Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 11,591
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
1

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

We are talking about resolution here, not dynamic range, color, or anything else. In a 12"x18" print, the naked human eye simply cannot resolve more than 12MP or so, even up-close.

Ergo "better" is not invisible.

In my experience, it is. I've been shooting digital since Canon's 6MP D60 and making prints up to 16"x24" for public exhibition and sale.

Maybe if you print the RAW files with absolutely no adjustment (although, TBH, even a RAW converter is applying some pre-processing during conversion), then the difference might be close to moot. But if that were all you planned to do, you might be as well off just using a phone camera...

Actually, applying appropriate output sharpening minimizes the visual differences between file sizes where even the smallest one is at least 200ppi on paper. This has been my experience over the past 15 years as a working pro. Have you compared 12MP and 24MP+ images at 12"x18", applying appropriate output sharpening to each? I've done the empirical testing. Have you?

Thanks for asking, Jacques. Yes, I have. Extensively.

For several years I owned and shot the a7Sii (12 MP sensor) and the a7Rii (42.4 MP sensor) side by side. I took pains to compare the results (including when scaled to the same resolution, with and without processing).

As a result, I eventually sold the a7Sii (and have since updated from the a7Rii to the a7Riii). Not only could I see the benefits of greater resolution in ≤18" prints, but I satisfied myself that others could see it also.

How did you prep the files for printing? Did you use something akin to Pixel Genius' PhotoKit Sharpener? It is essential to apply custom sharpening that takes into account the pixel count, the medium, and the output size. This makes a huge difference vs. one-size-fits-all sharpening. All the pixels in the world will still look unsharp if this is not done correctly, as I learned when I made an 8x10 print from a 21MP file and forgot to perform output sharpening - it looked awful.

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +42 more
Steve W Veteran Member • Posts: 4,706
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

Jacques Cornell wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

We are talking about resolution here, not dynamic range, color, or anything else. In a 12"x18" print, the naked human eye simply cannot resolve more than 12MP or so, even up-close.

Ergo "better" is not invisible.

In my experience, it is. I've been shooting digital since Canon's 6MP D60 and making prints up to 16"x24" for public exhibition and sale.

Maybe if you print the RAW files with absolutely no adjustment (although, TBH, even a RAW converter is applying some pre-processing during conversion), then the difference might be close to moot. But if that were all you planned to do, you might be as well off just using a phone camera...

Actually, applying appropriate output sharpening minimizes the visual differences between file sizes where even the smallest one is at least 200ppi on paper. This has been my experience over the past 15 years as a working pro. Have you compared 12MP and 24MP+ images at 12"x18", applying appropriate output sharpening to each? I've done the empirical testing. Have you?

Thanks for asking, Jacques. Yes, I have. Extensively.

For several years I owned and shot the a7Sii (12 MP sensor) and the a7Rii (42.4 MP sensor) side by side. I took pains to compare the results (including when scaled to the same resolution, with and without processing).

As a result, I eventually sold the a7Sii (and have since updated from the a7Rii to the a7Riii). Not only could I see the benefits of greater resolution in ≤18" prints, but I satisfied myself that others could see it also.

How did you prep the files for printing? Did you use something akin to Pixel Genius' PhotoKit Sharpener? It is essential to apply custom sharpening that takes into account the pixel count, the medium, and the output size. This makes a huge difference vs. one-size-fits-all sharpening. All the pixels in the world will still look unsharp if this is not done correctly, as I learned when I made an 8x10 print from a 21MP file and forgot to perform output sharpening - it looked awful.

Any chance you can provide a good reference on output sharpening for printing? Would like to learn more.  Thank you.

-- hide signature --

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 Steve W's gear list:Steve W's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Fujifilm X-T3 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +28 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 26,539
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
2

Jacques Cornell wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

It's not a processing issue.

The difference will be visible no matter what the shadow lifting. It take 6500 pixels for an 18 inch wide print at 360 ppi

Yes, but your eyes likely cannot resolve 360ppi. That 360ppi number is widely cited, but it is randomly selected and bears little relation to the average person's eyesight. Furthermore, it assumes that you view prints with your nose on the paper, which nobody but pixel-peeping photo tech enthusiasts does.

I find almost no visible difference, even at a viewing distance of 12", between 200dpi and 300ppi in a print that's been appropriately sharpened for the specific media and output size. Try it. You may first have to learn how to appropriately sharpen for print. You can start by trying Pixel Genius' now-free PhotoKit Sharpener.

( a few more than you can get with a 24 MP 3:2 camera). A 12 MP camera will get you about 240 ppi. That's good enough for most things, but not for all uses. If you print on matte paper, there's probably no visible difference.

Some folks will do just fine with 12 MP. Others

who examine prints with a 4x loupe

will want more.

Actually, IMO, 360 ppi isn't enough.

Print out a B&W image on a 360 ppi/2880 dpi inkjet printer. Take that print and an 8x10 B&W contact print, hold them in your hands, and take a good look. You'll see that even the 360 ppi print is visibly unsharp compared to the 8x10 contact print.

Then take a 200ppi/2880dpi inkjet print and see if there's any difference.

What you're describing is a difference between digital inkjet and conventional photo materials. It's got nothing to do with the difference between 200ppi and 300ppi in an inkjet or continuous tone digital print, which is the topic of this thread.

You're saying the eye can see detail any finer than 200ppi. If that were the case, you would be able to see no difference between a 360 ppi print and an 8x10 contact print.

And, if you really want to drive the point home, print out a 360 ppi color print and compare it to an 8x10 Ektachrome original -- not a copy, but the film that was in the camera at the moment of exposure.

If you suffer from presbyopia, you'll need your reading glasses for this experiment.

I am sorry that Cymbolic Sciences is gone.

Jim

You're moving the goalposts. The comparison I suggested was between 200ppi and 300ppi digital prints.

The topic is megapixel counts. No MP count, no matter how high, is going to produce an 8x10 silver halide contact print or an 8x10 Ektachrome without digitally printing the image onto film, which is likely to have the same resolution limitations as printing onto paper.

In the old days, except for Cymbolic Sciences and a few others, film recorders were limited to 8000 pixels in the long dimension, and even then there was so much CRT blooming that the resolution was less than that, so you're right.

But you made a claim that went beyond MP count and to a more fundamental constraint: the resolution of the human eye. I am disputing that claim.

I learned photography with film, developed my own B&W, shot small, medium and large formats, and made my own darkroom prints for years before working digitally. I know what you're talking about, I know the differences, and I also know from experience in making my own inkjet digital prints and getting contone digital prints from pro labs that 200ppi

We're not talking about contone prints at 200 ppi here, or haven't been up to now, but about sending 200 ppi files to the halftoning engine of an inkjet printer.

is largely indistinguishable from 300ppi and that, therefore, at a given print size capturing more than 200ppi yields little to no benefit other than cropping. Hence, getting back to the original point, the benefit of 61MP over, say, 42MP is realized only a really huge print sizes that very few people ever make. 20MP is plenty for a salable poster-size print.

I can tell you from experience that, with a 17-inch high print, you can tell the difference between a 36 MP capture and a 50 MP one. With a 34-inch high print, the difference is quite noticeable, but not striking.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Sony a7R IV Fujifilm GFX 100 +4 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 26,539
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

Jacques Cornell wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

That squares with what I've seen. Even a 16x20 print, it's not easy telling 16 from 24mp. And who stands 12" away from a print like that when it's displayed?

I find when I exhibit prints in a gallery, the viewers look at them from a distance, then from up close, and again from a distance.

This is my experience and also how I view prints in a gallery. However, "up close" is typically 1-2 feet, not 3 inches, and I've never seen a visitor bring a 4x loupe.

I've not seen anybody bring a loupe (but I've seen nearsighted people remove their glasses), but, with some subject matter, I can see the difference between 24 MP and 50 MP in a 16x20 with just my regular (progressive) glasses. But that's a small print for me. When the prints get to 24x30 or bigger, it's easier.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Sony a7R IV Fujifilm GFX 100 +4 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,233
Re: My only reason
1

Paul Barnard wrote:

Steve W wrote:

ClementPhotos wrote:

dv312 wrote:

Cropping, cropping, and more cropping

Ultra necessary for birding

This is about the only reason I need to put a7R IV on my shopping list.

a7R IV + 200-600! You can't get away from me now, birds! (well, in the near future lol)

Don't kid yourself. They will still get away from you They are smarter than we think.

so very true. Last week I sat for three hours near a creek waiting for an egret to make an appearance. 100-400 and TC on camera, batteries charged and lots of enthusiasm. Didn’t see one at all, not even flying by. Next day I didn’t take the 100-400 just the 25. I went to the creek to get some landscape shots and 4 egret decided to hang around all day. They obviously can tell the difference between wide angle and telephoto

*!%?$&# birds...

Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 11,591
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

Steve W wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

We are talking about resolution here, not dynamic range, color, or anything else. In a 12"x18" print, the naked human eye simply cannot resolve more than 12MP or so, even up-close.

Ergo "better" is not invisible.

In my experience, it is. I've been shooting digital since Canon's 6MP D60 and making prints up to 16"x24" for public exhibition and sale.

Maybe if you print the RAW files with absolutely no adjustment (although, TBH, even a RAW converter is applying some pre-processing during conversion), then the difference might be close to moot. But if that were all you planned to do, you might be as well off just using a phone camera...

Actually, applying appropriate output sharpening minimizes the visual differences between file sizes where even the smallest one is at least 200ppi on paper. This has been my experience over the past 15 years as a working pro. Have you compared 12MP and 24MP+ images at 12"x18", applying appropriate output sharpening to each? I've done the empirical testing. Have you?

Thanks for asking, Jacques. Yes, I have. Extensively.

For several years I owned and shot the a7Sii (12 MP sensor) and the a7Rii (42.4 MP sensor) side by side. I took pains to compare the results (including when scaled to the same resolution, with and without processing).

As a result, I eventually sold the a7Sii (and have since updated from the a7Rii to the a7Riii). Not only could I see the benefits of greater resolution in ≤18" prints, but I satisfied myself that others could see it also.

How did you prep the files for printing? Did you use something akin to Pixel Genius' PhotoKit Sharpener? It is essential to apply custom sharpening that takes into account the pixel count, the medium, and the output size. This makes a huge difference vs. one-size-fits-all sharpening. All the pixels in the world will still look unsharp if this is not done correctly, as I learned when I made an 8x10 print from a 21MP file and forgot to perform output sharpening - it looked awful.

Any chance you can provide a good reference on output sharpening for printing? Would like to learn more. Thank you.

Some day I'll write up an article, because this comes up a lot. I don't have much time right now, so I'll point you to two resources, one tutorial and one software.

Three-stage sharpening workflow

PhotoKit Sharpener

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +42 more
Steve W Veteran Member • Posts: 4,706
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Steve W wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

We are talking about resolution here, not dynamic range, color, or anything else. In a 12"x18" print, the naked human eye simply cannot resolve more than 12MP or so, even up-close.

Ergo "better" is not invisible.

In my experience, it is. I've been shooting digital since Canon's 6MP D60 and making prints up to 16"x24" for public exhibition and sale.

Maybe if you print the RAW files with absolutely no adjustment (although, TBH, even a RAW converter is applying some pre-processing during conversion), then the difference might be close to moot. But if that were all you planned to do, you might be as well off just using a phone camera...

Actually, applying appropriate output sharpening minimizes the visual differences between file sizes where even the smallest one is at least 200ppi on paper. This has been my experience over the past 15 years as a working pro. Have you compared 12MP and 24MP+ images at 12"x18", applying appropriate output sharpening to each? I've done the empirical testing. Have you?

Thanks for asking, Jacques. Yes, I have. Extensively.

For several years I owned and shot the a7Sii (12 MP sensor) and the a7Rii (42.4 MP sensor) side by side. I took pains to compare the results (including when scaled to the same resolution, with and without processing).

As a result, I eventually sold the a7Sii (and have since updated from the a7Rii to the a7Riii). Not only could I see the benefits of greater resolution in ≤18" prints, but I satisfied myself that others could see it also.

How did you prep the files for printing? Did you use something akin to Pixel Genius' PhotoKit Sharpener? It is essential to apply custom sharpening that takes into account the pixel count, the medium, and the output size. This makes a huge difference vs. one-size-fits-all sharpening. All the pixels in the world will still look unsharp if this is not done correctly, as I learned when I made an 8x10 print from a 21MP file and forgot to perform output sharpening - it looked awful.

Any chance you can provide a good reference on output sharpening for printing? Would like to learn more. Thank you.

Some day I'll write up an article, because this comes up a lot. I don't have much time right now, so I'll point you to two resources, one tutorial and one software.

Three-stage sharpening workflow

PhotoKit Sharpener

Thank you.

-- hide signature --

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 Steve W's gear list:Steve W's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Fujifilm X-T3 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +28 more
Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 11,591
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

JimKasson wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

It's not a processing issue.

The difference will be visible no matter what the shadow lifting. It take 6500 pixels for an 18 inch wide print at 360 ppi

Yes, but your eyes likely cannot resolve 360ppi. That 360ppi number is widely cited, but it is randomly selected and bears little relation to the average person's eyesight. Furthermore, it assumes that you view prints with your nose on the paper, which nobody but pixel-peeping photo tech enthusiasts does.

I find almost no visible difference, even at a viewing distance of 12", between 200dpi and 300ppi in a print that's been appropriately sharpened for the specific media and output size. Try it. You may first have to learn how to appropriately sharpen for print. You can start by trying Pixel Genius' now-free PhotoKit Sharpener.

( a few more than you can get with a 24 MP 3:2 camera). A 12 MP camera will get you about 240 ppi. That's good enough for most things, but not for all uses. If you print on matte paper, there's probably no visible difference.

Some folks will do just fine with 12 MP. Others

who examine prints with a 4x loupe

will want more.

Actually, IMO, 360 ppi isn't enough.

Print out a B&W image on a 360 ppi/2880 dpi inkjet printer. Take that print and an 8x10 B&W contact print, hold them in your hands, and take a good look. You'll see that even the 360 ppi print is visibly unsharp compared to the 8x10 contact print.

Then take a 200ppi/2880dpi inkjet print and see if there's any difference.

What you're describing is a difference between digital inkjet and conventional photo materials. It's got nothing to do with the difference between 200ppi and 300ppi in an inkjet or continuous tone digital print, which is the topic of this thread.

You're saying the eye can see detail any finer than 200ppi. If that were the case, you would be able to see no difference between a 360 ppi print and an 8x10 contact print.

And, if you really want to drive the point home, print out a 360 ppi color print and compare it to an 8x10 Ektachrome original -- not a copy, but the film that was in the camera at the moment of exposure.

If you suffer from presbyopia, you'll need your reading glasses for this experiment.

I am sorry that Cymbolic Sciences is gone.

Jim

You're moving the goalposts. The comparison I suggested was between 200ppi and 300ppi digital prints.

The topic is megapixel counts. No MP count, no matter how high, is going to produce an 8x10 silver halide contact print or an 8x10 Ektachrome without digitally printing the image onto film, which is likely to have the same resolution limitations as printing onto paper.

In the old days, except for Cymbolic Sciences and a few others, film recorders were limited to 8000 pixels in the long dimension, and even then there was so much CRT blooming that the resolution was less than that, so you're right.

But you made a claim that went beyond MP count and to a more fundamental constraint: the resolution of the human eye.

In the context of digital printing. Don't move the goal posts by bringing in non-digital media that have nothing at all to do with the difference between 42MP and 61MP in a digital file.

I am disputing that claim.

I learned photography with film, developed my own B&W, shot small, medium and large formats, and made my own darkroom prints for years before working digitally. I know what you're talking about, I know the differences, and I also know from experience in making my own inkjet digital prints and getting contone digital prints from pro labs that 200ppi

We're not talking about contone prints at 200 ppi here, or haven't been up to now, but about sending 200 ppi files to the halftoning engine of an inkjet printer.

Maybe you're not talking about contone prints, but I had in mind both inkjet prints and contone prints from labs, as I've made both and had similar results in terms of file & output sizes.

is largely indistinguishable from 300ppi and that, therefore, at a given print size capturing more than 200ppi yields little to no benefit other than cropping. Hence, getting back to the original point, the benefit of 61MP over, say, 42MP is realized only a really huge print sizes that very few people ever make. 20MP is plenty for a salable poster-size print.

I can tell you from experience that, with a 17-inch high print, you can tell the difference between a 36 MP capture and a 50 MP one. With a 34-inch high print, the difference is quite noticeable, but not striking.

Jim

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +42 more
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 8,465
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

Besides all advantages others have said, also for future when there is bigger and higher-resolution monitors or if you want to print very large.

At this moment I don't really need 61mp as I view photos basically exclusively in iMac 5K, and only occasionally print upto 30x20". But believe Apple will release an iMac 8K in two years and I might need to print very large in future.

I have many photos from 10mp 1D III, OK 10 years ago but really small when viewing in iMac 5K.  Hope it had 24 or more pixels then.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +15 more
hjs_koeln Regular Member • Posts: 131
Re: Aesthetic reasons

DejayRezme wrote:

If you think about the bayer filtering basically the color gets interpolated but you still loose some resolution in the color.

So basically you need 40mp sensor to fully resolve on a 4k screen with full color resolution and oversampling (avoiding moire / aliasing or filtering).

That has got to make in impact for certain images? So even if you "just" want the perfect picture on a 4k 8.2MP monitor you need at least 40mp in 3:2. 62mp is the first that allows some zooming and cropping while maintaining the highest quality.

Sony acknowledges this with their "bayer cancelling" multishot mode.

I'm a newbie and I'm not saying it's needed, but to me there seem to be technical reasons for wanting to have that resolution.

Mentioning video resolution was just an analogy. A large jump in resolution, whether in video or in still photography, introduces in my view something else besides just more megapixels.

DejayRezme Regular Member • Posts: 131
Re: Aesthetic reasons

hjs_koeln wrote:

Not sure how others feel about it, but to me it´s not only more resolution, from a certain increase on it´s "more resolution plus X". Going from full HD in video to 4k introduces another quality alltogether, and in still photography it is similar.

There´s something fascinating about a tool which allows to exceed the capabilities of the human eye, and resolution is an area where this has become possible (bearing in mind of course that visual physiology is a totally different process than photography).

Digital imagery is immaterial, intangible and therefore elusive, which is kind of a mental stumbling block. There is no original, no ultimate source, b/c copy = original. This sense of digital images being unreal can be compensated by introducing qualities into the digital medium which would not be available otherwise. Again, resolution is one such way, and through it digital photography becomes a tool to reach or create this quality of reality, unobtainable otherwise.

If the immateriality of an image is the price I have to pay to reach this "other" dimension of reality, and if a particular camera is the suitable tool to take me there, I´m willing to go that way.

In this sense, for my taste anyways it can never be enough. A 100mp A7r V, and a 150mp A7r VI? Yes, please!

DejayRezme wrote:

If you think about the bayer filtering basically the color gets interpolated but you still loose some resolution in the color.

So basically you need 40mp sensor to fully resolve on a 4k screen with full color resolution and oversampling (avoiding moire / aliasing or filtering).

That has got to make in impact for certain images? So even if you "just" want the perfect picture on a 4k 8.2MP monitor you need at least 40mp in 3:2. 62mp is the first that allows some zooming and cropping while maintaining the highest quality.

Sony acknowledges this with their "bayer cancelling" multishot mode.

I'm a newbie and I'm not saying it's needed, but to me there seem to be technical reasons for wanting to have that resolution.

Mentioning video resolution was just an analogy. A large jump in resolution, whether in video or in still photography, introduces in my view something else besides just more megapixels.

I think it's a good example or benchmark for this "hyperrealism". I love 4k video. But 4k video looks much better if you downsample from 8k and things like only 8bit, 4:2:0 low color resolution or low bitrates really show in my opinion. Video compression (and jpeg compression too) limits what videos and pictures we see on our monitors.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean with introducing an "unreal dimension to reality" - but I think I do. I'm interested in shooting 4k macro videos and also macro photogrammetry to create 3D models out of unseen things.

And of course playing with color. That's why I was really hoping for a A7R IV that oversamples the full sensor and outputs 10 bit 4:2:2 at high bitrate down to "perfect" 4k. Basically downsampling 8k video to 4k.

Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 11,591
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

PWPhotography wrote:

Besides all advantages others have said, also for future when there is bigger and higher-resolution monitors or if you want to print very large.

At this moment I don't really need 61mp as I view photos basically exclusively in iMac 5K, and only occasionally print upto 30x20". But believe Apple will release an iMac 8K in two years and I might need to print very large in future.

What's "very large"? Murals? I have a great-looking 20"x30" print made from an 11MP Canon 1Ds RAW file. Today's 42MP files are capable of much bigger prints than this.

I have many photos from 10mp 1D III, OK 10 years ago but really small when viewing in iMac 5K. Hope it had 24 or more pixels then.

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +42 more
Beatsy
Beatsy Contributing Member • Posts: 670
Re: My only reason
3

Hank Radt wrote:

Paul Barnard wrote:

Steve W wrote:

ClementPhotos wrote:

dv312 wrote:

Cropping, cropping, and more cropping

Ultra necessary for birding

This is about the only reason I need to put a7R IV on my shopping list.

a7R IV + 200-600! You can't get away from me now, birds! (well, in the near future lol)

Don't kid yourself. They will still get away from you They are smarter than we think.

so very true. Last week I sat for three hours near a creek waiting for an egret to make an appearance. 100-400 and TC on camera, batteries charged and lots of enthusiasm. Didn’t see one at all, not even flying by. Next day I didn’t take the 100-400 just the 25. I went to the creek to get some landscape shots and 4 egret decided to hang around all day. They obviously can tell the difference between wide angle and telephoto

*!%?$&# birds...

Our fault. We ate all the big dumb slow ones!

 Beatsy's gear list:Beatsy's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R II Sony a7R IV Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM +13 more
ActionPhotoPassion Senior Member • Posts: 1,500
Re: My only reason

Batdude wrote:

dv312 wrote:

Cropping, cropping, and more cropping

Ultra necessary for birding

Everything else is just icing on the cake

Just curious, I am not a BIF photographer and own zero zoom lenses and the longest FL I have used was the Sigma 150-600 at the camera store parking lot. From my own personal experience and the very little I have used long lenses what I understand is that it is not easy to photograph moving objects with long lenses, but the point is this, don't you have to be extreme careful as to how you shoot anything that is moving specially with higher MP cameras?

Doesn't it get worse as you increase MP? When you crop, and crop and crop (or in general) isn't there more blurr if one doesn't know what they are doing? You make things sound very simple

As you said it the more megapx the less forgiving if shaky.  Still the IBIS should be enough intelligent to understand the difference between a shake and a panning.

 ActionPhotoPassion's gear list:ActionPhotoPassion's gear list
Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony SLT-A58 Sony a77 II Sony a99 II Sony 28-75mm F2.8 SAM +16 more
SilvanBromide Senior Member • Posts: 3,936
Re: My only reason
4

Beatsy wrote:

Hank Radt wrote:

Paul Barnard wrote:

Steve W wrote:

ClementPhotos wrote:

dv312 wrote:

Cropping, cropping, and more cropping

Ultra necessary for birding

This is about the only reason I need to put a7R IV on my shopping list.

a7R IV + 200-600! You can't get away from me now, birds! (well, in the near future lol)

Don't kid yourself. They will still get away from you They are smarter than we think.

so very true. Last week I sat for three hours near a creek waiting for an egret to make an appearance. 100-400 and TC on camera, batteries charged and lots of enthusiasm. Didn’t see one at all, not even flying by. Next day I didn’t take the 100-400 just the 25. I went to the creek to get some landscape shots and 4 egret decided to hang around all day. They obviously can tell the difference between wide angle and telephoto

*!%?$&# birds...

Our fault. We ate all the big dumb slow ones!

Hence your new contributions to (the evolution of) the theory of evolution:

  • Survival of the smallest
  • Survival of the smartest
  • Survival of the fastest

Which nicely addresses your "big dumb slow". But you left out that all-important survival determinant:

  • Survival of the chewiest, grisliest and worst-tasting!

: )

-- hide signature --

Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

 SilvanBromide's gear list:SilvanBromide's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony a6500 Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM +25 more
SilvanBromide Senior Member • Posts: 3,936
Re: My only reason
2

ActionPhotoPassion wrote:

Batdude wrote:

dv312 wrote:

Cropping, cropping, and more cropping

Ultra necessary for birding

Everything else is just icing on the cake

Just curious, I am not a BIF photographer and own zero zoom lenses and the longest FL I have used was the Sigma 150-600 at the camera store parking lot. From my own personal experience and the very little I have used long lenses what I understand is that it is not easy to photograph moving objects with long lenses, but the point is this, don't you have to be extreme careful as to how you shoot anything that is moving specially with higher MP cameras?

Doesn't it get worse as you increase MP? When you crop, and crop and crop (or in general) isn't there more blurr if one doesn't know what they are doing? You make things sound very simple

As you said it the more megapx the less forgiving if shaky. Still the IBIS should be enough intelligent to understand the difference between a shake and a panning.

On that subject, it's interesting to note that a number of the longer GM zooms have two or more separate OSS modes, one of which is purportedly optimised for panning.

Presumably that's because the stabilisation can adjust better for panning actions (and differentiate them form other movement) if you tell it in advance that that's what you will be doing...

-- hide signature --

Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

 SilvanBromide's gear list:SilvanBromide's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony a6500 Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM +25 more
Steve W Veteran Member • Posts: 4,706
Re: My only reason
1

Beatsy wrote:

Hank Radt wrote:

Paul Barnard wrote:

Steve W wrote:

ClementPhotos wrote:

dv312 wrote:

Cropping, cropping, and more cropping

Ultra necessary for birding

This is about the only reason I need to put a7R IV on my shopping list.

a7R IV + 200-600! You can't get away from me now, birds! (well, in the near future lol)

Don't kid yourself. They will still get away from you They are smarter than we think.

so very true. Last week I sat for three hours near a creek waiting for an egret to make an appearance. 100-400 and TC on camera, batteries charged and lots of enthusiasm. Didn’t see one at all, not even flying by. Next day I didn’t take the 100-400 just the 25. I went to the creek to get some landscape shots and 4 egret decided to hang around all day. They obviously can tell the difference between wide angle and telephoto

*!%?$&# birds...

Our fault. We ate all the big dumb slow ones!

Well we ate all the big slow ones we created by overfeeding them and keeping them in pens.  We have a lot of real wild turkeys here and they are faster and travel in packs  so other than being hit by the occasional automobile while not looking both ways they do pretty well.

-- hide signature --

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 Steve W's gear list:Steve W's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Fujifilm X-T3 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +28 more
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 8,465
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

Jacques Cornell wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

Besides all advantages others have said, also for future when there is bigger and higher-resolution monitors or if you want to print very large.

At this moment I don't really need 61mp as I view photos basically exclusively in iMac 5K, and only occasionally print upto 30x20". But believe Apple will release an iMac 8K in two years and I might need to print very large in future.

What's "very large"? Murals? I have a great-looking 20"x30" print made from an 11MP Canon 1Ds RAW file. Today's 42MP files are capable of much bigger prints than this.

Yeah, printing is very subjective on materials, size, viewing distance, illuminating condition etc.  And personally I rarely print.

I have many photos from 10mp 1D III, OK 10 years ago but really small when viewing in iMac 5K. Hope it had 24 or more pixels then.

Nevertheless I can see the difference between 42mp A7r III/II, 24mp A9, A7 II and 21mp 5DII, 22mp 5D III in iMac 5K screen clearly.  I virtually view all photos in screens not on prints.   At this moment 61mp only has a very slight advantage when viewing in 5K screen but will gain more in 8K screen, waiting for future iMac 8K (hope a full 8K not cinematic 8K).

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +15 more
hjs_koeln Regular Member • Posts: 131
Re: Aesthetic reasons
1

"Unreal" refers to the fact that, as opposed to film photography (one could also include traditional painting), in digital media, there´s no original, nothing one could hold in one´s hands, like a slide, negative, a piece of canvas with painting on it, etc.

Digital media is immaterial, the "original" image simply a collection of data, and once this data is copied, the copy is indistinguishable from the original.

Since I deal with digital media every day I´ve accepted this fact and am no longer bothered by it, but whenever I consciously contemplate it I´m always amazed how calmly we are riding over very thin ice and don´t seem to be bothered in the least.

Since when do we have electric energy? 150 - 200 years maybe? Imagine some event which would throw us back to a world w/o electric energy. Every single digital image or file of any sort would cease to exist at once, and never come back. After 10-20 years digital prints will deteriorate, and that´s it. Digital media will by then have become a memory, nothing more.

Considering what huge apparatus is necessary before digital images become even visible (electric power plants, gigantic powerline systems and miles after miles of cable, computers, screens and displays, printers, etc... etc....), I feel there´s got to be something in digital imagery to compensate a) for the immateriality of the medium, and b) for the efforts to install a gigantic system of technical equipment necessary before the first light emanating from a digital image even reaches our eyes.

So, digital imagery better be worth it by going beyond what "traditional" imagery is able to provide. Which is why I´m looking for ways in which digital images can provided some sort of additional benefit (if that is the right word - aesthetic impressions can be such additional benefit, it doesn´t have to be hands-on, real world benefits only). Resolution, trivial as it may seem at first glance, is one such way to go beyond traditional media, beyond what our eyes are capable of perceiving. Certainly not the only on, but one which I find fascinating.

DejayRezme wrote:

hjs_koeln wrote:

Not sure how others feel about it, but to me it´s not only more resolution, from a certain increase on it´s "more resolution plus X". Going from full HD in video to 4k introduces another quality alltogether, and in still photography it is similar.

There´s something fascinating about a tool which allows to exceed the capabilities of the human eye, and resolution is an area where this has become possible (bearing in mind of course that visual physiology is a totally different process than photography).

Digital imagery is immaterial, intangible and therefore elusive, which is kind of a mental stumbling block. There is no original, no ultimate source, b/c copy = original. This sense of digital images being unreal can be compensated by introducing qualities into the digital medium which would not be available otherwise. Again, resolution is one such way, and through it digital photography becomes a tool to reach or create this quality of reality, unobtainable otherwise.

If the immateriality of an image is the price I have to pay to reach this "other" dimension of reality, and if a particular camera is the suitable tool to take me there, I´m willing to go that way.

In this sense, for my taste anyways it can never be enough. A 100mp A7r V, and a 150mp A7r VI? Yes, please!

DejayRezme wrote:

If you think about the bayer filtering basically the color gets interpolated but you still loose some resolution in the color.

So basically you need 40mp sensor to fully resolve on a 4k screen with full color resolution and oversampling (avoiding moire / aliasing or filtering).

That has got to make in impact for certain images? So even if you "just" want the perfect picture on a 4k 8.2MP monitor you need at least 40mp in 3:2. 62mp is the first that allows some zooming and cropping while maintaining the highest quality.

Sony acknowledges this with their "bayer cancelling" multishot mode.

I'm a newbie and I'm not saying it's needed, but to me there seem to be technical reasons for wanting to have that resolution.

Mentioning video resolution was just an analogy. A large jump in resolution, whether in video or in still photography, introduces in my view something else besides just more megapixels.

I think it's a good example or benchmark for this "hyperrealism". I love 4k video. But 4k video looks much better if you downsample from 8k and things like only 8bit, 4:2:0 low color resolution or low bitrates really show in my opinion. Video compression (and jpeg compression too) limits what videos and pictures we see on our monitors.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean with introducing an "unreal dimension to reality" - but I think I do. I'm interested in shooting 4k macro videos and also macro photogrammetry to create 3D models out of unseen things.

And of course playing with color. That's why I was really hoping for a A7R IV that oversamples the full sensor and outputs 10 bit 4:2:2 at high bitrate down to "perfect" 4k. Basically downsampling 8k video to 4k.

Entropy512 Senior Member • Posts: 4,597
High pixel count without BIONZ performance increase is a liability

The 500 MPixel/sec sustained descaler/demosaicer limit of the BIONZ appears to STILL be present.  (Or, if it has increased, it hasn't increased by enough to make full-sensor-width oversampling possible like it is with the A9 and A7M3)

Which means that the additional pixels are a liability for video work.

-- hide signature --

Context is key. If I have quoted someone else's post when replying, please do not reply to something I say without reading text that I have quoted, and understanding the reason the quote function exists.

 Entropy512's gear list:Entropy512's gear list
Sony a6000 Pentax K-5 Pentax K-01 Sony a6300 Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads