Image Quality you can see

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
dave92029 Contributing Member • Posts: 909
Image Quality you can see

There are numerous comments from those who own or want a high MP camera ie: a7Riii; A7riv, A1, etc. about how these cameras have "High Image" quality as compared to the new A7iv and all the rest.

I have a 4k monitor, but I don't have the display set to 4K because everything would be too small to read. I realize that even set at a lower resolution the detail is sharper than on a monitor capable of 1080p.

I also realize that the "extra" mp allow one to more easily "Crop" their raw image, but that is Not the same as "image Quality" is it?

Mark Galer, who I respect, comments that he Crops his raw images drown to 4K for presentation. The primary use/ benefit of a high MP image is in printing a Very Large poster. How many every do that? I never have.

4K is generally considered 3840 x2160 (8.3 MP), so isn't everything else usually being deleted.

300 ppi is generally considered a high quality image, but doesn't Apple Retina screens usually only reproduce 264 ppi?

How does very high MP cameras produce "better" image quality" than 24mp +???

Thanks for your help

Dave

 dave92029's gear list:dave92029's gear list
Sony a6400 Sony a7 IV Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony 1.4x Teleconverter (2016) +2 more
Sony a1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ronscuba Senior Member • Posts: 1,043
Re: Image Quality you can see

dave92029 wrote:

There are numerous comments from those who own or want a high MP camera ie: a7Riii; A7riv, A1, etc. about how these cameras have "High Image" quality as compared to the new A7iv and all the rest.

I have a 4k monitor, but I don't have the display set to 4K because everything would be too small to read. I realize that even set at a lower resolution the detail is sharper than on a monitor capable of 1080p.

I also realize that the "extra" mp allow one to more easily "Crop" their raw image, but that is Not the same as "image Quality" is it?

Mark Galer, who I respect, comments that he Crops his raw images drown to 4K for presentation. The primary use/ benefit of a high MP image is in printing a Very Large poster. How many every do that? I never have.

4K is generally considered 3840 x2160 (8.3 MP), so isn't everything else usually being deleted.

300 ppi is generally considered a high quality image, but doesn't Apple Retina screens usually only reproduce 264 ppi?

How does very high MP cameras produce "better" image quality" than 24mp +???

Thanks for your help

Dave

Do you have aspirations to be published or sell your prints ? If so, what are the resolution requirements ? Do you want the ability to crop and still meet those resolution requirements ?

I guess "better" image has different factors depending on the application.

OP dave92029 Contributing Member • Posts: 909
Re: Image Quality you can see

ronscuba wrote:

dave92029 wrote:

There are numerous comments from those who own or want a high MP camera ie: a7Riii; A7riv, A1, etc. about how these cameras have "High Image" quality as compared to the new A7iv and all the rest.

I have a 4k monitor, but I don't have the display set to 4K because everything would be too small to read. I realize that even set at a lower resolution the detail is sharper than on a monitor capable of 1080p.

I also realize that the "extra" mp allow one to more easily "Crop" their raw image, but that is Not the same as "image Quality" is it?

Mark Galer, who I respect, comments that he Crops his raw images drown to 4K for presentation. The primary use/ benefit of a high MP image is in printing a Very Large poster. How many every do that? I never have.

4K is generally considered 3840 x2160 (8.3 MP), so isn't everything else usually being deleted.

300 ppi is generally considered a high quality image, but doesn't Apple Retina screens usually only reproduce 264 ppi?

How does very high MP cameras produce "better" image quality" than 24mp +???

Thanks for your help

Dave

Do you have aspirations to be published or sell your prints ? If so, what are the resolution requirements ? Do you want the ability to crop and still meet those resolution requirements ?

Seems pretty easy: I guess "better" image has different factors depending on the application.images must be provided with a resolution of at least 300 dpi, or greater, and as a .tiff or .jpg that can be reproduced at 1,650 pixels wide.

-- hide signature --

Dave

 dave92029's gear list:dave92029's gear list
Sony a6400 Sony a7 IV Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony 1.4x Teleconverter (2016) +2 more
ronscuba Senior Member • Posts: 1,043
Re: Image Quality you can see

dave92029 wrote:

ronscuba wrote:

dave92029 wrote:

There are numerous comments from those who own or want a high MP camera ie: a7Riii; A7riv, A1, etc. about how these cameras have "High Image" quality as compared to the new A7iv and all the rest.

I have a 4k monitor, but I don't have the display set to 4K because everything would be too small to read. I realize that even set at a lower resolution the detail is sharper than on a monitor capable of 1080p.

I also realize that the "extra" mp allow one to more easily "Crop" their raw image, but that is Not the same as "image Quality" is it?

Mark Galer, who I respect, comments that he Crops his raw images drown to 4K for presentation. The primary use/ benefit of a high MP image is in printing a Very Large poster. How many every do that? I never have.

4K is generally considered 3840 x2160 (8.3 MP), so isn't everything else usually being deleted.

300 ppi is generally considered a high quality image, but doesn't Apple Retina screens usually only reproduce 264 ppi?

How does very high MP cameras produce "better" image quality" than 24mp +???

Thanks for your help

Dave

Do you have aspirations to be published or sell your prints ? If so, what are the resolution requirements ? Do you want the ability to crop and still meet those resolution requirements ?

Seems pretty easy: I guess "better" image has different factors depending on the application.images must be provided with a resolution of at least 300 dpi, or greater, and as a .tiff or .jpg that can be reproduced at 1,650 pixels wide.

I don't need the extra resolution and it sounds like you don't need it either.  But some do or they want some of the other improvements like focusing or video.

SafariBob
SafariBob Senior Member • Posts: 2,590
Re: Image Quality you can see
2

dave92029 wrote:

There are numerous comments from those who own or want a high MP camera ie: a7Riii; A7riv, A1, etc. about how these cameras have "High Image" quality as compared to the new A7iv and all the rest.

I have a 4k monitor, but I don't have the display set to 4K because everything would be too small to read. I realize that even set at a lower resolution the detail is sharper than on a monitor capable of 1080p.

I also realize that the "extra" mp allow one to more easily "Crop" their raw image, but that is Not the same as "image Quality" is it?

Mark Galer, who I respect, comments that he Crops his raw images drown to 4K for presentation. The primary use/ benefit of a high MP image is in printing a Very Large poster. How many every do that? I never have.

4K is generally considered 3840 x2160 (8.3 MP), so isn't everything else usually being deleted.

One computer screen pixel = 3 or 4 camera pixels, so 8.3mp would require 24-32 mp camera to fully resolve. This because each screen pixel is composed of 3 different colours. Each camera pixel is one camera.

in practice people also want to be able to throw away half the image for editing purposes, hence the sweet spot around 40-60mp.

300 ppi is generally considered a high quality image, but doesn't Apple Retina screens usually only reproduce 264 ppi?

sure, hence if you want more than about 10 inch print, you really want as much resolution as possible.

How does very high MP cameras produce "better" image quality" than 24mp +???

they provide a margin of safety.

Thanks for your help

Dave

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony a7R II Sony a7R IV Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM +3 more
dwalme Regular Member • Posts: 339
Re: Image Quality you can see
5

dave92029 wrote:

I have a 4k monitor, but I don't have the display set to 4K because everything would be too small to read. I realize that even set at a lower resolution the detail is sharper than on a monitor capable of 1080p.

Your monitor (all of them really) does a poor job scaling lower resolutions to it's panel native resolution.

I would set your operating system display resolution to your monitor's native resolution and use window scaling built-in to your operating system.

If Windows just select 200% scaling in your Display Settings. That will give you approximately the same screen real estate as having 1080p resolution but you will get native resolution capability when viewing images or video.

You can still view your photos at 200% if you choose (which is the same as viewing them at 100% with 1080p screen resolution that you are doing today).

 dwalme's gear list:dwalme's gear list
Sony a7 III Sony a1 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM +4 more
SNJops
SNJops Regular Member • Posts: 195
Re: Image Quality you can see
4

I own both an A7III and an A7RIV and I can tell the difference. The RIV files have a richness and level of detail to them that the A7III doesn’t have.

Also consider that the lens you use on the RIV really matters as only the very best glass will get the best out of that sensor. One example of this is the 85mm f1.4 GM which I thought was lacking in sharpness  even on my A7iii but that is even moreso on my RIV. It still produces really beautiful images though.

 SNJops's gear list:SNJops's gear list
Sony a7R IV Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG DN +4 more
stateit
stateit Senior Member • Posts: 1,556
Re: Image Quality you can see
1

dave92029 wrote:

...300 ppi is generally considered a high quality image, but doesn't Apple Retina screens usually only reproduce 264 ppi?

You're confusing print resolution ( for example, 300 dpi) and screen resolution (264 ppi, to use your example).

dpi and ppi are very different things.

-- hide signature --
SilvanBromide Veteran Member • Posts: 5,306
Re: Image Quality you can see
6

dave92029 wrote:

There are numerous comments from those who own or want a high MP camera ie: a7Riii; A7riv, A1, etc. about how these cameras have "High Image" quality as compared to the new A7iv and all the rest.

I have a 4k monitor, but I don't have the display set to 4K because everything would be too small to read. I realize that even set at a lower resolution the detail is sharper than on a monitor capable of 1080p.

I also realize that the "extra" mp allow one to more easily "Crop" their raw image, but that is Not the same as "image Quality" is it?

Mark Galer, who I respect, comments that he Crops his raw images drown to 4K for presentation. The primary use/ benefit of a high MP image is in printing a Very Large poster. How many every do that? I never have.

4K is generally considered 3840 x2160 (8.3 MP), so isn't everything else usually being deleted.

300 ppi is generally considered a high quality image, but doesn't Apple Retina screens usually only reproduce 264 ppi?

How does very high MP cameras produce "better" image quality" than 24mp +???

Thanks for your help

Dave

One of the things that some people miss is that making adjustments to an image prior to downscaling it often yields a better result than applying similar changes to an image at the output resolution.

This holds true for NR, sharpening, contrast changes and many other kinds of edits and adjustments.

The same is true (and for related reasons) in relation to bit depth. You may be outputting images at 8-bit, but you'll get far better results during editing if the images are at 16-bit throughout (and crunched down to 8-bit at the point of output).

Consequently, for the cleanest results and the greatest editing flexibility, it's preferable to start with high resolution images (≥40MP) in 16-bit format - even if you intend to output ≤8MP images in 8-bit.

-- hide signature --
 SilvanBromide's gear list:SilvanBromide's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a1 Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM +30 more
Magnar W
Magnar W Veteran Member • Posts: 6,354
When starting and ending with the resolution of the eye ...
2

dave92029 wrote:

I have a 4k monitor, but I don't have the display set to 4K because everything would be too small to read. I realize that even set at a lower resolution the detail is sharper than on a monitor capable of 1080p.

For viewing final work on a monitor, I find the resolution of the eye to be a relevant starting point. Assume you don't need finer detail than the eye can resolve, you should do fine with 4K even when moving closer than normal viewing distance. If you don't move closer, HD resolution will be just fine for almost everything.

Mark Galer, who I respect, comments that he Crops his raw images drown to 4K for presentation. The primary use/ benefit of a high MP image is in printing a Very Large poster. How many every do that? I never have.

I think he scales his images down, and in some instances use tight crop with 4K pixel resolution if he want to get closer than his lenses allow, say, for running dogs and birds in flight.

300 ppi is generally considered a high quality image, but doesn't Apple Retina screens usually only reproduce 264 ppi?

PPI refers to image resolution and pixels in your image files. DPI refers to printer raster frequency, and says something about what file resolution is needed to produce the printer raster dots.

You need to feed the printer with enough data to calculate the amount of image data that matches the raster frequency of the printer. More data than this is just a waste.

In most cases 300 pixels per inch resolution is considered enough for high quality prints, and 150-200 pixels per inch is plenty for newspaper print, large format posters and most photographs, etc. The math supports these figures nicely.

How does very high MP cameras produce "better" image quality" than 24mp +???

If you print very large, noticeable wider than one meter (42 inches) for pictures that are studied at a very close distance, and when you crop pretty hard, then more than 24 Mp can be helpful.

To fill a large billboard, a file with 1500 to 2000 pixels with will do the trick, due to the large viewing distance (again, calculated from the resolution of the eye).

Having a high Mp camera is most of all the feeling of having plenty resolution. With today's cameras, many have much more resolution than what is needed for a lot of professional productions.

Also note that contrast is more important for the perception of "sharp and clear" images than sheer fine detail resolution.

Then add that for professional medias, content is way more important than very high technical file quality. Strangely, many forget this essential point when talking about image quality.

 Magnar W's gear list:Magnar W's gear list
Sony a7 Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 Zeiss Loxia 35 Zeiss Loxia 85mm F2.4 +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads