Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
xpatUSA
xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,873
Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...
1

We talk about "detail" a lot in this Forum, perhaps because the Foveon is quite good at recording said detail.

I often wonder what "detail" is. In my own mind, detail is objects no smaller than one pixel at the sensor. My DP2M has a 5um pixel spacing and a 30mm focal length lens but how does that translate to objects in the scene? By which I mean that a leaf shot at minimum focusing distance is hardly a "detail" - but that same leaf shot from a mile away is beyond even the resolution of the Mighty Merrill.

Easy enough really, if we now talk about angles. The DP2M pixel at 30mm subtends an angle of about 0.6 minutes of arc, i.e. 0.1666 milli-radians (mrad). On the other side of the lens, i.e. in the scene, such a detail is easily calculated. An object 1 meter away will be 0.167mm large, 100 meters away the same 1-pixel detail will be 16.67mm large. Piece of doddle.

Although I have a DP2M, shooting anything with such detail is quite a challenge for me such that I find it necessary to go beyond 100% zoom in post to make sure my shots are at least half-decent. Of course, others here are so good at capturing "detail" that they need no such assurance and they cannot understand why I pixel-peep even at 100%.

So, in defense of pixel-peeping, I took a virtual shot of small piece of virtual mesh with exactly one-pixel dimensions with a virtual DP2M. Here is that virtual "shot":

So, how "good" is that mesh detail? Anybody?

No peeping now, y'hear? - but feel free to use a real magnifying glass on your monitor ...

More to come later ...

-- hide signature --

Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
Sigma DP2 Merrill
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 14,033
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

You said, "radians." Uh, huh huh huh. Huh, huh huh.

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Nikon D810 Sigma sd Quattro H Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +20 more
xpatUSA
OP xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,873
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...
2

Scottelly wrote:

You said, "radians." Uh, huh huh huh. Huh, huh huh.

Yet another crack from the Forum Seer.

I am reminded of Jake in "Two and a Half Men".

You DO know what a radian is, right?

-- hide signature --

Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 24,393
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...
1

xpatUSA wrote:

We talk about "detail" a lot in this Forum, perhaps because the Foveon is quite good at recording said detail.

I often wonder what "detail" is. In my own mind, detail is objects no smaller than one pixel at the sensor. My DP2M has a 5um pixel spacing and a 30mm focal length lens but how does that translate to objects in the scene? By which I mean that a leaf shot at minimum focusing distance is hardly a "detail" - but that same leaf shot from a mile away is beyond even the resolution of the Mighty Merrill.

Easy enough really, if we now talk about angles. The DP2M pixel at 30mm subtends an angle of about 0.6 minutes of arc, i.e. 0.1666 milli-radians (mrad). On the other side of the lens, i.e. in the scene, such a detail is easily calculated. An object 1 meter away will be 0.167mm large, 100 meters away the same 1-pixel detail will be 16.67mm large. Piece of doddle.

This kind of calculation is useful when you have to photograph a large painting.

Although I have a DP2M, shooting anything with such detail is quite a challenge for me such that I find it necessary to go beyond 100% zoom in post to make sure my shots are at least half-decent. Of course, others here are so good at capturing "detail" that they need no such assurance and they cannot understand why I pixel-peep even at 100%.

So, in defense of pixel-peeping, I took a virtual shot of small piece of virtual mesh with exactly one-pixel dimensions with a virtual DP2M. Here is that virtual "shot":

So, how "good" is that mesh detail? Anybody?

No peeping now, y'hear? - but feel free to use a real magnifying glass on your monitor ...

More to come later ...

Good stuff. More please.

xpatUSA
OP xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,873
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

D Cox wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

We talk about "detail" a lot in this Forum, perhaps because the Foveon is quite good at recording said detail.

I often wonder what "detail" is. In my own mind, detail is objects no smaller than one pixel at the sensor. My DP2M has a 5um pixel spacing and a 30mm focal length lens but how does that translate to objects in the scene? By which I mean that a leaf shot at minimum focusing distance is hardly a "detail" - but that same leaf shot from a mile away is beyond even the resolution of the Mighty Merrill.

Easy enough really, if we now talk about angles. The DP2M pixel at 30mm subtends an angle of about 0.6 minutes of arc, i.e. 0.1666 milli-radians (mrad). On the other side of the lens, i.e. in the scene, such a detail is easily calculated. An object 1 meter away will be 0.167mm large, 100 meters away the same 1-pixel detail will be 16.67mm large. Piece of doddle.

This kind of calculation is useful when you have to photograph a large painting.

Although I have a DP2M, shooting anything with such detail is quite a challenge for me such that I find it necessary to go beyond 100% zoom in post to make sure my shots are at least half-decent. Of course, others here are so good at capturing "detail" that they need no such assurance and they cannot understand why I pixel-peep even at 100%.

So, in defense of pixel-peeping, I took a virtual shot of small piece of virtual mesh with exactly one-pixel dimensions with a virtual DP2M. Here is that virtual "shot":

So, how "good" is that mesh detail? Anybody?

No peeping now, y'hear? - but feel free to use a real magnifying glass on your monitor ...

More to come later ...

Good stuff. More please.

Thank you, Don.

With this post, I hope to show that image "detail" can not be assessed without zooming to more than 100% - a practice frowned upon by some people here (you know who you are ).

In the above image and in the post view, the virtual mesh looks like a gray square on my monitor. Application of a 10X jeweler's loupe reveals ... a gray square made up of RGB sub-pixels. No prob . . . go to "original size" ... Nope, even viewing with a powerful pocket microscope reveals only a hint of a mesh with very low contrast.

At this point, the anti-peeper would have no idea what the quality of that detail is, because he "never views at more than 100%".

On the other hand, the peeper can zoom in by integer factors, X1,X2,X3 etc. and, assuming that the stupid viewer doesn't apply smoothing, thereby see the detail pixels enlarged upon the monitor screen. Note that the image itself remains unchanged - so what you see is what you got. Amid howls of horror, here is my original virtual mesh shown at 50X, i.e. 5,000% zoom:

Extreme pixel-peeping shows clearly that the mesh detail was perfect in fact. Each original pixel is shown at 50 screen pixels on my monitor, thus screen resolution and sub-pixels become irrelevant. Equally, any lack of detail quality would have become blindingly obvious.

In a recent post, a very nice landscape image had been shot accidentally using Sigma's medium resolution mode. Pixel-peeping at 8X (800%) showed unusual detail artifacts but which the poster said he could not see on his monitor (at 100%, IIRC). Now we know why ...

-- hide signature --

FastStone Viewer - don't leave home without it ...

Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
ChristianHass Veteran Member • Posts: 3,082
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...
1

xpatUSA wrote:

In the above image and in the post view, the virtual mesh looks like a gray square on my monitor. Application of a 10X jeweler's loupe reveals ... a gray square made up of RGB sub-pixels. No prob . . . go to "original size" ... Nope, even viewing with a powerful pocket microscope reveals only a hint of a mesh with very low contrast.

Ah that makes more sense then. On my monitor (4K resolution) it looks like a mesh, both in the post and when I click "original size" so I was wondering what you were trying to show.

-- hide signature --
 ChristianHass's gear list:ChristianHass's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Ricoh GR Sony RX100 II Sony a7R II +1 more
FDecker Senior Member • Posts: 1,884
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that without pixel-peeping the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

xpatUSA
OP xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,873
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because, being an artificial construct, it avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

-- hide signature --

Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
FDecker Senior Member • Posts: 1,884
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

xpatUSA wrote:

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

Because it is a mesh, single pixel dimension also means single pixel resolution, right?

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because it, being an artificial construct, avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

Well, if this was your intention, I think you made it clear, obviously.

Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 14,033
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

xpatUSA wrote:

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because, being an artificial construct, it avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

Oh . . . now I get it. Thanks for the explanation Ted. Sorry your initial posts went over my head.

So why are you arguing about pixel peeping being necessary?

Do I STILL not get it?

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Nikon D810 Sigma sd Quattro H Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +20 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 14,033
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

ChristianHass wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

In the above image and in the post view, the virtual mesh looks like a gray square on my monitor. Application of a 10X jeweler's loupe reveals ... a gray square made up of RGB sub-pixels. No prob . . . go to "original size" ... Nope, even viewing with a powerful pocket microscope reveals only a hint of a mesh with very low contrast.

Ah that makes more sense then. On my monitor (4K resolution) it looks like a mesh, both in the post and when I click "original size" so I was wondering what you were trying to show.

Have you figured out what Ted is trying to show now? I'm thinking he was trying to show how to see detail you have to pixel-peep. I just don't understand why. Did someone say that pixel peeping isn't necessary to see the finest detail in an image or something?

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Nikon D810 Sigma sd Quattro H Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +20 more
xpatUSA
OP xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,873
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

FDecker wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

Because it is a mesh, single pixel dimension also means single pixel resolution, right?

OK

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because it, being an artificial construct, avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

Well, if this was your intention, I think you made it clear, obviously.

Thank you.

-- hide signature --

Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
xpatUSA
OP xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,873
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because, being an artificial construct, it avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

Oh . . . now I get it. Thanks for the explanation Ted. Sorry your initial posts went over my head.

So why are you arguing about pixel peeping being necessary?

Do I STILL not get it?

As you know, when commenting on an image, I have been known to post zoomed-in illustrations of detail - often when I'm bashing Quattro processing artifacts.

For illustrative purposes only, here's a 100% crop from a nice Merrill landscape posted here by @Ceistinne:

There's some rock detail (circled) which looks fine in this view and quite good in the original view.

But now please view that same detail at X7 (700%):

No need to see the original of this crop, the artifacts are now obvious and cause for concern in a pedantic view.

This thread is aimed directly at those who decry pixel-peeping as if it were somehow "wrong".

-- hide signature --

Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 14,033
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because, being an artificial construct, it avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

Oh . . . now I get it. Thanks for the explanation Ted. Sorry your initial posts went over my head.

So why are you arguing about pixel peeping being necessary?

Do I STILL not get it?

As you know, when commenting on an image, I have been known to post zoomed-in illustrations of detail - often when I'm bashing Quattro processing artifacts.

For illustrative purposes only, here's a 100% crop from a nice Merrill landscape posted here by @Ceistinne:

There's some rock detail (circled) which looks fine in this view and quite good in the original view.

But now please view that same detail at X7 (700%):

No need to see the original of this crop, the artifacts are now obvious and cause for concern in a pedantic view.

This thread is aimed directly at those who decry pixel-peeping as if it were somehow "wrong".

Interesting Ted. Do you think the artifacts could be a result of the scaling?

Here's my result from scaling it with Preview:

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Nikon D810 Sigma sd Quattro H Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +20 more
xpatUSA
OP xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,873
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because, being an artificial construct, it avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

Oh . . . now I get it. Thanks for the explanation Ted. Sorry your initial posts went over my head.

So why are you arguing about pixel peeping being necessary?

Do I STILL not get it?

As you know, when commenting on an image, I have been known to post zoomed-in illustrations of detail - often when I'm bashing Quattro processing artifacts.

For illustrative purposes only, here's a 100% crop from a nice Merrill landscape posted here by @Ceistinne:

There's some rock detail (circled) which looks fine in this view and quite good in the original view.

But now please view that same detail at X7 (700%):

No need to see the original of this crop, the artifacts are now obvious and cause for concern in a pedantic view.

This thread is aimed directly at those who decry pixel-peeping as if it were somehow "wrong".

Interesting Ted. Do you think the artifacts could be a result of the scaling?

No. The scaling was by Nearest Neighbor with no smoothing, just the same as the mesh image.

Here's my result from scaling it with Preview:

I don't know what "Preview" is - but the smoothing that it applied is quite obvious, even in the above post view.

Here's my result from clicking the 'Smooth' checkbox in FastStone Viewer:

Looks quite similar, d'ya think?

-- hide signature --

Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 14,033
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because, being an artificial construct, it avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

Oh . . . now I get it. Thanks for the explanation Ted. Sorry your initial posts went over my head.

So why are you arguing about pixel peeping being necessary?

Do I STILL not get it?

As you know, when commenting on an image, I have been known to post zoomed-in illustrations of detail - often when I'm bashing Quattro processing artifacts.

For illustrative purposes only, here's a 100% crop from a nice Merrill landscape posted here by @Ceistinne:

There's some rock detail (circled) which looks fine in this view and quite good in the original view.

But now please view that same detail at X7 (700%):

No need to see the original of this crop, the artifacts are now obvious and cause for concern in a pedantic view.

This thread is aimed directly at those who decry pixel-peeping as if it were somehow "wrong".

Interesting Ted. Do you think the artifacts could be a result of the scaling?

No. The scaling was by Nearest Neighbor with no smoothing, just the same as the mesh image.

Here's my result from scaling it with Preview:

I don't know what "Preview" is - but the smoothing that it applied is quite obvious, even in the above post view.

Here's my result from clicking the 'Smooth' checkbox in FastStone Viewer:

Looks quite similar, d'ya think?

I just figured Preview (the image and PDF viewer that comes on every Mac, and can be used to turn images 90 or 180 degrees, crop, resize, sharpen, convert, and adjust color, brightness, contrast, etc.) was using a different scaling method vs. bicubic, but maybe you're right Ted. Maybe it smoothes the image too. Whatever it does, it looks like the image has far less artifacts.

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Nikon D810 Sigma sd Quattro H Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +20 more
Macrae Forum Member • Posts: 55
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...
2

HI Ted,

This is a very interesting exercise. I actually love this kind of thing because it has helps me make decisions regarding resolution dimensions in my printing so that I achieve the look/print I am after.

I must admit that I am a low resolution photographer. That is I have not (for my own work) been able to create more descriptive prints with higher pixel count sensors. I know this sounds a bit mad, but it is true.

In your virtual example, you equate detail with individual pixels. But a pixel (colour and luminosity) is not detail. It is a building block of detail. Like an atom to a molecule. It is only when group of pixels reach a certain quality is readable "detail" formed.

Think about this. Imagine you are standing in a great hall where the floor is constructed of long strips of boards that run the length of the room. The boards have normal variegation, and their colour varies as you would expect. When you look down at your feet, it is easy to differentiate the separate boards. But as they extend away from where you are standing, it becomes increasingly difficult to visually separate one board from another until it is impossible.

If your position remains unchanged what would have to happen to the distant boards in order for them to be perceived? They would have to be enlarged and contrast added so that the minimum visual threshold for tonal separation was reached.

Below is a crop from a 24x36 inch print sized at 90 PPI made from alternating black and white pixels. It is a fascinating thing to look at and to print especially when one keeps in mind that these are black (0) and white (255) pixels. Imagine, like the floor example above if these pixels were variations of gray not unlike what we find in nature. What would happen if they were smaller (higher resolution)? The question of how "good" is the detail in your mesh relies on so many things. The one thing it most relies on is viewing conditions. This is why my inkjet prints cannot be optimized for two different viewing distances.

black and white pixel checkboard. crop from  24x36 inch at 90PPI.

xpatUSA
OP xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,873
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because, being an artificial construct, it avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

Oh . . . now I get it. Thanks for the explanation Ted. Sorry your initial posts went over my head.

So why are you arguing about pixel peeping being necessary?

Do I STILL not get it?

As you know, when commenting on an image, I have been known to post zoomed-in illustrations of detail - often when I'm bashing Quattro processing artifacts.

For illustrative purposes only, here's a 100% crop from a nice Merrill landscape posted here by @Ceistinne:

There's some rock detail (circled) which looks fine in this view and quite good in the original view.

But now please view that same detail at X7 (700%):

No need to see the original of this crop, the artifacts are now obvious and cause for concern in a pedantic view.

This thread is aimed directly at those who decry pixel-peeping as if it were somehow "wrong".

Interesting Ted. Do you think the artifacts could be a result of the scaling?

No. The scaling was by Nearest Neighbor with no smoothing, just the same as the mesh image.

Here's my result from scaling it with Preview:

I don't know what "Preview" is - but the smoothing that it applied is quite obvious, even in the above post view.

Here's my result from clicking the 'Smooth' checkbox in FastStone Viewer:

Looks quite similar, d'ya think?

I just figured Preview (the image and PDF viewer that comes on every Mac, and can be used to turn images 90 or 180 degrees, crop, resize, sharpen, convert, and adjust color, brightness, contrast, etc.) was using a different scaling method vs. bicubic, but maybe you're right Ted. Maybe it smoothes the image too. Whatever it does, it looks like the image has far less artifacts.

As always, an element of doubt is cast on my post, starting with "Maybe" ... and ending with "the image has far less artifacts"!

If you choose to re-sample with something other than a positive integer ratio of Nearest Neighbor, your re-sampling of the image has NO relevance in this thread.

-- hide signature --

Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
PrebenR Veteran Member • Posts: 4,146
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...
1

xpatUSA wrote:

We talk about "detail" a lot in this Forum, perhaps because the Foveon is quite good at recording said detail.

I often wonder what "detail" is. In my own mind, detail is objects no smaller than one pixel at the sensor. My DP2M has a 5um pixel spacing and a 30mm focal length lens but how does that translate to objects in the scene? By which I mean that a leaf shot at minimum focusing distance is hardly a "detail" - but that same leaf shot from a mile away is beyond even the resolution of the Mighty Merrill.

Easy enough really, if we now talk about angles. The DP2M pixel at 30mm subtends an angle of about 0.6 minutes of arc, i.e. 0.1666 milli-radians (mrad). On the other side of the lens, i.e. in the scene, such a detail is easily calculated. An object 1 meter away will be 0.167mm large, 100 meters away the same 1-pixel detail will be 16.67mm large. Piece of doddle.

Although I have a DP2M, shooting anything with such detail is quite a challenge for me such that I find it necessary to go beyond 100% zoom in post to make sure my shots are at least half-decent. Of course, others here are so good at capturing "detail" that they need no such assurance and they cannot understand why I pixel-peep even at 100%.

So, in defense of pixel-peeping, I took a virtual shot of small piece of virtual mesh with exactly one-pixel dimensions with a virtual DP2M. Here is that virtual "shot":

So, how "good" is that mesh detail? Anybody?

No peeping now, y'hear? - but feel free to use a real magnifying glass on your monitor ...

More to come later ...

Looks good. To me tonality is more important than details one cannot see. One of the reasons I wish one could adjust the microcontrast of the Merrills. When taking a portrait photo of a kid and you notice all the facial hairs, that you do not when looking at same kid, then the microcontrast is excessive. In other situations it might not be an issue and people mistake it for details.

-- hide signature --

Don't blame the camera
Still trying to upgrade photographer body

PrebenR Veteran Member • Posts: 4,146
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

xpatUSA wrote:

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because, being an artificial construct, it avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

A normal monitor would show a typical 24Mpx image at about 50% give or take. Which would be a nice percentage in terms of seeing the forest for all the trees.

-- hide signature --

Don't blame the camera
Still trying to upgrade photographer body

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads