A7iii vs A7Riii

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
SafariBob Contributing Member • Posts: 835
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

kolyy wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

kolyy wrote:

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.

I wonder if you have ever tried what argue for in real life

all the time. As an example, in my version of Lightroom, when you edit, photos are lineskipped, when you bake a jpeg, they are oversample. Huge difference

This has no relevance for the discussion.

then I am unsure whether you are discussing the same topic, that’s essentially oversampling vs not.

. I crop images down to 8Mpx quite regularly and it is very hard to pick out an 8Mpx image among 24Mpx ones,

I do that all the time also. I shoot a lot of wildlife, so there is tons of cropping. If you feel that way, why do you have full frame? You could do well with apsc or even 1 inch.

Your comment make zero sense to me. Why exactly should I move to a smaller sensor and loose all the flexibility the large one provides me?

you are claiming an 8mpx crop is indiscernible from a 24mpx full capture, why not get an rx100?

You seem to think resolution is all that matters.

where did I make this statement?

As for me, I only need enough. And a sharp picture on a UHD screen is enough resolution to me.

when viewing on a UHD screen

I do have a uhd screen, but mostly use a laptop with quarter the resolution, very visible there.

Are you seriously claiming that you can see a difference between an 8MPx and a 24Mpx image on a 2Mpx FHD screen?

an 8mpx crop, definitely. An 8mpx image from an 8mp sensor of equivalent technology. Probably not in many cases, depending how much detail there is. No such sensor exists though, but it’s frequently not difficult to see difference between a7s and a7r2 on 2mp screen:

I would suggest you to make a blind experiment to get back to reality. I hope you understand we are talking about displaying the whole image, not magnifying it.

i have done it many time to justify upgrades despites people spreading erroneous tropes about resolution not mattering

. Bayer interpolation works very well indeed. Granted, if you magnify the image way beyond normal viewing, you can find artifacts, compared to an oversampled image.

its extremely apparent. How old are you? You may need decent eyesight to see it, but should be clearly visible to anyone 40 or below. Or if you have decent eyesight.

please answer this question. It really does make a difference whether you are 27 or 70. If you are 70, your experience really isn’t relevant for people under 40.

As for video, there is an advantage in oversampling, but it is much smaller than you think. Try to compare an oversampled 4K video from the A7III with the one without oversampling from an APS-C crop (choose "4K APS-C" from the drop down list for the A7 III on the right):

the oversampled a7iii is markedly better than the unoversampled a7sii, if there is significant detail. The a7s 1080p (oversampled) is shockingly better than the a7 stock 1080p

I wanted you to compare the oversampled vs "unoversampled" 4K on the A7 III, not 1080p, which is line-skipped.

there is no unoversampling without cropping or line skipping


this is clearly visible in your own tool. I don’t get why people insist on misinforming others.

The difference I am talking about is indeed visible in a magnified view, but completely negligible at normal viewing distances.

maybe you are happy with dvd. I find a good dvd decent. But prefer bluray. A great 4K blu ray is even better

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow