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

CE88 said:

I also see a difference full screen with my 16" M1 Max Mac; however, I've got my good reading glasses on (still waiting for some kind of portable, maybe fold-out 32" Macbook to be invented...well, maybe I'll settle for a 20" 8K)! I also found out from these discussions that I'm a habitual pixel peeper and boy those MF files look good close up as well!

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

CE88 said:

I also see a difference full screen with my 16" M1 Max Mac; however, I've got my good reading glasses on (still waiting for some kind of portable, maybe fold-out 32" Macbook to be invented...well, maybe I'll settle for a 20" 8K)! I also found out from these discussions that I'm a habitual pixel peeper and boy those MF files look good close up as well!

Click to expand...

Of course you can see the difference. Everyone can that actually shoots MF, FF, APSC and has seen a few MFT files along the way and has one of these monitors and justgives it a passing glance of at least 3 seconds.

Well Jim asked for a poll

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

(or maybe that was on the other thread about this). Now it is pretty likely he is going to get one. I don't think that piping in and disagreeing with Jimis going to upset him, so don't be shy boys.

He is a big boy, and it won't be the first time in his life he has been wrong about some inconsequential matter (in the great scheme of things).

If we took a scientific poll on this, I think the score would be about 2,000 to less than ten. Maybe 5.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

boastar 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...

That’s a pretty big difference to me. In the area where the color aliasing is strong, you can also see a difference in details. The fine structure on the wall is just smudges in the Z8 pic.

This matches what I saw, when I compared Sonys 50 and 61 mp fullframe sensors, to Sonys 100 mp middle format sensor. That and the aspect ratio, were two of the biggest reasons I kept Fuji MF, and got rid of most of my fullframe gear.

Click to expand...

Oh My! You are looking at that on a monitor or did you go print it big to see it?

You must be one of those thousands of MF (GFX and new Hassy) shooters who can see the difference on their nice high-res pro monitors and haven't printed really big anytime lately. Maybe a few times they did, but they still are enjoying their GFX and Hassy Image Fidelity on these awesome monitors and they can see it....

Science deniers are not allowed on this Forum, but monitor tech deniers exist here by the tens. Well, probably less than ten at last count.

Big prints are awesome!

But that is completely 100% unrelated to this whole "monitor denial" trend on the MEDIUM FORMAT Forum.

The point is, of course we can see the difference! It is a no-brainer and very obvious thing, and it baffles me that there are 4 or 5 people on this Board who disagree with this simple notion.

By the way, I also tell people who shoot FF, APSC and MFT to get one of these amazing new monitors all the time and have for 7 years (4K 32-inch IPS pro 4K broad color gamut) that just keep getting better and way cheaper. It really is essential with our GFX and Hassy gear (always has been, but much cheaper now).

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Second, I have long claimed, in the face of jeering from the aliasing-matters deniers, that aliasing can survive great amounts of downsampling. I think that is proven here. There's no question that a 50ish MP sensor is going to have more aliasing than a 100ish MP sensor when used with good lenses.

Click to expand...

Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

boastar said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 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...

That’s a pretty big difference to me. In the area where the color aliasing is strong, you can also see a difference in details. The fine structure on the wall is just smudges in the Z8 pic.

This matches what I saw, when I compared Sonys 50 and 61 mp fullframe sensors, to Sonys 100 mp middle format sensor. That and the aspect ratio, were two of the biggest reasons I kept Fuji MF, and got rid of most of my fullframe gear.

Click to expand...

Oh My! You are looking at that on a monitor or did you go print it big to see it?

You must be one of those thousands of MF (GFX and new Hassy) shooters who can see the difference on their nice high-res pro monitors and haven't printed really big anytime lately. Maybe a few times they did, but they still are enjoying their GFX and Hassy Image Fidelity on these awesome monitors and they can see it....

Science deniers are not allowed on this Forum, but monitor tech deniers exist here by the tens. Well, probably less than ten at last count.

Big prints are awesome!

But that is completely 100% unrelated to this whole "monitor denial" trend on the MEDIUM FORMAT Forum.

The point is, of course we can see the difference! It is a no-brainer and very obvious thing, and it baffles me that there are 4 or 5 people on this Board who disagree with this simple notion.

By the way, I also tell people who shoot FF, APSC and MFT to get one of these amazing new monitors all the time and have for 7 years (4K 32-inch IPS pro 4K broad color gamut) that just keep getting better and way cheaper. It really is essential with our GFX and Hassy gear (always has been, but much cheaper now).

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Second, I have long claimed, in the face of jeering from the aliasing-matters deniers, that aliasing can survive great amounts of downsampling. I think that is proven here. There's no question that a 50ish MP sensor is going to have more aliasing than a 100ish MP sensor when used with good lenses.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jim. You are coming around man, after weeks of cropping, downsizing and pieces of sensor comparison posts while challenging me to prove I can see a difference on my monitors.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

Of course I can. Everybody can. Even you now.

This is really kind of silly no need for us to keep harping on it. There are other more important things to discuss in the world of GFX and Hassy Medium Format Photography, and who knows more about it than you? No one.

Truce. We agree. There is a difference. People can see that difference on their monitors with various degrees of salivation and excitement and it has nothing to do with printing or not printing or printing big because that is a separate subject.

I am about to invite ridicule in other ways, like when I post my Corfu shots today.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Actually, I asked you to list some of the hordes of people who agree with you that the difference between a 33x44mm image and a FF image viewed on a 4K monitor with the whole frame showing is huge..

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

boastar 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...

That’s a pretty big difference to me. In the area where the color aliasing is strong, you can also see a difference in details. The fine structure on the wall is just smudges in the Z8 pic.

This matches what I saw, when I compared Sonys 50 and 61 mp fullframe sensors, to Sonys 100 mp middle format sensor. That and the aspect ratio, were two of the biggest reasons I kept Fuji MF, and got rid of most of my fullframe gear.

Click to expand...

Oh My! You are looking at that on a monitor or did you go print it big to see it?

You must be one of those thousands of MF (GFX and new Hassy) shooters who can see the difference on their nice high-res pro monitors and haven't printed really big anytime lately. Maybe a few times they did, but they still are enjoying their GFX and Hassy Image Fidelity on these awesome monitors and they can see it....

Science deniers are not allowed on this Forum, but monitor tech deniers exist here by the tens. Well, probably less than ten at last count.

Big prints are awesome!

But that is completely 100% unrelated to this whole "monitor denial" trend on the MEDIUM FORMAT Forum.

The point is, of course we can see the difference! It is a no-brainer and very obvious thing, and it baffles me that there are 4 or 5 people on this Board who disagree with this simple notion.

By the way, I also tell people who shoot FF, APSC and MFT to get one of these amazing new monitors all the time and have for 7 years (4K 32-inch IPS pro 4K broad color gamut) that just keep getting better and way cheaper. It really is essential with our GFX and Hassy gear (always has been, but much cheaper now).

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Second, I have long claimed, in the face of jeering from the aliasing-matters deniers, that aliasing can survive great amounts of downsampling. I think that is proven here. There's no question that a 50ish MP sensor is going to have more aliasing than a 100ish MP sensor when used with good lenses.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jim. You are coming around man, after weeks of cropping, downsizing and pieces of sensor comparison posts while challenging me to prove I can see a difference on my monitors.

Click to expand...

Once more, you are attempting to reframe my point. I said in the original post of this thread that there are differences.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

Of course I can. Everybody can. Even you now.

This is really kind of silly no need for us to keep harping on it. There are other more important things to discuss in the world of GFX and Hassy Medium Format Photography, and who knows more about it than you? No one.

Truce. We agree. There is a difference. People can see that difference on their monitors with various degrees of salivation and excitement and it has nothing to do with printing or not printing or printing big because that is a separate subject.

I am about to invite ridicule in other ways, like when I post my Corfu shots today.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Actually, I asked you to list some of the hordes of people who agree with you that the difference between a 33x44mm image and a FF image viewed on a 4K monitor with the whole frame showing is huge..

Click to expand...

Well, one could argue about that term huge (not sure if I used that word - maybe one of the posts).

I think all the sensor size files look pretty darn good from MFT up on these monitors. Then it becomes a matter of how you describe the difference.

I can agree with not using the term huge. My Q3 files look so good that they make me shiver sometimes.

I think that these new high-res and new-tech monitors rock on displaying high-res digital images. There is just something about it. But it might be a matter of taste too.

But then you get into the whole what looks better argument - a print or these lit up images on these new monitors with new black IPS, OLED or mini-LED tech with the various kinds of backlighting or each pixel lighting.

Some like it and some don't.

I think we can all agree that a big print can be just incredibly gorgeous and special.

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor. Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor. The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor. Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor. The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

If you look at the whole image on a 32" 4K monitor, you are looking at an 8MP image. That's a big downsize from 100MP.

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor. Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor.

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor. Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor. The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

If you look at the whole image on a 32" 4K monitor, you are looking at an 8MP image.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

That's a big downsize from 100MP.

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

DMillier said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor. Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor. The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

If you look at the whole image on a 32" 4K monitor, you are looking at an 8MP image. That's a big downsize from 100MP.

Click to expand...

Sure. I meant downsizing using any kind of software instead of letting the graphics card do it for you.

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

If you read my original posts on this thread, it's a point I emphasized.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor. Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor.

Click to expand...

If you view a full Z8 or GFX 100II image on your 4K monitor, it will be downsized. Ps uses nearest neighbor for downsizing for the screen.

JimKasson said:

The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor. Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor.

Click to expand...

If you view a full Z8 or GFX 100II image on your 4K monitor, it will be downsized. Ps uses nearest neighbor for downsizing for the screen.

Ap0ll0n said:

The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Good to know, thank you. I viewed the images from DPreview's studio on my Opera Browser and Lightroom. The ones you attached show no difference to me even on my large monitor - unlike the RAF files I downloaded from dpreview.

Honestly, I don't think we should place too much importance on those downsized samples.

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

Ap0ll0n said:

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor.

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor. The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

DMillier said:

Ap0ll0n said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

All images look better on them by a significant margin. It is much easier to see the fine details and amazing image fidelity of our GFX raw files and everything else on these monitors. And 6K? Wow! Forget about it. There is not an argument here. If you saw it you would drool. Just like I did.

Downsizing, cropping and sensor dissection of large pieces of smaller sensors against smaller pieces of big sensors is interesting mathematically but unrelated to anything I'm saying, which is that I can see the increased image fidelity of GFX on my monitor, and anyone who says I can't need to go get one of these babies or make a trip to the ophthalmologist. LOL. Kidding, but I am baffled that me saying this simple truth upsets 5 people (as if it were an assault on FF), including my hero and good friend - my mentor and teacher - The Great Jim Kasson (who by the way has had 5,000-dollar monitors for the past decade!). LOL.

Now don't get mad at me Jim. You know I luv ya!

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words yet again, Greg.

First off, I never claimed no difference. I said the differences weren't night and day. In support of that, note that the Z8 image was identified as the better image in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67763266

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor. Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor. The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

If you look at the whole image on a 32" 4K monitor, you are looking at an 8MP image. That's a big downsize from 100MP.

Click to expand...

Sure. I meant downsizing using any kind of software instead of letting the graphics card do it for you. If you read my original posts on this thread, it's a point I emphasized.

Click to expand...

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor.

Click to expand...

First, disagree here, and I don't think I'm alone. As long as we're talking about displaying the entire image on the monitor, not viewing a crop of it at 100%, I think more than a few believe that typically the differences are far from obvious, more typically being quite subtle, and believe that you and Greg could not reliably tell apart carefully-made matched pairs of photos. See my post about a proposed double-blind test at:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67764760

Are you willing to take such a test? Is Greg?

To be clear, I'm not saying that there are no differences, or that the differences are irrelevant. I am saying that with a few exceptions, anything you can reliably pick out when viewing the entire image on a monitor is due to some cause other than the differences between, e.g., a GFX 100S and a Nikon Z8.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor. The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

Second, this is just plain impossible. There is no way to view the entirety of an image that's 8736 pixels tall on a monitor that has 3456 vertical pixels (this Dell in Greg's case, I think) without resampling, downsizing, whatever you want to call it. If you don't do it with the software and technique of your choice before you open the image for display, then the software you're using to display it will necessary downsample / resize it for your screen. So your source image may be 102 MP, but even the Dell 6K monitor can't display all of it at once at more than 16MP resolution (4608x3456 pixels).

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Ap0ll0n said:

Ap0ll0n said:

Now, I'm not claiming that the Z8 image is better; I like the GFX 100II image better. But the fact that someone could consider it better means to me that the differences aren't that great, once downsampled by Ps.

Click to expand...

I don't see any arguments here. Greg, like me, is saying that there is an obvious difference when the images are viewed prior to any downsizing, at least on a large-ish monitor.

Click to expand...

First, disagree here, and I don't think I'm alone. As long as we're talking about displaying the entire image on the monitor, not viewing a crop of it at 100%, I think more than a few believe that typically the differences are far from obvious, more typically being quite subtle, and believe that you and Greg could not reliably tell apart carefully-made matched pairs of photos. See my post about a proposed double-blind test at:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67764760

Are you willing to take such a test? Is Greg?

To be clear, I'm not saying that there are no differences, or that the differences are irrelevant. I am saying that with a few exceptions, anything you can reliably pick out when viewing the entire image on a monitor is due to some cause other than the differences between, e.g., a GFX 100S and a Nikon Z8.

Ap0ll0n said:

Jim is saying that I identified those the other way around by looking at the downsized images, a screenshot at such.

I think the secondary point (sure, not how the thread started but certainly how it evolved) is that I don't think anyone would downsize any photo prior to viewing it on their monitor. The main being that when viewing normally, on a large-ish monitor, I think based on this thread at least, most folks would find that there is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

Second, this is just plain impossible. There is no way to view the entirety of an image that's 8736 pixels tall on a monitor that has 3456 vertical pixels (this Dell in Greg's case, I think) without resampling, downsizing, whatever you want to call it. If you don't do it with the software and technique of your choice before you open the image for display, then the software you're using to display it will necessary downsample / resize it for your screen. So your source image may be 102 MP, but even the Dell 6K monitor can't display all of it at once at more than 16MP resolution (4608x3456 pixels).

Click to expand...

To clarify, I did not make any general statements that any and all photos produced by the GFX will be obviously better than any and all photos produced by any FF camera and lens. I spoke specifically about the two images references here but perhaps the word obvious was too strong. A blind test would be fun, for me, and I have no bias, I just supplied my input and some feedback on the original images provided.

On the second part, yours and David's explanation sounds better than mine in terms of software, browser downsampling, perhaps picking on the wording a bit too much but that is fine. Nonetheless, my point holds that if you let that software downsize a 100mp image and view it on the screen, of course without zooming in, then, at least for me and those two images, you will be able to spot differences right away. I need to to take another look at Jim's follow up samples and I stand by those comments regarding the first ones.

Bottom line, I still don't see a real argument between Greg and Jim. I also don't see a need why we need to infer how better MF is based on 5mb images.

Click to expand...