Sensor resolution vs screen resolution

[akjos]

Ok ...the “ experts” might find this little crazy probably but hear me out...

Highest MP Cameras I owned were 24 mp. ( several... FX and DX) Except about 3 month honeymoon with A7R3. (42mp) while back

I always edited photos on 1920/1080 monitor being it 22 inch desktop monitor or 17 or 15.6 laptops which I used exclusively last 9 yrs or so because I’m always on the go with my job ( like 25 days out of the month...)

in December I got M1 macbook air with its “retina “ high resolution 13” display.
well damn... all of the sudden my 20 or 24 mp camera files seem really low resolution. It is actually quite frustrating.
I was always in the “24 mp is more then enough for anything “ crowd but looking at 100s of my edited photos from last 5 yrs or so Im like... well this kinda sucks...

Now Looking at the 42 mp Sony files I view the resolution as the sweet spot and my new R6 sensor seems almost obsolete ( resolution wise ...otherwise I absolutely LOVE the camera)

God forbid one used even higher resolution ( like 4k) monitor... then there would be literally no cropping at all possible pretty much before hitting 1:1 or 100% which you don’t really want to do to VIEW the photos as a whole...

I hardly ever print but did before but only thing I got printed was about 20/20 wall calendar photos from my travels 16 yrs ago and that was with 8mp camera and they looked great.

so that brings me to another question... is the 20 mp indeed enough to print fairly large? Should one have that one in the 1000 photo he would like to blow up like for the living room wall? Say 50 -60 inches wide.
Because the lack of Mp while viewing the images on high resolution monitor sure seems like almost not...

thanks for the opinions.

--
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries

 

[PAntunes]

When I moved from an old 27'' to a retina 27'' (5k) I got the same shock. Suddenly the 24mp files were not enough to fill the screen when checking a photo in portrait orientation at 1:1.

For the prints, I've got two photos that are about the size you mention in my living room. One is 24mp and the other is 42mp. Is there a difference? Yes.. The 42 has more detail, but to be honest, the 24 is not bad. Specially with the paper and how the printing works, there's always some texture. You just don't get the same crispness.

On the screen you'll notice it a lot more. And I think in the future that may be more important. 8k tvs and screens are already here. That's 33mp. How well will a 20mp photo work there?

 

[pkoenig2001]

Ok ...the “ experts” might find this little crazy probably but hear me out...

Highest MP Cameras I owned were 24 mp. ( several... FX and DX) Except about 3 month honeymoon with A7R3. (42mp) while back

I always edited photos on 1920/1080 monitor being it 22 inch desktop monitor or 17 or 15.6 laptops which I used exclusively last 9 yrs or so because I’m always on the go with my job ( like 25 days out of the month...)

in December I got M1 macbook air with its “retina “ high resolution 13” display.
well damn... all of the sudden my 20 or 24 mp camera files seem really low resolution. It is actually quite frustrating.
I was always in the “24 mp is more then enough for anything “ crowd but looking at 100s of my edited photos from last 5 yrs or so Im like... well this kinda sucks...

Now Looking at the 42 mp Sony files I view the resolution as the sweet spot and my new R6 sensor seems almost obsolete ( resolution wise ...otherwise I absolutely LOVE the camera)

God forbid one used even higher resolution ( like 4k) monitor... then there would be literally no cropping at all possible pretty much before hitting 1:1 or 100% which you don’t really want to do to VIEW the photos as a whole...

I hardly ever print but did before but only thing I got printed was about 20/20 wall calendar photos from my travels 16 yrs ago and that was with 8mp camera and they looked great.

so that brings me to another question... is the 20 mp indeed enough to print fairly large? Should one have that one in the 1000 photo he would like to blow up like for the living room wall? Say 50 -60 inches wide.
Because the lack of Mp while viewing the images on high resolution monitor sure seems like almost not...

thanks for the opinions.

 

[sybersitizen]

I always edited photos on 1920/1080 monitor being it 22 inch desktop monitor or 17 or 15.6 laptops which I used exclusively last 9 yrs or so because I’m always on the go with my job ( like 25 days out of the month...)

in December I got M1 macbook air with its “retina “ high resolution 13” display.
well damn... all of the sudden my 20 or 24 mp camera files seem really low resolution.

Specs say the resolution is only 2560x1600, and the whole area is smaller than what you're used to, so it is not a resolution issue. If it looks bad, blame it on Apple's nonstandard 'Retina' technology rather than the camera.

 

[Mike B USA]

The M1 MacBook Air 13" Retina display has a native resolution of 2560x1600. That's about twice as many pixels as a 1920x1080 display. It's more for sure, but not by an order of magnitude or anything like that.

A Sony 24MP image is 6000x4000 at its highest resolution. That's six times as many pixels as the Retina display. You can't display the full image at 1:1 on the MacBook AIr display. There's some interpolation going on just to show you a full screen image.

I don't doubt your eyesight is better than mine, but neither a 1920x1080 display or a 13" Retina display can show you the full 1:1 image on the screen.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

You aren't seeing the full resolution of your photos on your new computer when viewing at full image width, and I think you may be seriously underestimating your images on it. "Retina" may not mean what you think it means: it just means that the pixels are going to be invisible for someone with 20/20 vision when viewing the screen at a particular distance, which varies among the device models. It does not necessarily mean a large number of pixels.

I once sold a large print—maybe five feet wide—to a restaurant, and it looked great. The camera was 6 megapixels, and the image somewhat cropped. Yeah, it didn't look all that great at close inspection (although not bad), but viewing the image whole and entire from a distance was fine.

 

[akjos]

Ok ...the “ experts” might find this little crazy probably but hear me out...

Highest MP Cameras I owned were 24 mp. ( several... FX and DX) Except about 3 month honeymoon with A7R3. (42mp) while back

I always edited photos on 1920/1080 monitor being it 22 inch desktop monitor or 17 or 15.6 laptops which I used exclusively last 9 yrs or so because I’m always on the go with my job ( like 25 days out of the month...)

in December I got M1 macbook air with its “retina “ high resolution 13” display.
well damn... all of the sudden my 20 or 24 mp camera files seem really low resolution. It is actually quite frustrating.
I was always in the “24 mp is more then enough for anything “ crowd but looking at 100s of my edited photos from last 5 yrs or so Im like... well this kinda sucks...

Now Looking at the 42 mp Sony files I view the resolution as the sweet spot and my new R6 sensor seems almost obsolete ( resolution wise ...otherwise I absolutely LOVE the camera)

God forbid one used even higher resolution ( like 4k) monitor... then there would be literally no cropping at all possible pretty much before hitting 1:1 or 100% which you don’t really want to do to VIEW the photos as a whole...

I hardly ever print but did before but only thing I got printed was about 20/20 wall calendar photos from my travels 16 yrs ago and that was with 8mp camera and they looked great.

so that brings me to another question... is the 20 mp indeed enough to print fairly large? Should one have that one in the 1000 photo he would like to blow up like for the living room wall? Say 50 -60 inches wide.
Because the lack of Mp while viewing the images on high resolution monitor sure seems like almost not...

thanks for the opinions.

I’m not an expert but it sounds like you might be confusing setting resolution on a particular monitor for best viewing with printing. Consensus here is that 20mp is sufficient to make beautiful prints up to a certain size and if you needed larger you could use software like Gigapixel to make the file larger. Of course folks who only print very large would do better with an R5. Personally I do not print often.

My impression is that your photos should not look bad on the monitor and it might be a matter of tweaking some settings? What is the native resolution of the monitor?

 

[akjos]

The M1 MacBook Air 13" Retina display has a native resolution of 2560x1600. That's about twice as many pixels as a 1920x1080 display. It's more for sure, but not by an order of magnitude or anything like that.

A Sony 24MP image is 6000x4000 at its highest resolution. That's six times as many pixels as the Retina display. You can't display the full image at 1:1 on the MacBook AIr display. There's some interpolation going on just to show you a full screen image.

I don't doubt your eyesight is better than mine, but neither a 1920x1080 display or a 13" Retina display can show you the full 1:1 image on the screen.

Of course the image “fitted” to the screen is less then 1:1. But before I really had to click 4 times to get it to 100% and it looked HUGE ( or part of it visible atm) now.. not so much at all.... seems like image fitted to the screen size is already at 50%. . I don’t really know how to explain it any better in plain terms lol.

 

[akjos]

You aren't seeing the full resolution of your photos on your new computer when viewing at full image width, and I think you may be seriously underestimating your images on it. "Retina" may not mean what you think it means: it just means that the pixels are going to be invisible for someone with 20/20 vision when viewing the screen at a particular distance, which varies among the device models. It does not necessarily mean a large number of pixels.

oh I know retina is only marketing BS and merely a name ... its 2500/1600 i think crammed into 13” screen .

I once sold a large print—maybe five feet wide—to a restaurant, and it looked great. The camera was 6 megapixels, and the image somewhat cropped. Yeah, it didn't look all that great at close inspection (although not bad), but viewing the image whole and entire from a distance was fine.

 

[bjn70]

When I moved from an old 27'' to a retina 27'' (5k) I got the same shock. Suddenly the 24mp files were not enough to fill the screen when checking a photo in portrait orientation at 1:1.

The same as someone posted below, you cannot see the entire image at 100% on your monitor, your monitor is only about 15MP. There must be something funny going on with your software.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

oh I know retina is only marketing BS and merely a name ... its 2500/1600 i think crammed into 13” screen .

No, it is a real technological advance. For the first time, on my 5K iMac, I was able to see an entire image, or most of an image, at 100% on my computer screen. I had some lenses that were really poor when viewed this way, and I had no idea they were that way.

 

[PAntunes]

When I moved from an old 27'' to a retina 27'' (5k) I got the same shock. Suddenly the 24mp files were not enough to fill the screen when checking a photo in portrait orientation at 1:1.

The same as someone posted below, you cannot see the entire image at 100% on your monitor, your monitor is only about 15MP. There must be something funny going on with your software.

Not at all. A 24mp photo is 6000x4000. If it’s a portrait, the horizontal size will be 4000px. The screen is 5120px so at 1:1 you’ll see the entire image in the screen and still have space left.

 

[alcelc]

When I moved from an old 27'' to a retina 27'' (5k) I got the same shock. Suddenly the 24mp files were not enough to fill the screen when checking a photo in portrait orientation at 1:1.

The same as someone posted below, you cannot see the entire image at 100% on your monitor, your monitor is only about 15MP. There must be something funny going on with your software.

Not at all. A 24mp photo is 6000x4000. If it’s a portrait, the horizontal size will be 4000px. The screen is 5120px so at 1:1 you’ll see the entire image in the screen and still have space left.

How about on the height side? The height if your 5K screen is less than 6000 , so on 1:1, you either have to move top and down, or your software will scale down the image to fit the height resolution of the monitor...

 

[Juyal]

1. In older times (before resolution war) clicked photos were supposed to see on the print.

2. Megapixel and sharpness is a new business for the camera industry. I think Correct Exposure with Acceptable sharpness is more important.

3. We should not upgrade screens often. Print photos and enjoy.

 

[PAntunes]

When I moved from an old 27'' to a retina 27'' (5k) I got the same shock. Suddenly the 24mp files were not enough to fill the screen when checking a photo in portrait orientation at 1:1.

The same as someone posted below, you cannot see the entire image at 100% on your monitor, your monitor is only about 15MP. There must be something funny going on with your software.

Not at all. A 24mp photo is 6000x4000. If it’s a portrait, the horizontal size will be 4000px. The screen is 5120px so at 1:1 you’ll see the entire image in the screen and still have space left.

How about on the height side? The height if your 5K screen is less than 6000 , so on 1:1, you either have to move top and down, or your software will scale down the image to fit the height resolution of the monitor...

Yes, I have to move up and down, but it doesn't fill the screen completely on the sides. That's why I mentioned that it was on portrait photos.

 

[spider-mario]

I would have two questions:

Megapixel and sharpness is a new business for the camera industry. I think Correct Exposure with Acceptable sharpness is more important.

What about a given exposure makes it correct?

We should not upgrade screens often. Print photos and enjoy.

What makes printing intrinsically better than a good screen?

 

[Fotoni]

Screen resolution means that every pixel is a combination of three primary color subpixels. Sensor resolution means that there are just pixels and all primary colors are included to that.

8K screen: about 33 megapixels which is combination of 33 x 3 subpixels = 99 MP

33 MP Bayer filtered sensor: 50% green = 16.5 MP, 25% red = 8.25 MP and blue = 8. 25 MP, so you just have about 33 MP total.

Basically 66 MP for subpixels has to be made up from the 33 MP to fill the 99 MP of the screen. Subpixels are smaller than pixels, so it is harder to notice, but finer details will have visible differences. Some of you might have heard about 4:2:0, 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 chroma subsampling because of video compression or because of HDMI bandwidth limitations. Bayer filtered camera sensor have similarities with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, but screens are natively 4:4:4

Prints are more affordable than high resolution screens, so most can utilize the whole resolution of the camera easier on paper. Pixel density is also much higher on paper, usually 200 or 300 pixels per inch. Paper can go beyond 8K easily.

Also AMOLED phone screens can be bizarre because of pentile subpixels instead of traditional striped subpixels. It seems that PPI visibility is not quite the same when comparing to a TV or computer screen. I can see subpixels much easier from a pentile AMOLED which is shame they went that cheaper approach on phones.

 

[fferreres]

Ok ...the “ experts” might find this little crazy probably but hear me out...

Highest MP Cameras I owned were 24 mp. ( several... FX and DX) Except about 3 month honeymoon with A7R3. (42mp) while back

I always edited photos on 1920/1080 monitor being it 22 inch desktop monitor or 17 or 15.6 laptops which I used exclusively last 9 yrs or so because I’m always on the go with my job ( like 25 days out of the month...)

in December I got M1 macbook air with its “retina “ high resolution 13” display.
well damn... all of the sudden my 20 or 24 mp camera files seem really low resolution. It is actually quite frustrating.
I was always in the “24 mp is more then enough for anything “ crowd but looking at 100s of my edited photos from last 5 yrs or so Im like... well this kinda sucks...

Now Looking at the 42 mp Sony files I view the resolution as the sweet spot and my new R6 sensor seems almost obsolete ( resolution wise ...otherwise I absolutely LOVE the camera)

God forbid one used even higher resolution ( like 4k) monitor... then there would be literally no cropping at all possible pretty much before hitting 1:1 or 100% which you don’t really want to do to VIEW the photos as a whole...

I hardly ever print but did before but only thing I got printed was about 20/20 wall calendar photos from my travels 16 yrs ago and that was with 8mp camera and they looked great.

so that brings me to another question... is the 20 mp indeed enough to print fairly large? Should one have that one in the 1000 photo he would like to blow up like for the living room wall? Say 50 -60 inches wide.
Because the lack of Mp while viewing the images on high resolution monitor sure seems like almost not...

thanks for the opinions.

It is not enough, but there will be gimmicks for those that chose 20MP, like Topaz AI Gigapixel that invent plausible detail. It takes the same amount of effort to take a 42MP+ image as 20MP image. The only exception to the MP argument is video. Since in video things move, you experience data in time, and 20MP is more than plenty.

Some will argue you are watching things wrongly. Don't listen to them. As soon as you have a 8K monitor, you will regret 20MP stills, and you win nothing by remembering it was somebody else's lack of foresight that got you there.

Listen to your eyes!

On the other hand, I still enjoy my low resolution 12MP pictures done with my Canon 5D. It depends on the kind of photo, and not all need higher resolution.

 

[George1958]

This is a frequent topic across the forums . There must be a lot of variation between hardware , monitor settings , video card drivers etc. I can fill a 5k monitor with 20mp and I’m not seeing pixelation. the apple Retina display premise is the human eye can’t resolve more detail and that is less than 5k. Something else is going on between the file, the hardware and the display.

also MP count is not the same as resolution , you can have a poorly resolved image with a lot of MP

 

[George1958]

Its going to be a while before every one buys into 8k. By then more and more people will likely be using smartphones as a standard capture and viewing device. No one except for a shrinking number of enthusiasts will care about 8k.

Apple concluded that their retina displays were just past the limit of the human eye to resolve more detail.

Whats the motivation? to be driven by marketing spiel to buy into more and more tech in en effort to keep up with new products you don't actually need? Who's interested in individual pixels any way, unless you you like pointillism ?

Most who bother to print rarely go beyond A3. You can use 16mp or less to print that.