f-number equivalent between m43 and FF

Started Mar 25, 2014 | Discussions thread
crames Regular Member • Posts: 192
Re: Matching image size is good ?

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

Matching image size is not the only way to go.

I can't see how any other approach is relevant to photography. It might be to astronomy or some other branch of imaging, but for photographic purposes we have the intent of making an image to display the size we choose, not what the medium chooses, though we might choose the medium according to the size we intend to display.

It's relevant for photographers who who want to make large prints, as in "how large can I print this and still have good quality?" It's knowing whether the display size we choose is within the capability of the equipment to produce a desired quality level.

Resampling images down to a common monitor resolution is one thing, they will probably tend to converge to a similar appearance. It's going in the other direction where you find the limits.

For instance, in the old film days, when we compared the grain size (and other properties) of , say Pan F and HP4 we didn't magnify them different amounts to equalise the grain size.

OK, but what is magnification in digital photography? When resampling to make one image match the size of another, is the magnification the same or is it different amounts?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow