Reading mode: Light Dark

High and Low Rez Images from SD1 Merrill.

Go to last post
L

larryj

Forum Pro
Messages
13,094
Reaction score
9,018
Location
Denver, US
My family visited a local park and lake this passed Sunday. While sitting and enjoying a beautiful spring day, I noticed a pair if gents at a rail below me, bird watching. I decided to grab a couple of shots with my DS1 Merrill and the 18-35 mm Art lens. The first at low resolution (near SD9 pixel pitch) and a second a high Resolution.

The exercise was just for fun and to see, aside from the file size, if there was a noticeable difference in the images. What do you think?









Enjoy! ;)

--
Cheers,
larryj
If you can see the light, you can photograph it
Quote from Myron Woods
 

Attachments

  • 4162444.jpg
    4162444.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 0
  • 4162446.jpg
    4162446.jpg
    10.6 MB · Views: 0
little confused as to first second nomenclature. The top image posted looks better than the lower image to me. Why are they both the same size?

Mike
 
larryj said:
My family visited a local park and lake this passed Sunday. While sitting and enjoying a beautiful spring day, I noticed a pair if gents at a rail below me, bird watching. I decided to grab a couple of shots with my DS1 Merrill and the 18-35 mm Art lens. The first at low resolution (near SD9 pixel pitch) and a second a high Resolution.

The exercise was just for fun and to see, aside from the file size, if there was a noticeable difference in the images. What do you think?





Enjoy! ;)
Click to expand...
That is an Interesting comparison of technical image quality.

The LowRes image has larger and stronger sharpening artifacts.

There is quite a bit of moiré in the LowRes image, particularly visible on the black or dark grey sweater, but also in the water.

Colorwise they are very similar I would say. But the HiRes image renders the water much better, IMHO.

The LowRes image has a little more pronounced local contrast in some areas but I would assume this is related to post processing. Noise in the shadows is no longer resolved in LowRes (which looks good).

On the whole I prefer the HiRes image because it has much more detail, better water rendering, less moiré and almost no disadvantage compared to the LoRes image.
 
larryj said:
<>

The exercise was just for fun and to see, aside from the file size, if there was a noticeable difference in the images. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Noticeable indeed, Larry:

b9562ed4a7114feb972e15cb07c68adb.jpg


I normally shot in low-res with my SD1 Merrill, having no need for more.

The above differences are due to conversion and post-processing, IMHO, not due to the difference in raw resolution..

--
Pedantry is hard work, but someone's gotta do it ...
 
Last edited:
D Cox said:
The small version has sharpening haloes and I can see a good deal more detail in the full size version.
Click to expand...
I probably over processed the low rez version. Here is a better example of low rez:

Sorry there is no comparison image here because on this day I was shooting low rez by mistake ;(


D Cox said:
Interesting comparison. I shan't be using the Low Rez setting on my DP3M now that I've looked at these.

Thanks for this.

Don
Click to expand...
--
Cheers,
larryj
If you can see the light, you can photograph it
Quote from Myron Woods
 
Last edited:
xpatUSA said:
larryj said:
<>

The exercise was just for fun and to see, aside from the file size, if there was a noticeable difference in the images. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Noticeable indeed, Larry:

b9562ed4a7114feb972e15cb07c68adb.jpg


I normally shot in low-res with my SD1 Merrill, having no need for more.

The above differences are due to conversion and post-processing, IMHO, not due to the difference in raw resolution..
Click to expand...
How about this low rez image Ted: less post processing ;)









--
Cheers,
larryj
If you can see the light, you can photograph it
Quote from Myron Woods
 
larryj said:
xpatUSA said:
larryj said:
<>

The exercise was just for fun and to see, aside from the file size, if there was a noticeable difference in the images. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Noticeable indeed, Larry!



The differences are due to conversion and post-processing, IMHO, not due to the difference in raw resolution..
Click to expand...
How about this low rez image Ted: less post processing ;)

Click to expand...
Yep, jaggies and such nicely subdued e.g. backlit hairs on the animal's neck viewed at 800%.

Good job ...

--
Pedantry is hard work, but someone's gotta do it ...
 
docmaas said:
little confused as to first second nomenclature. The top image posted looks better than the lower image to me. Why are they both the same size?
Click to expand...
HI Mike: The images are not the same size, the high Rez image is 10.6 MB and the low Rez images is 2.8 MB. The top image is the low rez image, and it is a little over processed. Below is a low rez images with less processing:



I think I could be happy shooting low rez and using AI to upsize if I wanted to make very large prints. I doubt I would actually do that, but it sounds good in print! ;)
docmaas said:
Mike
Click to expand...


--
Cheers,
larryj
If you can see the light, you can photograph it
Quote from Myron Woods
 
xpatUSA said:
larryj said:
xpatUSA said:
larryj said:
<>

The exercise was just for fun and to see, aside from the file size, if there was a noticeable difference in the images. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Noticeable indeed, Larry!

The differences are due to conversion and post-processing, IMHO, not due to the difference in raw resolution..
Click to expand...
How about this low rez image Ted: less post processing ;)

Click to expand...
Yep, jaggies and such nicely subdued e.g. backlit hairs on the animal's neck viewed at 800%.

Good job ...
Click to expand...
Thanks Ted!



--
Cheers,
larryj
If you can see the light, you can photograph it
Quote from Myron Woods
 
larryj said:
docmaas said:
little confused as to first second nomenclature. The top image posted looks better than the lower image to me. Why are they both the same size?
Click to expand...
HI Mike: The images are not the same size, the high Rez image is 10.6 MB and the low Rez images is 2.8 MB. The top image is the low rez image, and it is a little over processed. Below is a low rez images with less processing:



I think I could be happy shooting low rez and using AI to upsize if I wanted to make very large prints. I doubt I would actually do that, but it sounds good in print! ;)
larryj said:
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think this one is more successful, with no sharpening halos.

But I have to say that I can't see the point of shooting in low res.

Don Cox
 
D Cox said:
But I have to say that I can't see the point of shooting in low res.

Don Cox
Click to expand...
As I sit here gazing at my 1920x1200px monitor and no plans for a higher pixel count, I'm wondering why you said that ...
 
D Cox said:
larryj said:
docmaas said:
little confused as to first second nomenclature. The top image posted looks better than the lower image to me. Why are they both the same size?
Click to expand...
HI Mike: The images are not the same size, the high Rez image is 10.6 MB and the low Rez images is 2.8 MB. The top image is the low rez image, and it is a little over processed. Below is a low rez images with less processing:



I think I could be happy shooting low rez and using AI to upsize if I wanted to make very large prints. I doubt I would actually do that, but it sounds good in print! ;)
D Cox said:
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think this one is more successful, with no sharpening halos.

But I have to say that I can't see the point of shooting in low res.

Don Cox
Click to expand...
Hello again Don: I like to shoot in low rez at times because the processing time is considerably shorter and if I do not think I will be making print larger than 11X14 there is really no reason to shoot high rez. That being said, I don't often shoot in low rez, because i just might get an extraordinary image that says print me big! ;)



--
Cheers,
larryj
If you can see the light, you can photograph it
Quote from Myron Woods
 
larryj said:
My family visited a local park and lake this passed Sunday. While sitting and enjoying a beautiful spring day, I noticed a pair if gents at a rail below me, bird watching. I decided to grab a couple of shots with my DS1 Merrill and the 18-35 mm Art lens. The first at low resolution (near SD9 pixel pitch) and a second a high Resolution.

The exercise was just for fun and to see, aside from the file size, if there was a noticeable difference in the images. What do you think?





Enjoy! ;)
Click to expand...
As the happy owner of an sdQ... Honestly... I think tests or experiments like this one really make the point that the less "dense" images, with much less detail and data... Look only a little bit like that...If you can tell any difference at all.. The point is that MOST of the images that people produce are worthless anyway, to anyone but themselves and the quietly suffering spouse. So the question might be, how do we get the most out of the lower res images?

Or, what should we ask from an image, in terms of detail?

I have no idea.

It is kind of fun to examine an image in minute detail and see what we can, in terms of how big we can make the image. It may be fun, and I am a big fan of having fun... But in the end, so what?





--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox
 
richard stone said:
larryj said:
My family visited a local park and lake this passed Sunday. While sitting and enjoying a beautiful spring day, I noticed a pair if gents at a rail below me, bird watching. I decided to grab a couple of shots with my DS1 Merrill and the 18-35 mm Art lens. The first at low resolution (near SD9 pixel pitch) and a second a high Resolution.
Click to expand...
As the happy owner of an sdQ... Honestly... I think tests or experiments like this one really make the point that the less "dense" images, with much less detail and data... Look only a little bit like that...If you can tell any difference at all.. The point is that MOST of the images that people produce are worthless anyway, to anyone but themselves and the quietly suffering spouse. So the question might be, how do we get the most out of the lower res images?

Or, what should we ask from an image, in terms of detail?

I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Personally, Richard, I ask that the image has enough "detail" for the intended medium.

In my case, the intended medium is my 24-inch "2K" monitor, 1920x1200px or 2.3MP. So, a Merrill 3.6MP low-res image is more than enough.

Scott, who on the other hand often quotes a desire to print at 40x60", obviously needs a few MP more, e.g. 40x60 at 150 dpi = 54MP - or 216MP at 300 dpi ...

--
Pedantry is hard work, but someone's gotta do it ...
 
Last edited:
paulsch said:
larryj said:
My family visited a local park and lake this passed Sunday. While sitting and enjoying a beautiful spring day, I noticed a pair if gents at a rail below me, bird watching. I decided to grab a couple of shots with my DS1 Merrill and the 18-35 mm Art lens. The first at low resolution (near SD9 pixel pitch) and a second a high Resolution.

The exercise was just for fun and to see, aside from the file size, if there was a noticeable difference in the images. What do you think?





Enjoy! ;)
Click to expand...
That is an Interesting comparison of technical image quality.

The LowRes image has larger and stronger sharpening artifacts.

There is quite a bit of moiré in the LowRes image, particularly visible on the black or dark grey sweater, but also in the water.

Colorwise they are very similar I would say. But the HiRes image renders the water much better, IMHO.

The LowRes image has a little more pronounced local contrast in some areas but I would assume this is related to post processing. Noise in the shadows is no longer resolved in LowRes (which looks good).

On the whole I prefer the HiRes image because it has much more detail, better water rendering, less moiré and almost no disadvantage compared to the LoRes image.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing something, but if one wants to do a comparison, wouldn't you set everything as matched as possible, with no in camera processing or post? Unless you can't change or alter some sort of auto stuff hardwired in the software. Maybe that's what happened in the low res.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top