A7iii vs A7Riii

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
andrewD2 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,190
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

SafariBob wrote:

andrewD2 wrote:

in a camera, each “pixel” contains just one color. Hence the pixel in a camera is comparable to a sub pixel in a display. For each full color site, there are 2 green, one red and one blue in a camera.

thus an 8k display contains 32 “camera” pixels, which are actually 24 rgb sub pixels.

in order to make the effect of pixels, interpolation, etc negligible, you need to oversample.

No, I'm not the one confused here.
Yes, the Bayer array is there on the camera sensor meaning you get RGGB per 4 pixels.
So ok, if you want to bin each 4 RGGB pixels to a superpixel you get ONE factor of 4 in your calculation. Bayer interpolation is better than that but OK, lets run with the x4 factor for the SENSOR array.
Your OTHER subpixel screen factor is bogus. However many subpixels the screen uses to be able to show ONE image pixel we group those subpixels together in the same way
and call each, well, we just call it "a pixel".

By your calculations you'd need a 683MP camera for an 8K screen. Your calculation is off by a factor that doesn't exist.

You need to oversample. The cameras correct for optical aberrations etc.

4x (which effectively is 1x) is probably fine, but what i am saying is that 16x (which is effectively 4x) probably is sufficient to outresolve any pixel issues in all by the most extreme cases.

Why do you think film was mastered in 4K before being transferred to 1080p blueray? Why does 70mm exist? Why do film studios shoot in 6k or beyond when cinemas are 4K? This is moving image, where resolution is much less discernible.

those are rhetorical questions. No need to answer. And forgive me if I don’t. Read my original post. Nothing there is wrong or controversial.

Edit: when I bought my first dslr, it was 6mp, people were making the same arguments back then. My second was 12mp. It’s blatantly obvious with today’s equipment which is which. And that’s part of it too, you keep your images for life presumably, and it’s a bit sad when the resolution just isn’t there. Not always. Sometimes a less resolved picture has more ambiance. Photographers frequently add grain in post. But storage is so cheap these days, do your efforts justice and capture what you can.

Wait, now its oversampling 16x not bayer x4 and display subpixel x4?
Having sufficient pixels to resolve textures without moire would be great.
But when you look at the A7III vs A7RIII at 4K the moire effects are worse on the A7RIII.
Download the raws from dpreview, resize to 4K anyway you like and see for yourself.

My partner used to be an iMax projectionist btw.

And I know where you are coming from, while most were shooting 6MP-12MP I was using a 1DsIII. 
I'd still not put anyone off a A7III based on viewing 4K images because above ISO800 I prefer the A7III images and at all ISOs I find the A7III has the better colour. Operation shot to shot is so fast.

The A7RIII might be better for some but the hyperbole in this thread could push someone into spending more money on something that will not get better photographs of his toddler running around.

My friend has a 100MP H6D, I had a go with a nice Rodenstock 40mm lens. At 4K you can't see the difference from the 42MP camera even with the weaker 28mm f2. Same detailed scene, the view from my window.


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