnberg said:

Synnberg said:

8) ISO performance is measured when pictures are sized similarly

Click to expand...

Says who? You?

Click to expand...

Anybody with a functional brain.

Oh yeah. There you go. Very strong, convincing argument. Shows me that you really know what you’re talking about.

DocS · Mar 11, 2012

Fearless_Photog said:
DocS said:

Fearless_Photog said:

If you can't understand the what and why of the D800's advantages then don't buy one. Plenty of people can, who are you trying to convince here?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/

Click to expand...

Dude...

Did you actually read my post, or do you just not understand English well? Or are you just trying to be a prick no matter what I say?

I said that the D800 were a 12mp camera, it “wouldn’t offer anything spectacular” over the D700. That means that is has some advantages, but that the major advantage is the added resolution.

Click to expand...

Fearless_Photog said:
It's not a 12 megapixel camera though, it's a 36 megapixel camera with unquestionably the highest resolution available from a 35mm DSLR, and apparently the highest dynamic range as well, over it's entire ISO range. Both of those characteristics of great interest to me as primarily a wildlife photographer. Most of my shooting is during the day, and I want to both put as many pixels as possible on my subject, and also want the most possible headroom for highlights and shadows since a lot of my subjects have contrasting colors, often at opposite ends of the histogram.

If that doesn't interest you then don't buy it, you seem to want a 12 megapixel camera and don't seem to care about anything other than per-pixel noise performance.

When did I say that??? In fact, I ordered my D800 back in February, and I didn’t even consider the D700 because I think 12mp is obscenely low in this day and age.

Fearless_Photog said:
I did read your first post, and several of your others as well, but your arguments are so off base, contradictory, and full of factual errors that I don't think they're worth picking apart.

If you want an example I'll give you a couple: You say right from the start that you're not interested in seeing resized 12 megapixel D800 images used for comparison, but later on you say that you want to see a comparison that uses the same "unit area" of the sensor. Well, both the D700 and D800 have the same size sensor, so to see a comparison of performance using the same physical sensor area, you'd have to resize one image or the other. until the pixels represent the same sensor area. The most logical way to do this would be to make the D800's images 12 megapixels.

Is it lost on you that the D800 has more pixels per unit area on the sensor, and that this translates to taking up more pixels on your monitor? I guess you’re unaware that the D800 images will actually show up larger on your monitor, and will show more detail....almost as if the image that the D700 was photographing the subject through a magnifying glass that magnified the image 3x.

So, look at it this way:

With the D700, you have 13,888 pixels per mm^2 of sensor area. With the D800, you have 41,777 pixels per mm^2 of sensor area.

Let us say you photograph an object that falls on 1mm worth of sensor area - meaning that when the D700 photographs it, 13,888 pixels will be used to capture that image, and when the D800 photographs it, 41,777 pixels will be used. I’d want to know that ‘percentage’ of noise coming from the 41k pixels of the D800 is comparable to (or better than) that of the 13k pixels of the D700.

Does that make more sense?

Fearless_Photog said:
You also say that you think 100% crops are relevant to people who print, well, certainly not to me. My monitor is 22" and has a pixel density of 72 dpi. I would never print an image with a 22" diagonal at a ppi that low. If you would, you might want to totally reevaluate your printing standards.

Since I print with Epson, I generally try to print at the native ppi of 360, that's 5 times the per-area resolution of the average desktop monitor. Therefore I'd be pretty interested in your detailed explanation of how viewing images at 100% on your monitor is relevant to your printed results. Hopefully I'll understand your english welll enough to figure it out.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/

Synnberg · Mar 11, 2012

DocS said:
If I’m trying to see the smaller details that would be captured in a large print, then yes, I’m going to view it up close. That’s the whole point of having more pixels. So that you capture more detail (which inherently be viewed from up close, unless the image is blown up even more).

No, that's not the point of having more pixels. I never view my prints from an inch away, nor have any of my clients. Have you sold any prints yet?

DocS said:
DocS said:

Yes, the point is that when you downsize at 36MP image, it retains much more microdetail than a 12MP one. For example,

Click to expand...

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.

The downsized D3x image isn’t showing more detail. It’s sharper. But it’s not showing more detail. Nor could it. It is physically impossible for a 36mp image to be shrunken down to 12mp and show more detail than a 12mp camera. Why? Because when you shrink the 36mp image down, you are also eliminating 24mp worth of information and keeping only 12mp worth. Now, it’s conceivable that the software may selectively eliminate just the right things to make the image sharper than that of a 12mp sensor, but the amount of data present in both images is going to be the same, and by that virtue, the amount of detail they will show will be virtually identical....and the sample you showed me is a perfect example of this.

Unless you understand the difference between detail and microdetail, there's no point in me trying to make you understand.

DocS said:
Just because you print all of your photos 5x7 doesn’t mean that there’s no use to seeing how 36mp images come out on the D800. Hell, I don’t even print my photos, and I see the relevance of evaluating the pixel-level performance of the D800.

Yeah, there you go. You don't even print your images and that's exactly why you're fussing over things that real photographers don't care about. The largest commercial print I've done is a couple of storeys tall. That's much more relevant in the "Real world" than your need for looking at cat pictures at 100% on a monitor. Sucks that Nikon doesn't make a camera for your specific needs and more in line with MY real world needs.

I'll make it simple for you. There are three scenarios.

1) When you're making small prints: A higher MP image, scaled down would exhibit better DR and microdetail than a lower MP one would.

2) When you're making very large prints: A higher MP image would let you print these at much higher DPIs and when viewed at the intended viewing distance, would appear to have far more detail than a lower MP image would.

3) Viewing cat pictures at 100% on a monitor: A higher MP image would urge armchair photographers to create more whining related threads than a lower MP image would.

DocS said:
DocS said:

Anybody with a functional brain.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah. There you go. Very strong, convincing argument. Shows me that you really know what you’re talking about.

Far more than you do. As I said before, my proof is in my gallery. Where are your gallery pictures?

DocS · Mar 11, 2012

tony field said:
DocS said:

What I’m saying is that, in order to judge whether or not the D800 is a true improvement over the D700 - at least where its sensor (and related firmware) is concerned - and not just a full-frame sensor with more pixels shoved in, one has to compare the images at the pixel level.

Click to expand...

Completely agree. IMHO, the D800 actually performs somewhat better than the D700 at the pixel level. An obvious technological advance is visible which is impressive considering our pre-disposition to thinking "bigger pixels are better".

tony field said:

Because the reality is that if all you plan on doing is printing 8.5x11 photos, then a 6mp camera will probably look about as good as any 12, 16, 22, or 36mp camera, and the comparison becomes leveled.

Click to expand...

In a general sense, I agree. None the less, when I compare (at, say ISO 200), the 8.5x11 print from my d2x with the 5d-II, there is, for a lack of a better term, more "micro contrast" or "smoothness" to the downsized images with the larger pixels count. Of course the camera with lesser pixels can approximate the camera on these prints by (very) careful use of slight sharpening. This sharpening affects the d2x images slightly more than it does the 5d-II - but the two images are, for all intent and purposes, "identical".

I agree completely. A 36mp image downsized to 12mp will look sharper than a native 12mp. But it won’t show more detail.

Although...I suppose there is one way, conceivably, that it could be made to show more detail. Obviously, when you shrink a photo, you’re eliminating data. If the software performing the photo re-size were to make an effort to selectively eliminate noise data rather than subject/image data while shrinking the 36mp photo, then the shrunken photo might consist of more ‘pure’ subject/image data, whereas the native 12mp image would have both subject/image data and noise data.

So, for example, let us say that the D800 and D700 perform equally well at the pixel-level, and that their signal-to-noise ratios are identical. If the software shrinking the D800’s image down to 12mp cuts out all of the noise data and produces a more pure image, then you might have a higher percentage of subject/image data...and in-turn, a nearly-unnoticeable amount of detail above the D700’s. I’d image that this is purely a hypothetical scenario, and that software doesn’t exist to do that. I could be wrong.

tony field said:
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Evaluating D800 images shrunken to 12 or 16mp defeats the purpose.

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts