32 mp really?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Jonas Palm Contributing Member • Posts: 952
Re: 32 mp really?

cba_melbourne wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeepit wrote:

frst16 wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

frst16 wrote:

If 4K is roughly 8mp, a 6.7mp still displays superbly on my 42” tv (3ft on the long edge). 12mp D700/300 had enough detail to see individual eye-lashes of a portrait shot, and there is even more detail within the 20mp EM1 mkiI or G9 images.

What is the advantage of going to 32mp?

For your use case, watching the full area of the captured image on a legacy TV, there is no advantage to higher resolution sensors, now or ever.

But that is not how all images are used, all the time, by all photographers.

Personally, I’d prefer a 8000x6000 (or even better 12kx9k) sensor. Sonys 100MP FF sensor will be very interesting to see in action for instance. And if you go to optyzcne.pl and check out their multisample shots from the S1r, you’ll get an appreciation for just how much information is lost by low resolution sensor sampling, (and just how far we have to go to get rid of sensor sampling effects on the final image.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusion with how much information is lost when using a lower resolution sensor, but how much of that can you actually see when viewing an image? Does it only become apparent when you are told that one was shot at 8mp vs 100mp

If you displayed a 3x2ft image shot at 8mp vs 100mp and viewed at a suitable distance to appreciate the image. Would you really see a difference? Or is it only when you start looking at a

pixel peeping level

that is the exactly what it comes down to... viewing distance. This has been said so many times in the past on this forum and will continue to have this conversation pertaining to viewing distances & pixel peeping in the future.

Viewing distance of course plays a critical part , but I have found that very large prints seem to encourage folk to move closer to look at the fine detail I have a 72" wide panoramic photo framed on my living room wall { stitched from half a dozen A7rIII shots }.

It is a very detailed view from a mountain overlooking the area I live in . Folks reactions are typically wow look at the size of that , then they invariably move closer to see the fine detail . I think that "Where's Wally?" syndrome is part of human nature .

This has been my experience as well. As long as people perceive that "there is more", they will tend to move into the image. And if the detail is subjectively infinite (think contact prints from yesteryear) your eye/mind has a much easier time accepting the image as a window into another place/time. Something qualitative happens when there is no percievable limit.

And as I’ve said many times here, the days of images primarily being enjoyed as prints are long gone. Everyone I know uses screens where they can zoom into the picture to their hearts content, even my severely elderly parents. (And it’s a godsend to them as their eyesight is deteriorating). IPads {insert your own brand of choice} are fantastic for them, allowing them to enlarge images/text/buttons as they please. And they do. All the time.

There is no upper resolution limit any more when it comes to image viewing. All those formulas where you plug in image size and viewing distance (and CoC and...) are useless now. This plays havoc with assumptions about DOF, but also underlying processing such as sharpening.

I agree the ability to zoom in with the flick of a finger is both a boon and a bit of curse at times as any issues with your image can be seen in gory detail Viewing on devices that allow for such zooming is I assume the most popular way of looking at digital images , though I love large prints

I also make occasional large prints. Love the physicality of them, and if you hang them on a wall, being ever present will make them ingrained into your mind and memory.

It’s not an either/or proposition. But lets be clear about statistics here. Several billion new images are shared on the internet every day. So how many more images stay on phones or computers? A factor of hundred? A factor of thousand? Compared to that photo print volumes are completely negligeable. So generalizing about photographic needs based on (no cropping allowed!) prints, is intellectually dishonest, and only applies to an infinitesimally small number of images overall.

The thing is this, mainly exceptional pictures, pictures that speak directly to your brain, make it to a large print. Those pictures almost invariably will be seen as a whole from a distance. Because they engage the viewer and entice emotions. There is no need nor desire to zoom in to discover something relevant.

Ah, but you can turn that around, and have images which have a relatively small point of interest, and the majority of the canvas provides context and scale. In the film days, those images where mostly shot on slide film. They didn’t really work on the typical print sizes of the time anymore than they do on phone screens today.

They can be quite striking.

And they are rather the opposite of filling the frame with your subject.

(Even when you make an image along that school of thought, some really benefit not only from the impression of unlimited detail, but for instance Don’s Small Critters of Horror become even more so when you zoom into their mandibles....)

 Jonas Palm's gear list:Jonas Palm's gear list
Olympus E-M1
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow