Need more MP

Lee Jay said:

It's the other way around. If the pixels are too large, how can you tell what is resolved versus what is obscured by visible pixels?

Click to expand...

If the pixels are so small and you are not going with your nose touching the screen, then you won't recognize them and can't tell the unsharpness at pixel level. I am still curious about what type of math you did, that you come to this conclusion.

Lee Jay said:

Lee Jay said:

And with good upscaling methodes, there is nothing unsharp about "small" upscalings.

Click to expand...

It's still not nearly as good as an increase in native resolution.

Click to expand...

Off course not. But my point is, there is no NEED. It sounds, otherwise the images in fullscreen becomes unusable and nobody can watch them. And we should wait, if it is needed, as software upscaling methodes are good today. Even my monitor have this magic upscaling methodes, but I don't use it now. Wait for facts, until testing is done and don't talk about the "NEED" now.

Lee Jay said:

The whole point is for the image, not the display, to limit what you can see in the image.

Click to expand...

About what limits are you talking? Upscaling 8mp images to 14mp? Upscaling does not loose details. Your image does not become worse. With the upscaling methods today, it does look good. And lets wait if this is true for these new high mp count displays.

Lee Jay said:

No, they'll look better. But an image taken with good technique of native resolution or above will look even better. And isn't that the OP's point?

Click to expand...

I don't think, that they will look better in fullscreen. Because the difference is too small. How big will be the display? Thats important. But again, that depends on the upscaling methode.

Lee Jay said:

Some of my "displays" are of much higher resolution than the hypothetical Apple display - a 30x20 print. And we've had those available for some time.

Click to expand...

What pixel count and monitor size?

The limit is human visual acuity, and I did the math on that.
--
Lee Jay

CreeDo said:

The price tag is going to make your eyes water, I guarantee it. The display alone will add $1000 to $2000 to the cost of the computer.

Click to expand...

$2,500. Dell announced a 5120 x 2880 display a while back, and that's price.

Pretty sweet. Still nowhere near the 8K/120Hz holy grail, but a nice step towards that.

AlphaTikal said:

And why do you want more MP, when Apple increases display pixel count? And does it matter what sensor size it is? What is the relation and why do you "NEED" more? I don't understand this.

Click to expand...

If you don't understand the need for more Mp, you don't need them. That does not mean other people don't, some might and in fact many do. I don't understand the need for instagramming one's salad or the use of remote synchronized flash guns. But I know other people do.

Increased resolution, regardless of the final output for viewing, will always allow for better results if any manipulation of the image is done in post, including:

• cropping
• rotation
• distortion correction
• perspective correction
• NR
• sharpening/edge detection
• HDR

I look forward to my 50Mp FF camera, hopefully within a year. I have terabytes of space available and hungry.

darklamp said:

Anyone looking for more megapixles is certainly someone obsessed with pixel level detail. It's exactly the reason the OP gave ( viewing at 100% on these silly extreme res screens ).

And if teh OP accepts that the image as a whole is all that matters then the OP doesn't need all this resolution in the first place, because all he wants it for is to fill the screen at 1:! pixel ratios.

But even if we accept your argument, it's all predicated on the assumption that the person seeking the higher pixel count won;t pixel peep. And as I've said it's exactly what the OP wants to do.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about pixel peeping. I said view images full screen. Full screen has nothing to do with 1:1 or 100% pixel peeping, and actually the opposite because at full screen mode you are likely viewing at more than 100% (if an image is less than the screen resolution) or less than 100% (if an image is more than the screen resolution). The only time the two coincides (100% at full screen) is when an image and the screen are exactly the same resolution, and that's very unlikely.

I'm not suggesting we need exactly the same resolution/MP as the iMac so I can pixel peep at 100%. What I am suggesting is the minimum of 18MP so we can view images at full screen without upscaling.

There are perfectly valid reasons to view images full screen. Like viewing images in slide show mode. Either myself or with friends and families. Full screen eliminates all distractions and let us concentrate on images.

Am I the only one using full screen slide show?

colonel444 said:

Apple will release new iMac with 5120 x 2880 resolution in less than 2 weeks. It has more resolution than many current cameras. Soon cameras less than 18MP will be considered small, especially those with large sensors (m43 and above).

Click to expand...

Im all for higher pixel counts but I wouldn't worry too much about that MacBook. At that insane rez (nearly 15mp), unless your face is 3 inches from the screen your eyes won't be able to resolve individual pixels anyway. This means even if you have to uprez an 8mp file to full screen, you won't likely see pixel blocking. Nothing of this sort will matter unless you are close enough to see individual pixels on your display.

Now this may happen sooner than later with computer monitors since those tend to be closer to our face and larger. I have a 32" 1080p LED and I can definitely see the pixels from 2' away which is about my standard viewing distance, for me upgrading to 4k will benefit my eyes. Unless that MacBook is like 30"+ I doubt you will see the pixels from normal viewing distances. Nothing wrong with wanting more sensor rez though, it's great for cropping and printing big.

Incidentally this is something I have brought up about phones. Those small sensors are going to be in trouble soon. If im looking at it on a 32" 4k computer monitor (8mp) and the phone is only 12mp, that's not much wiggle room, but increasing pixel count on such a small sensor won't really help much thanks to noise levels. Once noise is the limiting factor to the resolving power, more pixels does exactly nothing to help.

Basically when you have a display that lets you see all of that 4k+ resolution, the smaller the sensor the more it's going to show it's weakness. If you can see the pixels on a 4k monitor, it's going to show any flaws to a greater degree, including noise or NR smearing. IMO the era of 4k is going to make compacts and smart phones look really really bad.

The deep waters are a'comin, and im gonna hop on a bigger boat.

What? You are talking about the need for camera megapixels, where this subject is about monitor pixels. Your arguments are for camera and I am with you in that point. I wish my A77M2 would have 50mp. But thats a different story.

What I don't understand is, why someone NEED more mp, because the monitor output have more resolution? The images of your camera will be the same and with todays upscaling methods (if your camera have less than 14mp) the image will not look worse.

Everyone reading this has a camera, an image editor, and a computer. All the stuff needed to do your own experiments in the effects of upscaling and downscaling on noise and sharpness. But it seems pontificating in a photography discussion is much easier than trying it out for yourself.