Studio Scene at 4:3 downsampled to 4K, Z8 and GFX 100

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

Click to expand...

That's a JPEG file. Compression on top of compression, in one case.

Click to expand...

Sure. But this file looks 99% the same as the raw, on the left, and on my monitor.

Click to expand...

Here's what I see in Ps, as a PNG.



Oh, rats! DPR turned it into a JPEG.

At least both images have the same compression.

There is no question that there is less Bayer color aliasing in the 100 MP image.

Click to expand...

Thanks. So I see three things now:

1. The top image is the better one, is that the GFX?

Click to expand...

No, the top image is from the Z8. That's why there's more color aliasing.

Ap0ll0n said:

2. Both images are way better than what I saw (my image to the right)

3. My RAW GFX looks very similar indeed to what you supplied and what you see.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jim, I looked at the studio pics today on my 14 in laptop and I can't see a difference, unlike when I looked at them yesterday on my 42in monitor. I think that is an important parameter to keep in mind when we're saying there is or there is not a difference, same if someone like Greg is viewing things on a 6K vs 4K monitor. Similarly, I also think it's important to state what dimensions are your supplied images downscaled to; are those dimensions enough to cover the area of a 14in or a 42in monitor?

Click to expand...

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

Click to expand...

That's a JPEG file. Compression on top of compression, in one case.

Click to expand...

Sure. But this file looks 99% the same as the raw, on the left, and on my monitor.

Click to expand...

Here's what I see in Ps, as a PNG.



Oh, rats! DPR turned it into a JPEG.

At least both images have the same compression.

There is no question that there is less Bayer color aliasing in the 100 MP image.

Click to expand...

Thanks. So I see three things now:

1. The top image is the better one, is that the GFX?

Click to expand...

No, the top image is from the Z8. That's why there's more color aliasing.

JimKasson said:

2. Both images are way better than what I saw (my image to the right)

3. My RAW GFX looks very similar indeed to what you supplied and what you see.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jim, I looked at the studio pics today on my 14 in laptop and I can't see a difference, unlike when I looked at them yesterday on my 42in monitor. I think that is an important parameter to keep in mind when we're saying there is or there is not a difference, same if someone like Greg is viewing things on a 6K vs 4K monitor. Similarly, I also think it's important to state what dimensions are your supplied images downscaled to; are those dimensions enough to cover the area of a 14in or a 42in monitor?

Click to expand...

You can look at theimages themselves to see that. They are downsampled to 2080 pixels in height, which is about the biggest image you can fit on a monitor that's 2160 pixels high. That is independent of the physical size of the monitor. On a physically bigger monitor, you'd be more likely to see differences.

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

Click to expand...

That's a JPEG file. Compression on top of compression, in one case.

Click to expand...

Sure. But this file looks 99% the same as the raw, on the left, and on my monitor.

Click to expand...

Here's what I see in Ps, as a PNG.



Oh, rats! DPR turned it into a JPEG.

At least both images have the same compression.

There is no question that there is less Bayer color aliasing in the 100 MP image.

Click to expand...

Thanks. So I see three things now:

1. The top image is the better one, is that the GFX?

Click to expand...

No, the top image is from the Z8. That's why there's more color aliasing.

Ap0ll0n said:

2. Both images are way better than what I saw (my image to the right)

3. My RAW GFX looks very similar indeed to what you supplied and what you see.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jim, I looked at the studio pics today on my 14 in laptop and I can't see a difference, unlike when I looked at them yesterday on my 42in monitor. I think that is an important parameter to keep in mind when we're saying there is or there is not a difference, same if someone like Greg is viewing things on a 6K vs 4K monitor. Similarly, I also think it's important to state what dimensions are your supplied images downscaled to; are those dimensions enough to cover the area of a 14in or a 42in monitor?

Click to expand...

You can look at theimages themselves to see that. They are downsampled to 2080 pixels in height, which is about the biggest image you can fit on a monitor that's 2160 pixels high. That is independent of the physical size of the monitor. On a physically bigger monitor, you'd be more likely to see differences.

Click to expand...

Thanks. To clarify, on my 42in 4k monitor, the ppi is around 110 whereas on my 14in 4k monitor it is over 300. Given my eyes can only resolve up to 220ppi, at normal laptop viewing distances, then of course one cannot see a difference on laptop monitors. Do you agree?

Click to expand...

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

Click to expand...

That's a JPEG file. Compression on top of compression, in one case.

Click to expand...

Sure. But this file looks 99% the same as the raw, on the left, and on my monitor.

Click to expand...

Here's what I see in Ps, as a PNG.



Oh, rats! DPR turned it into a JPEG.

At least both images have the same compression.

There is no question that there is less Bayer color aliasing in the 100 MP image.

Click to expand...

Thanks. So I see three things now:

1. The top image is the better one, is that the GFX?

Click to expand...

No, the top image is from the Z8. That's why there's more color aliasing.

JimKasson said:

2. Both images are way better than what I saw (my image to the right)

3. My RAW GFX looks very similar indeed to what you supplied and what you see.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jim, I looked at the studio pics today on my 14 in laptop and I can't see a difference, unlike when I looked at them yesterday on my 42in monitor. I think that is an important parameter to keep in mind when we're saying there is or there is not a difference, same if someone like Greg is viewing things on a 6K vs 4K monitor. Similarly, I also think it's important to state what dimensions are your supplied images downscaled to; are those dimensions enough to cover the area of a 14in or a 42in monitor?

Click to expand...

You can look at theimages themselves to see that. They are downsampled to 2080 pixels in height, which is about the biggest image you can fit on a monitor that's 2160 pixels high. That is independent of the physical size of the monitor. On a physically bigger monitor, you'd be more likely to see differences.

Click to expand...

Thanks. To clarify, on my 42in 4k monitor, the ppi is around 110 whereas on my 14in 4k monitor it is over 300. Given my eyes can only resolve up to 220ppi, at normal laptop viewing distances, then of course one cannot see a difference on laptop monitors. Do you agree?

Click to expand...

I can't speak for you and your viewing distance, but to make it a fair comparison, you'd have to view both images at distance proportional to the monitor sizes. I use different viewing distances when I'm using 32 inch and 27 inch monitors.

Click to expand...

Apollon+

Explore Apollon+’s 515 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

JimKasson said:

Rodenmg said:

JimKasson said:

Rodenmg said:

Manzur Fahim said:

JimKasson said:

Developed in Lr with default settings except for WB.

Night and day? I think not. There are some differences.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the comparison, Jim.
Forgive me, but I want to ask: I feel like when we down-sample GFX files to match a full frame camera, we are trying to show how much they are all the same. Why don't we upscale the Z8 photo and compare with GFX to show the difference a larger sensor + higher resolution camera makes at its native resolution comparing to a full frame camera?

I always think this when I see a comparison of GFX with a FF camera. Why down-grading the high-res image? Why not upscale the FF image and show how MF is superior?

Click to expand...

It’s really hard to compare two different formats in a way everyone agrees with. I believe the best way is to print both to the same size. Then you can argue at what size the difference becomes apparent.

Click to expand...

The assertion that inspired this post wasn't about printing.

Click to expand...

The difference between on screen viewing and printing is you can actually print large enough to see a difference. I don’t know of any screen big enough, with enough resolution to do that. Other than zooming in

Click to expand...

Which is the point of this thread. It's not that you can't see a difference on a 4K screen when you're viewing the full image. It's that the difference is subtle, and not the night and day delta that some have claimed.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

Click to expand...

SrMi said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

Hi Jim

If one downloads the RAW files of each of those from DPreview's tool and view them, without zooming, by flicking from one to the other, then two things become (very?) apparent:

1. The quality of each image is significantly higher than what has been supplied here (which to me doesn't look any better than an iphone pic)

Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the part about downsizing to 4K. This is a thread about differences after that downsampling.

Click to expand...

People looking at their GFX 100 images on screen may not have downsampled the image to 4K beforehand. They compare images of different resolutions as shown on a 4K monitor.

The question is whether downsampling the images to 4K emulates what people see on the monitor when they are not manually downsampled.

Click to expand...

Manzur Fahim said:

Thank you for the comparison, Jim.
Forgive me, but I want to ask: I feel like when we down-sample GFX files to match a full frame camera, we are trying to show how much they are all the same. Why don't we upscale the Z8 photo and compare with GFX to show the difference a larger sensor + higher resolution camera makes at its native resolution comparing to a full frame camera?

I always think this when I see a comparison of GFX with a FF camera. Why down-grading the high-res image? Why not upscale the FF image and show how MF is superior?

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Manzur Fahim said:

JimKasson said:

Developed in Lr with default settings except for WB.

Night and day? I think not. There are some differences.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the comparison, Jim.
Forgive me, but I want to ask: I feel like when we down-sample GFX files to match a full frame camera, we are trying to show how much they are all the same. Why don't we upscale the Z8 photo and compare with GFX to show the difference a larger sensor + higher resolution camera makes at its native resolution comparing to a full frame camera?

Click to expand...

That would make almost perfect sense if we were talking about printing. What I do is a twist on that. I resample both images to a resolution higher than either.

But in this case, we're talking about viewing the full image on a monitor.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

I always think this when I see a comparison of GFX with a FF camera. Why down-grading the high-res image? Why not upscale the FF image and show how MF is superior?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

Greg7579 said:

Manzur Fahim said:

Thank you for the comparison, Jim.
Forgive me, but I want to ask: I feel like when we down-sample GFX files to match a full frame camera, we are trying to show how much they are all the same. Why don't we upscale the Z8 photo and compare with GFX to show the difference a larger sensor + higher resolution camera makes at its native resolution comparing to a full frame camera?

I always think this when I see a comparison of GFX with a FF camera. Why down-grading the high-res image? Why not upscale the FF image and show how MF is superior?

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Jim on this thread (though he did it too here) but this whole popular narrative that is misleading and basically meaningless in terms of why we buy and shoot MF systems.

You could make this same obvious comparison between a Micro Four Thirds sensor and a sensor the size of a pea, and for what purpose? Are we trying to talk people out of buying MF gear on the DPR MF Forum while convincing the people who have it that they don't need it?

Manzur, what you just said is what I was saying all last week on those threads suggesting that it's all the same no matter what the sensor size because a little piece of the MF sensor is the same as a big piece of the smaller sensor. It was just so slanted, misleading and just plain weird.

It really is sort of infuriating. I just don't understand the motivation for doing this. It's like there is this effort here on the DPR MF Board to create this narrative of weakening the advantages of our MF system's larger sensor by constantly comparing them to FF and now even APSC by cropping, downsizing, and taking pieces of the large sensor and comparing it to the whole smaller sensor and say it is the same. Fine, but that whole argument seems like the bending of a mathematical truth into a narrative that makes no sense to me. It really is very disappointing.

What is the point, and why don't these guys try buying a MFT camera and just up sample everything to GFX size and look at it on my 6K monitor and see what it looks like. I can tell you what it will look like.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Manzur Fahim said:

JimKasson said:

Developed in Lr with default settings except for WB.

Night and day? I think not. There are some differences.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the comparison, Jim.
Forgive me, but I want to ask: I feel like when we down-sample GFX files to match a full frame camera, we are trying to show how much they are all the same. Why don't we upscale the Z8 photo and compare with GFX to show the difference a larger sensor + higher resolution camera makes at its native resolution comparing to a full frame camera?

Click to expand...

That would make almost perfect sense if we were talking about printing. What I do is a twist on that. I resample both images to a resolution higher than either.

But in this case, we're talking about viewing the full image on a monitor.

Click to expand...

This hole you dug for yourself is going to be hard to climb out of Jim.....

But we all have the occasional bad thread.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

Greg7579 said:

Greg7579 said:

I always think this when I see a comparison of GFX with a FF camera. Why down-grading the high-res image? Why not upscale the FF image and show how MF is superior?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

Rodenmg said:

It’s really hard to compare two different formats in a way everyone agrees with. I believe the best way is to print both to the same size. Then you can argue at what size the difference becomes apparent.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

Rodenmg said:

It’s really hard to compare two different formats in a way everyone agrees with. I believe the best way is to print both to the same size. Then you can argue at what size the difference becomes apparent.

Click to expand...

Or just look.

Why are we all sitting around the Medium Format campfire trying to convince each other that MF = FF if you crop it, downsize it, slice and dice it, and try really hard with some creative math to make it sound like a reasonable argument while squinting really hard without our reading glasses while taking a small piece of our big sensor and comparing it the whole sensor of the camera with the smaller sensor.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head back and forth and mumbling...

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

In my mind, the purpose of this forum is not to be a cheering section for MF photography.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

It's to help people make better use of their MF cameras, and to help people who are interested in purchasing those cameras to decide if MF would help their photography. The answer to those questions depends on many things. Among them are subject selection, price, weight, and size sensitivity, lens selection, working style, output media, etc.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

MF is better for some people and some things. It's worse for other people and other things.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Horses for courses. One size doesn't fit all. MF shouldn't be a Procrustean Bed.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Which is the point of this thread. It's not that you can't see a difference on a 4K screen when you're viewing the full image. It's that the difference is subtle, and not the night and day delta that some have claimed.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Which is the point of this thread. It's not that you can't see a difference on a 4K screen when you're viewing the full image. It's that the difference is subtle, and not the night and day delta that some have claimed.

Click to expand...

Aha! We have movement in the right direction. You now admit there is a difference, and it is visible via monitor (not just on a big print)

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

But it is not subtle. That part you still need to adjust your theory on.

Maybe it is hard to discern for you, but it's not for me.

Click to expand...

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

In my mind, the purpose of this forum is not to be a cheering section for MF photography.

Click to expand...

It is becoming the exact opposite of that, and it is a shame. Don't think it goes unnoticed.

Greg7579 said:

It's to help people make better use of their MF cameras, and to help people who are interested in purchasing those cameras to decide if MF would help their photography. The answer to those questions depends on many things. Among them are subject selection, price, weight, and size sensitivity, lens selection, working style, output media, etc.

Click to expand...

Now you are changing the subject. I've said all of that a thousand times. I know the res, size, weight, reach, AF and DFO differences and all of the strengths and weaknesses.

Greg7579 said:

MF is better for some people and some things. It's worse for other people and other things.

Click to expand...

Of course, but that was not what this thread was about.

Greg7579 said:

Horses for courses. One size doesn't fit all. MF shouldn't be a Procrustean Bed.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with that. But Jim, that was not your tone this week and last with all of your threads and posts where you were downsizing, cropping and doing all these mathematical comparisons of a small piece of our big MF sensor with the whole smaller sensor and for what?

And on top of that, all the while suggesting that I can't possibly see the superior image fidelity of my MF 100 MP cameras vs all of my other high-res FF cameras and the thousands of APSC raw files I shot and study on my big pro high-res monitors. But I can Jim.

It is not the same, no matter how anyone here spins it with the downsizing and cropping lectures and the comparison of big pieces of the smaller sensor with little pieces of the bigger sensor.

None of that is why we choose to spend the money on those MF tools you just mentioned.

We shoot MF for a reason, and the reason is res and image fidelity (and great GF glass of course). And you keep giving that res away in your posts.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Rodenmg said:

It’s really hard to compare two different formats in a way everyone agrees with. I believe the best way is to print both to the same size. Then you can argue at what size the difference becomes apparent.

Click to expand...

Or just look.

Why are we all sitting around the Medium Format campfire trying to convince each other that MF = FF if you crop it, downsize it, slice and dice it, and try really hard with some creative math to make it sound like a reasonable argument while squinting really hard without our reading glasses while taking a small piece of our big sensor and comparing it the whole sensor of the camera with the smaller sensor.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head back and forth and mumbling...

Click to expand...

I think you are letting your emotions get in the way of your perception of facts.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Then there's the Kodalith aspect to your perceptions. You have a tendency to exaggerate differences.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

In my mind, the purpose of this forum is not to be a cheering section for MF photography.

Click to expand...

It is becoming the exact opposite of that, and it is a shame. Don't think it goes unnoticed.

JimKasson said:

It's to help people make better use of their MF cameras, and to help people who are interested in purchasing those cameras to decide if MF would help their photography. The answer to those questions depends on many things. Among them are subject selection, price, weight, and size sensitivity, lens selection, working style, output media, etc.

Click to expand...

Now you are changing the subject. I've said all of that a thousand times. I know the res, size, weight, reach, AF and DFO differences and all of the strengths and weaknesses.

JimKasson said:

MF is better for some people and some things. It's worse for other people and other things.

Click to expand...

Of course, but that was not what this thread was about.

JimKasson said:

Horses for courses. One size doesn't fit all. MF shouldn't be a Procrustean Bed.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with that. But Jim, that was not your tone this week and last with all of your threads and posts where you were downsizing, cropping and doing all these mathematical comparisons of a small piece of our big MF sensor with the whole smaller sensor and for what?

And on top of that, all the while suggesting that I can't possibly see the superior image fidelity of my MF 100 MP cameras vs all of my other high-res FF cameras and the thousands of APSC raw files I shot and study on my big pro high-res monitors. But I can Jim.

It is not the same, no matter how anyone here spins it with the downsizing and cropping lectures and the comparison of big pieces of the smaller sensor with little pieces of the bigger sensor.

None of that is why we choose to spend the money on those MF tools you just mentioned.

We shoot MF for a reason, and the reason is res and image fidelity (and great GF glass of course). And you keep giving that res away in your posts.

Click to expand...

Yet another time, you are mischaracterizing what I am saying. Nuance isn't your thing; I get it. But it's difficult to have a discussion with someone who twists your position so much.

Click to expand...

Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Rodenmg said:

It’s really hard to compare two different formats in a way everyone agrees with. I believe the best way is to print both to the same size. Then you can argue at what size the difference becomes apparent.

Click to expand...

Or just look.

Why are we all sitting around the Medium Format campfire trying to convince each other that MF = FF if you crop it, downsize it, slice and dice it, and try really hard with some creative math to make it sound like a reasonable argument while squinting really hard without our reading glasses while taking a small piece of our big sensor and comparing it the whole sensor of the camera with the smaller sensor.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head back and forth and mumbling...

Click to expand...

I think you are letting your emotions get in the way of your perception of facts.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I understand 100% of the "facts" you presented about cropping, downsizing and chopping up our big MF sensor to support a false myth and narrative that it is all the same when it is not.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

And what you were really trying to do is not a fact at all. It is an anti-fact. You are trying to math your way into a conclusion that I can't see the image fidelity advantage of GFX on my monitors when I can.

It's not working Jim. People can see the logic hole of this cropping, chopping, downsizing and checkerboard dicing of our big MF sensor.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

Greg7579 said:

Then there's the Kodalith aspect to your perceptions. You have a tendency to exaggerate differences.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...