Reading mode: Light Dark

Resolution to the resolution debate.

Go to last post
C

Craig76

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
255
Reaction score
134
Location
US
I tried to explain why 36MP is only 27.8% more than 22MP to which I was surprised to see a great deal of argument. So let me try to explain what I am saying in a new thread without all the other mumbo jumbo.

Lets take width
100 pixels x 200% = 200 pixels

Now height
100 pixels x 200% = 200 pixels

100 x 100 = 10,000
200 x 200 = 40,000

So a 200% resample is 4 times as large of a file size. Remember it is a 2 dimensional object. So to double resolution going up and across you need 4x as many pixels.

Some people where saying that going from 1x1 to 2x2 is actually 4x as large. In a sense it is, but in actual detail (resampling) it is only 2x as large. I think this is where some of the confusion arose.

Now if you dial into photoshop the resolution values of the 5D III and resample it to D800 resolution you will see that it is only a 28% resample not 61%.

Perhaps a clearer way of thinking about this is to think. How much more DETAIL does 36mp have over 22mp. Perhaps that is where some of the confusion is from.

Here is a visual aid to help illustrate what I was saying in that thread.

Thanks.



--
http://www.pbase.com/cpilecky
 
28% is correct with regard to the sensors, but the DPR test of the D800 was only able to achieve about 14% over the 5D3 in practice. As magnification increases, the lens can become a more significant factor than the digital resolution. This was true even back in the film days when using high-resolution films.

Clearly the D800 resolves more than the 5D3 with any given lens, and that’s a good thing. But 14% in practice isn’t a night-and-day difference. It’s more like comparing a 28-inch print with a 32-inch print.
 
If you double the megapixels, you MAY be able to see the difference in prints, repeat MAY.
If you quadruple them, you will be able to see results in big prints.

That is the conclusion of those who've tested people.

Worrying about the MP count is a waste of time.

More than 10mp, the only real benefit is cropping.. and of course the coffers of Canon and Nikon and others.
 
Phil Hill said:
28% is correct with regard to the sensors, but the DPR test of the D800 was only able to achieve about 14% over the 5D3 in practice. As magnification increases, the lens can become a more significant factor than the digital resolution. This was true even back in the film days when using high-resolution films.

Clearly the D800 resolves more than the 5D3 with any given lens, and that’s a good thing. But 14% in practice isn’t a night-and-day difference. It’s more like comparing a 28-inch print with a 32-inch print.
Click to expand...
But you can look at it another way. You can pay a lot more for a lens that gives 14% more resolution than the one you have, so a camera that gives a similar resolution upgrade to all your lenses could look like a pretty good investment whether or not the resolution increase is proportionate to the pixel count.
--
Bob
 
I'm not in the business of producing huge enlargements of landscapes, but I do have access to a 44" inkjet printer at work and play around with it sometimes. For me, once I got my first FF camera several years ago (1Ds original) the resolution didn't matter any more...I had all I needed.

The 12.8mp from my 5D is as much resolution as I'll probably ever require in photography. I enjoy my 5D2 alot, but the resolution is hardly ever a reason I'll grab it over the old model. For paid jobs, I like having a 21mp camera just to impress the clients. Occassionally they accompany me on shoots, and a question about the camera often comes up during conversation. I'd rather just say I have 21mp and watch them say "wow" than explain why 12 is more than they really need.
--
My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
 
I’m not arguing against the additional resolution, I’m just saying 14% isn’t a tremendous increase. Before we say that 14% is a good investment we should consider the needs of a particular photographer and the two cameras in question as a whole, not just as measuring instruments.

Again, I’m not saying the higher resolution of the D800 wouldn’t be desirable with all else being equal, but all else is not equal. Some will prefer the ergonomics or color rendering of one camera over the other, some need regularly to cleanly boost shadows, some will place a priority on AF or FPS, and some will have a collection of lenses from one brand or the other, lenses they like and want to keep. Even cool features like the 5D3’s silent mode will be very important to some (like me) and completely irrelevant to others.

I think the resolution of the D800 would be compelling and difficult to resist if we were talking about a 50% increase, but we’re not. It’s going to be at least in the ballpark of 14% if the DPR test is reliable.
 
Phil Hill said:
Even cool features like the 5D3’s silent mode will be very important to some (like me) and completely irrelevant to others.
Click to expand...
And cool features like the D800's intervalometer and in VF artificial horizon display also. In the end, no-one should be faulted for buying the camera they prefer, whatever the reason. Its their money and their reason.

--
Bob
 
bobn2 said:
Phil Hill said:
Even cool features like the 5D3’s silent mode will be very important to some (like me) and completely irrelevant to others.
Click to expand...
And cool features like the D800's intervalometer and in VF artificial horizon display also. In the end, no-one should be faulted for buying the camera they prefer, whatever the reason. Its their money and their reason.

--
Bob
Click to expand...
 
+1.

In film days, I never heard anyone argue that Kodak Technical Pan film was the best film in general and for all purposes, even though it had the highest resolving power. There were and are so many more things to an image and to a camera than resolution. This is one of the reasons why the top of the line cameras in FF are not the cameras with the highest resolution sensors.
Phil Hill said:
I’m not arguing against the additional resolution, I’m just saying 14% isn’t a tremendous increase. Before we say that 14% is a good investment we should consider the needs of a particular photographer and the two cameras in question as a whole, not just as measuring instruments.

Again, I’m not saying the higher resolution of the D800 wouldn’t be desirable with all else being equal, but all else is not equal. Some will prefer the ergonomics or color rendering of one camera over the other, some need regularly to cleanly boost shadows, some will place a priority on AF or FPS, and some will have a collection of lenses from one brand or the other, lenses they like and want to keep. Even cool features like the 5D3’s silent mode will be very important to some (like me) and completely irrelevant to others.

I think the resolution of the D800 would be compelling and difficult to resist if we were talking about a 50% increase, but we’re not. It’s going to be at least in the ballpark of 14% if the DPR test is reliable.
Click to expand...
 
Craig76 said:
I tried to explain why 36MP is only 27.8% more than 22MP to which I was surprised to see a great deal of argument. So let me try to explain what I am saying in a new thread without all the other mumbo jumbo.

Lets take width
100 pixels x 200% = 200 pixels

Now height
100 pixels x 200% = 200 pixels

100 x 100 = 10,000
200 x 200 = 40,000

So a 200% resample is 4 times as large of a file size.
Click to expand...
no, it is 200% x 200% resample.
Craig76 said:
Remember it is a 2 dimensional object. So to double resolution going up and across you need 4x as many pixels.
Click to expand...
You problem is that you still do not understand resolution is two dimensional, a.k.e concept of Area . you have to time the increase in one dimension with the other.
Craig76 said:
Some people where saying that going from 1x1 to 2x2 is actually 4x as large. In a sense it is,
Click to expand...
It is bcause it is simple math.
Craig76 said:
but in actual detail (resampling) it is only 2x as large.
Click to expand...
No, it is four times.
Craig76 said:
I think this is where some of the confusion arose.
Click to expand...
But I do not see how confusiion should arise.

Simple question which you still have not answered, 100x100 compared to 100x150, how much resolution increase do we have?
 
ultimitsu said:
You problem is that you still do not understand resolution is two dimensional, a.k.e concept of Area . you have to time the increase in one dimension with the other.
Click to expand...
No, resolution is linear, such as a certain number of pixels per inch, or line pairs per centimeter. There are a number of different ways to measure and specify resolution, but they're linear.

When looking at an area you're measuring density, as in a certain number of pixels per square centimeter. You can calculate resolution from this measurement, but it's not resolution by itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top