Reading mode: Light Dark

Take the D600 vs. D700 detal challenge

Go to last post
moving_comfort said:
Anyone who prints at any size above or below native resolution, or displays at any web size above 1024p would be able to use the method I (and others) have used - upsizing or downsizing and then taking a comparitive crop of that.
Click to expand...
I am sorry to say, you expose yourself (continuously) as complete ignorant on the matter...

1.There is no such thing as "native resolution", on monitor what you see as 100% is 72 ppi and this is independent from sensor's pixel density... at 100% you also see (on monitor) 1 pixel/1 pixel of screen but all modern monitors do bear 72 pixels/inch.

2. If you alter that by (up or down) sampling, what you do, is create pixels of your own, by not increasing resolution of the scene at all... you only induce some artifacts due to creating pixels of your own...

3. If you print at the same size of print, the same image twice... one at 144ppi untouched and another at 288ppi up sampled.. you'll see no difference in the print... (artifacts that will be created will be invisible), but that is the best upsampling that you can do... (each pixel is divided to 4 smaller ones that addition of them equals it... still all of them bearing the same information), up sampling should only be done if you want to print on an image that originally is aimed to be printed in ...less than 72 ppi...

4. If you print on a great plotter (I use Epson 9900), the print will be done at either 720 or 1440 or 2880 dpi and this is irrelevant to what ppi the intended picture comes up... (that's why the untouched/supsampled previous example will print the same), what makes a difference is to take care that DPI divide accurately with PPI... i.e. (if you print at 1440 dpi) 1440 : 288 = 5 (dots per pixel) or 1440 : 144 = 10...

So... A. Comparisons with up sampling/downsampling on screen (pixel peeping) is inaccurate, B. Comparisons can only be made on prints of equal size with unaltered images, C. Any up sampling or downsampling can't be better than the original... (since it bares no extra information of the scene at the same size) D. Care should be taken that when printing, printing dpi should divide exactly with ppi that the unaltered original image bares....

Anything else is.... "usual web Einstein knowledge" that creates ignorants and confusion... that's how ignorance spreads... and then photographers (and photography) are not respected by people that are supposed to serve the matter....

Now, how can and a lower res sensor may print better than a higher pixel one, with unaltered images at the same size...? That, I have already answered before and yet, you (and others) didn't care to read... so have a look back!




Theodoros
 
Rens said:
Rens wrote:

I've skimmed through the above arguments about how to make accurate comparisons, and even understood one or two of them.
But while this comparison may be vaguely interesting, extra detail (if there) isn't the whole story.

Someone on the Canon forum posted saying he'd been looking through his work and realised the images he like best were all taken with his 5D Mark 1, and none with his Mark 2.

What matters to me is the overall impact of an image, it seems I'm not alone.
Click to expand...
 
What was the question? Jesus Mary & Joseph eNo as my grandmother would say, what did you start?! :)

I'm no tech, looking at the pic's I'd say this...is it worth selling a camera that cost $3K for $1K then buying another camera for $2K, effectively making the camera in my hand a $4K camera when it should be a $2K camera & I already have a $3K camera?

No.
 
scrd700 said:
scrd700 wrote:

What was the question? Jesus Mary & Joseph eNo as my grandmother would say, what did you start?! :)

I'm no tech, looking at the pic's I'd say this...is it worth selling a camera that cost $3K for $1K then buying another camera for $2K, effectively making the camera in my hand a $4K camera when it should be a $2K camera & I already have a $3K camera?

No.
Click to expand...
Which brings us to ONE conclusion only! ...That resolution of a sensor is the last thing that has to do with IQ... and a matter that only involves ignorants and trolls to talk about!

Theodoros
 
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
scrd700 wrote:

What was the question? Jesus Mary & Joseph eNo as my grandmother would say, what did you start?! :)

I'm no tech, looking at the pic's I'd say this...is it worth selling a camera that cost $3K for $1K then buying another camera for $2K, effectively making the camera in my hand a $4K camera when it should be a $2K camera & I already have a $3K camera?

No.
Click to expand...
Which brings us to ONE conclusion only! ...That resolution of a sensor is the last thing that has to do with IQ
Click to expand...
Not always the case for those who can effectively use the greater resolution.
Theodoros Fotometria said:
... and a matter that only involves ignorants and trolls to talk about.
Click to expand...
Why then do you post about it here so often :)
 
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
scrd700 wrote:

What was the question? Jesus Mary & Joseph eNo as my grandmother would say, what did you start?! :)

I'm no tech, looking at the pic's I'd say this...is it worth selling a camera that cost $3K for $1K then buying another camera for $2K, effectively making the camera in my hand a $4K camera when it should be a $2K camera & I already have a $3K camera?

No.
Click to expand...
Which brings us to ONE conclusion only! ...That resolution of a sensor is the last thing that has to do with IQ... and a matter that only involves ignorants and trolls to talk about!
Click to expand...
  1. You state that "only" ignorants and trolls talk about this subject.
  2. You made 16 posts about this subject, just in this one thread, and even more posts in other threads.
The ONE conclusion is pretty clear, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Theodoros I think I agree with with you but the last time I was as confused by something as reading this thread has left me, was when I read The Black Hole War just to prove to a friend that I could! :) I need to stop doing this to myself.
 
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 wrote:
Mako2011 said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Which brings us to ONE conclusion only! ...That resolution of a sensor is the last thing that has to do with IQ
Click to expand...
Not always the case for those who can effectively use the greater resolution.
Click to expand...
Always the case... those that can use resolution is those that ignore it as specification...
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
... and a matter that only involves ignorants and trolls to talk about.
Click to expand...
Why then do you post about it here so often :)
Click to expand...
Show me one post of mine that is about resolution being a benefit as such... or stop trolling! ...Maybe you have me misnamed for someone else... but I don't think so....

Theodoros
 
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 wrote:
Mako2011 said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Mako2011 said:
scrd700 wrote:

What was the question? Jesus Mary & Joseph eNo as my grandmother would say, what did you start?! :)

I'm no tech, looking at the pic's I'd say this...is it worth selling a camera that cost $3K for $1K then buying another camera for $2K, effectively making the camera in my hand a $4K camera when it should be a $2K camera & I already have a $3K camera?

No.
Click to expand...
Which brings us to ONE conclusion only! ...That resolution of a sensor is the last thing that has to do with IQ
Click to expand...
Not always the case for those who can effectively use the greater resolution.
Click to expand...
I've tried to explain that to him in terms of over sampling theory.
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
... and a matter that only involves ignorants and trolls to talk about.
Click to expand...
Why then do you post about it here so often :)
Click to expand...
Indeed. He is everything that he insults other people for being.

One premise, one assumption: Ockham would favor it.
 
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
scrd700 wrote:

What was the question? Jesus Mary & Joseph eNo as my grandmother would say, what did you start?! :)

I'm no tech, looking at the pic's I'd say this...is it worth selling a camera that cost $3K for $1K then buying another camera for $2K, effectively making the camera in my hand a $4K camera when it should be a $2K camera & I already have a $3K camera?

No.
Click to expand...
Which brings us to ONE conclusion only! ...That resolution of a sensor is the last thing that has to do with IQ... and a matter that only involves ignorants and trolls to talk about!
Click to expand...
  1. You state that "only" ignorants and trolls talk about this subject.
  2. You made 16 posts about this subject, just in this one thread, and even more posts in other threads.
The ONE conclusion is pretty clear, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes it is..., once I met another clown in posting, ...that suggested that when D300 was introduced was a fifth in line camera, claiming that I did so..., do you know the guy...? He also suggested that ...I suggested, ....that Nikon is intending to abandon DX for ..FX... Do you know the guy? ...Its the same clown troll that now suggests that I have ever implementented that higher resolution is better... when it is the same ignorant clown that does so.... Can you please show me one post of mine that I suggest so...? I am posting for ages now that D600's resolution in same size prints is no different to the D800... Do you know any clown that claims different...?
Theodoros
 
Hi there, Eddy-baby,

Yes it's really annoying when ignoramuses insist on posting nonsense and refuse to accept even polite correction, is it not?
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Anyone who prints at any size above or below native resolution, or displays at any web size above 1024p would be able to use the method I (and others) have used - upsizing or downsizing and then taking a comparitive crop of that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I am sorry to say, you expose yourself (continuously) as complete ignorant on the matter...

(damn editor will never format right)
Theodoros Fotometria said:
4. If you print on a great plotter (I use Epson 9900), the print will be done at either 720 or 1440 or 2880 dpi and this is irrelevant to what ppi the intended picture comes up... (that's why the untouched/supsampled previous example will print the same), what makes a difference is to take care that DPI divide accurately with PPI... i.e. (if you print at 1440 dpi) 1440 : 288 = 5 (dots per pixel) or 1440 : 144 = 10...
Click to expand...
And if you don't, the printer driver resamples in whichever undocumented way it chooses, which is why it makes sense to resample for yourself to a printer friendly resolution, one of the resolutions which does not result in the printer driver doing it for you.
Theodoros Fotometria said:
So... A. Comparisons with up sampling/downsampling on screen (pixel peeping) is inaccurate, B. Comparisons can only be made on prints of equal size with unaltered images, C. Any up sampling or downsampling can't be better than the original... (since it bares no extra information of the scene at the same size) D. Care should be taken that when printing, printing dpi should divide exactly with ppi that the unaltered original image bares....
Click to expand...
Any web viewable comparison is bound to be somewhat artificial, but if you are to print, say a 12MP and 24MP frame to the same dimensions on the same printer, they will be differentially resampled, other by yourself or the printer driver. So, if one wants to make a web comparison which bears some relationship to what same size prints would look like, it makes sense to resample to a common resolution and compare there. For instance, on a 300 ppi printer, A4 is about 9MP, A3 18MP and A2 36MP. Then it is debatable which is the best resampling technique. One could assume that any advanced user would manually resample to the required definition, or that he'd just let the printer drivers do as they will. In the latter case, one technique I have used is to print to pdf, which lets the pdf 'printer drivers' do the job, then display from the pdf file.
 
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Mako2011 wrote:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Which brings us to ONE conclusion only! ...That resolution of a sensor is the last thing that has to do with IQ
Click to expand...
Not always the case for those who can effectively use the greater resolution.
Click to expand...
Always the case... those that can use resolution is those that ignore it as specification...
Click to expand...
Not so I think. When deciding to move from D70 to D7k....DR, ISO performance, and resolution were the driving factors. Resolution was top on the list.
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
... and a matter that only involves ignorants and trolls to talk about.
Click to expand...
Why then do you post about it here so often :)
Click to expand...
Show me one post of mine that is about resolution being a benefit as such...
Click to expand...
Not being a benefit is simply the other side of the same coin in this case..... No less ignorant perhaps in this context. Have a great holiday.
 
bobn2 said:
bobn2 wrote:

Hi there, Eddy-baby,

Yes it's really annoying when ignoramuses insist on posting nonsense and refuse to accept even polite correction, is it not?
bobn2 said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
bobn2 said:
Anyone who prints at any size above or below native resolution, or displays at any web size above 1024p would be able to use the method I (and others) have used - upsizing or downsizing and then taking a comparitive crop of that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I am sorry to say, you expose yourself (continuously) as complete ignorant on the matter...

(damn editor will never format right)
bobn2 said:
4. If you print on a great plotter (I use Epson 9900), the print will be done at either 720 or 1440 or 2880 dpi and this is irrelevant to what ppi the intended picture comes up... (that's why the untouched/supsampled previous example will print the same), what makes a difference is to take care that DPI divide accurately with PPI... i.e. (if you print at 1440 dpi) 1440 : 288 = 5 (dots per pixel) or 1440 : 144 = 10...
Click to expand...
And if you don't, the printer driver resamples in whichever undocumented way it chooses, which is why it makes sense to resample for yourself to a printer friendly resolution, one of the resolutions which does not result in the printer driver doing it for you.
bobn2 said:
So... A. Comparisons with up sampling/downsampling on screen (pixel peeping) is inaccurate, B. Comparisons can only be made on prints of equal size with unaltered images, C. Any up sampling or downsampling can't be better than the original... (since it bares no extra information of the scene at the same size) D. Care should be taken that when printing, printing dpi should divide exactly with ppi that the unaltered original image bares....
Click to expand...
Any web viewable comparison is bound to be somewhat artificial, but if you are to print, say a 12MP and 24MP frame to the same dimensions on the same printer, they will be differentially resampled, other by yourself or the printer driver. So, if one wants to make a web comparison which bears some relationship to what same size prints would look like, it makes sense to resample to a common resolution and compare there. For instance, on a 300 ppi printer, A4 is about 9MP, A3 18MP and A2 36MP. Then it is debatable which is the best resampling technique. One could assume that any advanced user would manually resample to the required definition, or that he'd just let the printer drivers do as they will. In the latter case, one technique I have used is to print to pdf, which lets the pdf 'printer drivers' do the job, then display from the pdf file.
Click to expand...
 
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

2. Printer driver doesn't resample a thing... it just uses more (than one) dots, (this has only to do with printing density - nothing what so ever to do with resampling) to print the native resolution... up sampling/downsampling is only relevant to PPI nev
Click to expand...
I think I see now. It's a definition misunderstanding of the term resampling that causes you to perhaps not grasp fully the context. Makes sense..... You're speaking of oranges and the conversation is about apples. Your take on the subject makes more sense nowe
 
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes it is..., once I met another clown in posting, ...that suggested that when D300 was introduced was a fifth in line camera, claiming that I did so..., do you know the guy...? He also suggested that ...I suggested, ....that Nikon is intending to abandon DX for ..FX... Do you know the guy? ...Its the same clown troll that now suggests that I have ever implementented that higher resolution is better... when it is the same ignorant clown that does so.... Can you please show me one post of mine that I suggest so...? I am posting for ages now that D600's resolution in same size prints is no different to the D800... Do you know any clown that claims different...?

Well does somebody knows a clown that claims different....? Other than Robert, Bob, Leif, Olyfyer, TOF guy... and other "gurus" that is... Trolls! ...Bloody ignorant trolls that only can destroy photography! ...These people are all over the web, posting nonsense all the time, opposing people to gain some knowledge and becoming photographers... Bloody trolls, they come in millions! ...Just like if they where ..."Urung HIes"... "Einsteins" of nonsense is all I can say...
Theodoros
 
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 wrote:
Mako2011 said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

2. Printer driver doesn't resample a thing... it just uses more (than one) dots, (this has only to do with printing density - nothing what so ever to do with resampling) to print the native resolution... up sampling/downsampling is only relevant to PPI nev
Click to expand...
I think I see now. It's a definition misunderstanding of the term resampling that causes you to perhaps not grasp fully the context. Makes sense..... You're speaking of oranges and the conversation is about apples. Your take on the subject makes more sense nowe
Click to expand...
Oh! he saw the "light"... (that was only absent to him) guys... So..., now upsampling the ppi can only harm a print .....no?

Theodoros
 
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
bobn2 wrote:

Hi there, Eddy-baby,

Yes it's really annoying when ignoramuses insist on posting nonsense and refuse to accept even polite correction, is it not?
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Anyone who prints at any size above or below native resolution, or displays at any web size above 1024p would be able to use the method I (and others) have used - upsizing or downsizing and then taking a comparitive crop of that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I am sorry to say, you expose yourself (continuously) as complete ignorant on the matter...

(damn editor will never format right)
Theodoros Fotometria said:
4. If you print on a great plotter (I use Epson 9900), the print will be done at either 720 or 1440 or 2880 dpi and this is irrelevant to what ppi the intended picture comes up... (that's why the untouched/supsampled previous example will print the same), what makes a difference is to take care that DPI divide accurately with PPI... i.e. (if you print at 1440 dpi) 1440 : 288 = 5 (dots per pixel) or 1440 : 144 = 10...
Click to expand...
And if you don't, the printer driver resamples in whichever undocumented way it chooses, which is why it makes sense to resample for yourself to a printer friendly resolution, one of the resolutions which does not result in the printer driver doing it for you.
Theodoros Fotometria said:
So... A. Comparisons with up sampling/downsampling on screen (pixel peeping) is inaccurate, B. Comparisons can only be made on prints of equal size with unaltered images, C. Any up sampling or downsampling can't be better than the original... (since it bares no extra information of the scene at the same size) D. Care should be taken that when printing, printing dpi should divide exactly with ppi that the unaltered original image bares....
Click to expand...
Any web viewable comparison is bound to be somewhat artificial, but if you are to print, say a 12MP and 24MP frame to the same dimensions on the same printer, they will be differentially resampled, other by yourself or the printer driver. So, if one wants to make a web comparison which bears some relationship to what same size prints would look like, it makes sense to resample to a common resolution and compare there. For instance, on a 300 ppi printer, A4 is about 9MP, A3 18MP and A2 36MP. Then it is debatable which is the best resampling technique. One could assume that any advanced user would manually resample to the required definition, or that he'd just let the printer drivers do as they will. In the latter case, one technique I have used is to print to pdf, which lets the pdf 'printer drivers' do the job, then display from the pdf file.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
bobn2 wrote:

Hi there, Eddy-baby,

Yes it's really annoying when ignoramuses insist on posting nonsense and refuse to accept even polite correction, is it not?
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Theodoros Fotometria wrote:
Theodoros Fotometria said:
Anyone who prints at any size above or below native resolution, or displays at any web size above 1024p would be able to use the method I (and others) have used - upsizing or downsizing and then taking a comparitive crop of that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I am sorry to say, you expose yourself (continuously) as complete ignorant on the matter...

(damn editor will never format right)
Theodoros Fotometria said:
4. If you print on a great plotter (I use Epson 9900), the print will be done at either 720 or 1440 or 2880 dpi and this is irrelevant to what ppi the intended picture comes up... (that's why the untouched/supsampled previous example will print the same), what makes a difference is to take care that DPI divide accurately with PPI... i.e. (if you print at 1440 dpi) 1440 : 288 = 5 (dots per pixel) or 1440 : 144 = 10...
Click to expand...
And if you don't, the printer driver resamples in whichever undocumented way it chooses, which is why it makes sense to resample for yourself to a printer friendly resolution, one of the resolutions which does not result in the printer driver doing it for you.
Theodoros Fotometria said:
So... A. Comparisons with up sampling/downsampling on screen (pixel peeping) is inaccurate, B. Comparisons can only be made on prints of equal size with unaltered images, C. Any up sampling or downsampling can't be better than the original... (since it bares no extra information of the scene at the same size) D. Care should be taken that when printing, printing dpi should divide exactly with ppi that the unaltered original image bares....
Click to expand...
Any web viewable comparison is bound to be somewhat artificial, but if you are to print, say a 12MP and 24MP frame to the same dimensions on the same printer, they will be differentially resampled, other by yourself or the printer driver. So, if one wants to make a web comparison which bears some relationship to what same size prints would look like, it makes sense to resample to a common resolution and compare there. For instance, on a 300 ppi printer, A4 is about 9MP, A3 18MP and A2 36MP. Then it is debatable which is the best resampling technique. One could assume that any advanced user would manually resample to the required definition, or that he'd just let the printer drivers do as they will. In the latter case, one technique I have used is to print to pdf, which lets the pdf 'printer drivers' do the job, then display from the pdf file.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
moving_comfort said:
moving_comfort wrote.

Ted, you should quit while you're behind.

Your Epson probably uses the Nearest Neighbor interpolation method to upsample. It's the simplest and requires the least computation time, which is why you may not want to leave it up to the printer.
Click to expand...
But what my Epson does is irrelevant... you only have to adapt that in your printing method DPI res...! ...What is it that you don't understand?
moving_comfort said:
Lightroom uses an adaptive bicubic method as I've said before. How it adapts is proprietary information, but it's assumed that it starts as straight bicubic and then moves to bicubic smoother depending on the size of the enlargement. The cubic sampling methods take several times the computation time that Nearest Neighbor does, which is why it's more appropriate for, say, a Lightroom export.

Here's some easy reading for you:
Click to expand...
1. Don't send me again ones employment solutions ..."Creating Einstein web articles"as ...facts! Discuss on the matter! Web is full of crap.... can't you see that?

2. Whatever LR uses is irrelevant to inducing artifacts by not being able to add resolution since your scene is already there and does bear the resolution that was shot with... Are you or any "Einstein" going to ...give birth to resolution that doesn't exist?

Theodoros
http://www.fotometria.gr
http://www.fotometriawedding.gr
 
Last edited:
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