DSLR v Consumer Image quality

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Its got me wondering...What the replacement will be from Sony..In regards to
the-F828....If they can harness the noise...Should be a great camera...So
I'd wait...And the Canon-350...Could be a winner...

--
_________________-
BOCH
________________
A+TECH
_________
<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109101249.765477.235140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?
> DonB
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109101249.765477.235140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?
> DonB
>

If you can't see the difference, or consider it not worthwhile, then I would
keep waiting....
For me DSLR offers more than just the quality difference there's also the
flexibility of the system, just like SLR's in the film world, but if you
don't need it then save your money etc...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
> I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?
> DonB
>

I don't know if it's a similar comparison to yours, but 8x10s from my 4MP Kodak
DX6490 are significantly inferior to the 7.5x10 prints from my 6MP Nikon D70.
The prints from the Nikon are better in every way: detail, colour, contrast,
jpeg artifacts, depth of field, etc.

The Nikon does retail for double the original retail price of the Kodak so it
should produce significantly better prints.


--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109106115.766736.252450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
biphoto@hotmail.com says...
> Under most conditions you would have a hard time telling an 8 x 10
> print from one form the other. How ever there is much more to it then
> just that, there are lighting conditions that just drive the F828 nuts
> and it is hard to get a really great photos, I have not had this
> problem with the 20D. But then you have to think about what kind of
> photos you are going to be taking and when. If you need a long lens
> then you need a DSLR, if you are going to be shooting in low light then
> you need a DSLR.
>
> The 20D produces a lot more detail then the F828 and both are 8 MP, so
> I can make larger prints from the 20D before they will start to look
> soft.
>
> Finally there is the fun factor, it is a lot more fun to take photos
> with a camera that shoots with no delay, just push the button and you
> have the photos.
>
>
> Scott
>
>

Taking a GOOD picture with the 828 REQUIRES several factors to fall into
place all at the same time.

NO STRONG BACKLIGHT!
NO SHARP CONTRAST EXTREMES!

Very carefull adjustment of flash level if flash is used.
Avoid sparkling jewelry on subjects.

SHOOT IN MANUAL
CROSS YOU FINGERS

(and wave a chicken over your head while chanting "I hate Sony for this" over
and over again" )

OR... Just use the F-717 to get the picture if you gotta use a Sony use their
best one..

I'm STILL glad I didn't sell the 717 when I bought the 828.. (I sold the V-1
instead).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109106115.766736.252450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Under most conditions you would have a hard time telling an 8 x 10
> print from one form the other. How ever there is much more to it then
> just that, there are lighting conditions that just drive the F828 nuts
> and it is hard to get a really great photos, I have not had this
> problem with the 20D. But then you have to think about what kind of
> photos you are going to be taking and when. If you need a long lens
> then you need a DSLR, if you are going to be shooting in low light then
> you need a DSLR.
>
> The 20D produces a lot more detail then the F828 and both are 8 MP, so
> I can make larger prints from the 20D before they will start to look
> soft.
>
> Finally there is the fun factor, it is a lot more fun to take photos
> with a camera that shoots with no delay, just push the button and you
> have the photos.

There's something to be said for this. While I'm still learning the ins and
outs of my D70, I'm thrilled with the lack of shutter delay. It feels and
acts just like my 35mm cameras. With my point and shoot digital I could go
out and have lunch while it focused and "finally" tripped the shutter.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.


When I go to DP review and download the images from a D70, and a Coolpix
8400, I can easily see differences in noise in solid fills. I can also
easily see differences in resolution in detailed areas.

I can see the differences on the screen, but they are much more obvious
in prints.

Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thankyou all for your valued comments.
The thing holding me back from going to dslr is probably because I have
become used to pulling out a consumer model and just taking a shot,
which is excellent 90% of the time. I sort of cringe at going back to
an array of lenses, clutter , finding a safe place to put one down
while changing, etc etc. Probably got lazy! But also my wife's Lumix is
pretty capable, so I'll wait it out a little because technology moves
so quickly.
DonB
I

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109101249.765477.235140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing.

If image quality is your thing, you will find that at size A4 a cheap 3 MP
point and shoot is not much different than a Canon 1Ds Mk II or a 4x5 view
camera on film. All of them look just about the same with a small print.

The only time it makes any difference is when you start to enlarge the
picture for any reason. You can enlarge a 4x5 piece of film a lot more than
any digital before you start losing image quality.

A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
manufacturers' marketing departments. Consider the "sensor size" of the eye
of an eagle, or even a human eye, and the relative quality of that sensor
vs. any camera or film. (I suppose a human eye could be defined as a 150 MP
sensor, but only about 16 MP are used for color vision -- the rest simply
give a rough outline of light and dark. One may note, too, that small
children, whose eyes are not fully developed, may still "see" something like
digital noise, which disappears at about age 5 or so. The physical size of a
human eye is not all that large; the eye of an eagle is much smaller yet
sharper with better color vision.) I wonder how much the image recorded by
the eye could be enlarged before you began to see significant degradation,
but I digress.

Anyway, I suspect that we are far from the limit in what can be crammed onto
an imaging chip.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
<christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:


>A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
>of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
>have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
>manufacturers' marketing departments.


In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
image quality?

In the presence of noise, more signal is always
desirable. It certainly works that way for film,
and in fact for any other physical measurement
that I know of.

Your argument is curious, because sensor size is
one thing that the "marketing departments" have
taken pains to obscure -- at least for their
point & shoot / consumer models.

For a number of reasons, that sort of obfuscation
doesn't work in the DSLR market.

Now, it's possible that not all 15.0 x 22.7 mm
sensors are equally efficient at creating
images... but I haven't seen any hard data at
all on that topic.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well said, thanks Ron
DonB

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109101249.765477.235140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
> latter.
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
> wait a year or two yet?
> DonB

Often it is not until your image is enlarged and in PRINT that you notice it's
shortcomings.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron" <rkgood@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1109128296.085854.94700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I just spent a long weekend traveling around and photographing a lot of
> different environments in the dead of a cold New England winter --
> seaside villages and dunes, forest trails, railroad scenes, etc. --
> with my Oly 5060. For much of the time I had a couple of conversion
> lenses tucked into my jacket and a spare battery in my pocket. That's
> it. Not even a camera bag. The results were really fine, even in low
> light (a lot of noise talk is pretty exaggerated I think) . What wasn't
> fine I could fix up quickly with Photoshop. My sense is that it is all
> cost-benefit analysis at a time when new dslr products are still pretty
> pricey and many have a lot of bugs to be worked out as the megapixel
> parade calms down. Sure, if you have a very specific need that can
> only be met by a dslr go for it. Or some old lenses looking or a new
> home. Otherwise, the high end prosumers offer portability, no dust on
> sensors, not much to fiddle with and some stunning images. I'd wait a
> year or two and in the meantime really get a good sense of what you
> really need. This is not to say that you cannot get real added value
> with a dslr, but don't leap until you no longer have to try to figture
> it out. Most of us have yet to fully exploit or appreciate the features
> on our cameras. When they are exhaused and we know what more we need
> it's time to move on.

I think you make some good points above.
What I would quibble with is the idea of starting with the most simple cameras to assess
your needs. In my opinion, many people never really discover how much they "needed"
something until they had it available to them.

This is why the phrase, "I didn't know what I was missing!" comes from.
Often times, it isn't until a person has a new capability avaiable to them (like lack of
shutter lag, or major depth of field adjustments--like with a DSLR) that they suddenly
realize what all the fuss is about.

This is why I think anyone considering spending with a few hundred dollars of the 300D or
D70 on a lesser...but sizable camera...should REALLY consider teh DSLR.
It really can open new visions for people when they experience the difference...without
having to magically "miss things" they have never even experienced.

How does one know what one needs when they don't really understand what's out thre first
hand? -This doesn't mean buying a 1Ds Mark II, but it might mean it's worth a low-end
DSLR.

-Mark²

> oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
>> I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
>> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
>> because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty
> pleased
>> with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
>> latter.
>> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk
> about
>> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
>> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far
> greater
>> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
>> and a FZ20.
>> Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more
> expensive
>> DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with
> the
>> E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
>> wait a year or two yet?
>> DonB
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:


> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.

Stop looking at 200% crops and make some real prints from full size files.


--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
>>of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those
>>who have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
>>manufacturers' marketing departments.
>
>
> In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
> image quality?
>


When you're fighting DOF?

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger, while I normally agree with your work, I'm not at all sure about
this bit..

>The human eye with normal vision has a image
>resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels.

Your website seems to argue that you simply multiply the ability of the
eye to resolve detail, by its angle of view.

But hang on a tick!!! The eye is only sharp in a *very* small angle -
I would guess less than a 5 degree cone! It fills in the rest with
memory and 'false' resolution by assumption. To prove that, I use the
following `party trick` when I take photography classes, and I would
invite you to do the same. You will need an assistant.

Get the assistant to write a sentence, out of your sight, on a piece of
paper, in thick black letters about an inch high. Then, stand about 20
feet away from a blackboard, upon which is a dot or cross. Stare
*fixedly* at that point, and then invite your assistant to slowly bring
the paper towards that point on the board. Note how close it has to be
before you can actually read it...

Similarly, stare fixedly at these words. Can you read a sentence that
is, say, just four lines above it without moving your eye? No cheating
from memory!

If you are claiming that we have 500 megapixels, then you must be
allowing the eye to wander off in all directions, gathering data as it
goes. By that definition, I reckon the angle of view is therefore a
360 degree sphere, and by moving sideways... well on the way to
infinite resolution!!

I don't think a value for the eye's 'resolution' is of any use. Visual
acuity, and our ability to resolve detail *when staring right at it!*,
is something quite different.

Maybe it is just semantics, but I think it is an interesting concept,
and most folk who are confronted by the `party trick` are quite
surprised by it...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
message
> news:gyWSd.116204$0u.42705@fed1read04...
>
> > I think you make some good points above.
> > What I would quibble with is the idea of starting with the most
simple cameras to assess
> > your needs. In my opinion, many people never really discover how
much they "needed"
> > something until they had it available to them.
> >

Mark:

I like and appreciate the logic of your argument. Ultimately, it will
be some rather obvious and simple truths that move people forward, not
simply what somebody with especially good eyesight or a keen
understanding of the pixel world can explain in engineering terms. I
get beautiful 8x10s out of my old Oly 2020z, which has great optics,
with some PS tweaking. Once behind glass and on a wall they can look
stunning. And, nobody has yet approached them with a loupe and said "My
God, I can tell these are only 2 megapix!" Of course, I can get even
better ones with my 5060 and so it goes. Frankly, for my purposes, the
main advantage of the 5060 is the cropping I can do and a few of the
camera's control features and swiveling lcd (a tremendous plus that
would be useless on a dslr). But then I am not an avid printer. 95% of
what I do is ultimately for the web, including work I do in my
side-business for customers.

Sunday I will be taking the train to New York to photograph the Cristo
Gates Central Park fandango. Lots of walking, subways, etc. I'll have
one very, very small bag with my camera, lenses, extra batteries and
cards, MP3 player, etc. Inconspicuous and light. The way I like it.

I remember all of this in the earlier days of the hi-fi industry. My
local stereo shop was always trying to sell me the cd player that cost
$1500 instead of the one that cost $200 and allowed me to buy,
theoretically at least, $1200 worth of cd's from someone else. The
salesman drove me nuts with technical jargon until I demanded that we
do a blind test with him on the other end. Guess what? You know the
rest of the story. And there is my friend with $5,000 cables. He would
get down on the floor a few feet from one of his speakers and swear
that were I to do the same I could, even with my somewhat ordinary
hearing, tell the difference. Were I somewhat unmoved by this bit of
testing he would show me technical articles. I tried to explain that
for the kind of music I like (primarily jazz from the 40s-60s) $5000
cables and even $15000 speakers might not make much difference. In
fact, I might just hear imperfections I didn't want to hear.

As a long time user of standard SLR's I know the value of the genre. I
just don't think that right now, early 2005, is the time for one to
take the plunge unless one has extra money to burn, or has some very
specific demands like low light shooting or very large prints. This is
not to say that one should go with the most simple, and the decling
prices of dslr's may make them all but irresistable to many. But, ask
me six or eight months from now...:-)

/ron

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109161030.851057.4280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
rkgood@charter.net says...
> As a long time user of standard SLR's I know the value of the genre. I
> just don't think that right now, early 2005, is the time for one to
> take the plunge unless one has extra money to burn, or has some very
> specific demands like low light shooting or very large prints. This is
> not to say that one should go with the most simple, and the decling
> prices of dslr's may make them all but irresistable to many. But, ask
> me six or eight months from now...:-)
>
> /ron
>

I agree with YOU!

I have 3 "top of the line" consumer cameras and Though I'm sorely tempted to
run out and buy/order/get the new DRebel Im holding off until at LEAST April,
maybe longer.

The ONLY thing I need to improve is "shutter lag" (even with the Sony 828,
once aware of its foibles, you can avoid them) and I dont want to "waste" a
thousand on a camera and another 500 to 1000 on a lens to give me the same
coverage I get with the Sony 828 or even the Sony 717.

My Fuji S7000 has turned out to be the work-horse of the 3 cameras I use, as
it can be relied upon to come up with the "same" quality photo under most
circumstances..ie no worse with backlighting than without, as long as the
exposure is correct.

PS: I only use the Fuji as a 6mp most of the time.
That is after all what it really is.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:03:52 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:58:27 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
>>> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
>>> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
>>> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
>>> and a FZ20.
>>
>>Stop looking at 200% crops and make some real prints from full size files.
>
>I do both. But there's not much use looking
>beyond 100% on the monitor, except for fine
>spotting or retouching work on film scans.
>
>I disagree that you need a print to properly see or
>judge a digital image. There have only been a few
>situations (in my experience) where a print revealed
>flaws that were not evident on-screen.

But many where a screen preview can reveal an irrelevant quality
difference because it's one that *won't* show on the print.

That's the point. The destination of any good photo is to be printed,
surely? So, that's *all* that matters.

When you enlarge a 3000x2000 pixel image at 200% on your monitor, you
are comparing it in size to a 60" x 40" print. This is *insane*. So
what if you can see an imperfection at that magnification? most people
are never going to *dream* about ever printing a 35mm image image that
size, so imperfections that only show up now are *irrelevant*.

Lets just put this in perspective, that's like saying I want to print
a poster that's 5ft wide, 3ft high and it's got to look good when
viewed from 15 inches? Ha!

Print test pictures from any two cameras you are comparing on the
*same equipment* and then see if there are any problems.

>But that does presume a decent monitor that's
>properly calibrated. You've done that, right?

Not relevant.

>When you introduce a printer -- even a Fuji or
>a LightJet -- you introduce another huge set
>of variables, issues, and technologies.

So use the same equipment to print the comparisons. That way you keep
it a constant.

>For me, the prints are the ultimate goal, but
>not every image makes it to print. And not
>every print makes it past the scrap bin.

If you are binning stuff just because it won't look good at 5ft by 3ft
when viewed from 15inches then you need to get your head tested.

At the very least, you should be using a large format film camera.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:41:27 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:


>At the very least, you should be using a large format film camera.


I do that as well. It puts these puny
6 Mpixel DSLR images in perspective.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:41:27 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:03:52 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
>wrote:

>But many where a screen preview can reveal an irrelevant quality
>difference because it's one that *won't* show on the print.
>
>That's the point. The destination of any good photo is to be printed,
>surely? So, that's *all* that matters.
>
>When you enlarge a 3000x2000 pixel image at 200% on your monitor, you
>are comparing it in size to a 60" x 40" print. This is *insane*. So
>what if you can see an imperfection at that magnification? most people
>are never going to *dream* about ever printing a 35mm image image that
>size, so imperfections that only show up now are *irrelevant*.


Print size matters, of course. I have an
Epson 7000 at home, so I can do 24" wide
prints.

I believe you're saying the monitor is
perhaps "overly critical" and there is
much truth to that -- many flaws visible
on the monitor will be invisible in print.


>>But that does presume a decent monitor that's
>>properly calibrated. You've done that, right?
>
>Not relevant.


Hogwash. It's entirely relevant. If the
monitor lacks focus or is misadjusted for
gamma, you will lose detail, and will be
surprised by what you see in print. If
you're doing digital darkroom work on a
cheap uncalibrated monitor at 600 x 800,
you're in for a rough ride.


>>When you introduce a printer -- even a Fuji or
>>a LightJet -- you introduce another huge set
>>of variables, issues, and technologies.
>
>So use the same equipment to print the comparisons. That way you keep
>it a constant.

Constant, yes. But having the effect of
masking or obscuring and generally degrading
the original image. For example, there are
very few print technologies that can match
the Dmax or gamut of a good monitor, and
inkjet prints are far from being "continuous
tone." The ubiquitous "banding" seen on
many inkjet and dye-sub printers has no
parallel on a monitor.


>>For me, the prints are the ultimate goal, but
>>not every image makes it to print. And not
>>every print makes it past the scrap bin.
>
>If you are binning stuff just because it won't look good at 5ft by 3ft
>when viewed from 15inches then you need to get your head tested.


I bin stuff for any number of reasons,
some technical, some not. A large part
of art is knowing what to keep and what
to toss.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:44:37 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>chrlz@go.com wrote:
>
>> Roger, while I normally agree with your work, I'm not at all sure about
>> this bit..
>>
>>
>>>The human eye with normal vision has a image
>>>resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels.
>>
>>
>> Your website seems to argue that you simply multiply the ability of the
>> eye to resolve detail, by its angle of view.
>>
>> But hang on a tick!!! The eye is only sharp in a *very* small angle -
>> I would guess less than a 5 degree cone! It fills in the rest with
>> memory and 'false' resolution by assumption.
>
>By your argument, one only needs a small patch of high resolution
>data in the center inch or so of an 8x10 print (e.g. about 1 inch
>in diameter) and the rest can be fuzzy. Obviously the
>eye+brain see more than that. Your eye wanders around
>even if you are not aware of it. As you view a scene,
>you move your eyes around to see all the detail.
>This is true whether looking at a photographic print,
>or looking at a real scene. Stand outdoors and examine
>a real scene and the wealth of detail you can see all around you.
>Now produce a photograph with that same detail: the detail
>you can see with your eyes in the real world. It can't be
>done with a digital camera, 35mm film, or medium format
>film. One needs large format film, and 4x5 fine grained
>film is about the minimum, and even then it does not have the
>detail you experience with one's full field of view.
>If you've never seen a big large-format print, at the next
>opportunity, do so. It can be like looking
>out a window to the real scene.

Except by these standard of arguments, the print will only have about
1/5th of the dynamic range that an eye can handle, plus information
for only one eye (eg, no 3D data). By this argument, it's hardly
convincing - of course in reality our brains ignore all that stuff and
those prints do look amazing.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:40:02 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:41:27 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:03:52 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>But many where a screen preview can reveal an irrelevant quality
>>difference because it's one that *won't* show on the print.
>>
>>That's the point. The destination of any good photo is to be printed,
>>surely? So, that's *all* that matters.
>>
>>When you enlarge a 3000x2000 pixel image at 200% on your monitor, you
>>are comparing it in size to a 60" x 40" print. This is *insane*. So
>>what if you can see an imperfection at that magnification? most people
>>are never going to *dream* about ever printing a 35mm image image that
>>size, so imperfections that only show up now are *irrelevant*.
>
>
>Print size matters, of course. I have an
>Epson 7000 at home, so I can do 24" wide
>prints.
>
>I believe you're saying the monitor is
>perhaps "overly critical" and there is
>much truth to that -- many flaws visible
>on the monitor will be invisible in print.
>
>
>>>But that does presume a decent monitor that's
>>>properly calibrated. You've done that, right?
>>
>>Not relevant.
>
>Hogwash. It's entirely relevant. If the
>monitor lacks focus or is misadjusted for
>gamma, you will lose detail, and will be
>surprised by what you see in print. If
>you're doing digital darkroom work on a
>cheap uncalibrated monitor at 600 x 800,
>you're in for a rough ride.

It's been my experience that focus on modern monitors is rarely bad
enough to affect final-print image quality, especially if you want to
work at 200% zoom. I don't do focus corrections in Photoshop - in
fact, I wouldn't know where to start, so the focus or lack of isn't
going to change what I do to the image. On all LCD displays this is a
non-issue.

By this logic, would you argue that people without 20-20 vision can't
cull images properly too?

Color balance won't affect output quality, other than you'll get a
mis-balanced print. But that's not what we are talking about here - we
are talking resolution, and the need (or not) to critic at 200% or
even 100% zoom.

>>>When you introduce a printer -- even a Fuji or
>>>a LightJet -- you introduce another huge set
>>>of variables, issues, and technologies.
>>
>>So use the same equipment to print the comparisons. That way you keep
>>it a constant.
>
>Constant, yes. But having the effect of
>masking or obscuring and generally degrading
>the original image. For example, there are
>very few print technologies that can match
>the Dmax or gamut of a good monitor, and
>inkjet prints are far from being "continuous
>tone." The ubiquitous "banding" seen on
>many inkjet and dye-sub printers has no
>parallel on a monitor.

Again this doesn't matter. If that's what your output technology is
limited to, then that's what we are striving for. Quality stops there.

Imagine if we only had monochrome printers, you'd be arguing that
color balance is still relevant - of course, it isn't
..
>>>For me, the prints are the ultimate goal, but
>>>not every image makes it to print. And not
>>>every print makes it past the scrap bin.
>>
>>If you are binning stuff just because it won't look good at 5ft by 3ft
>>when viewed from 15inches then you need to get your head tested.
>
>I bin stuff for any number of reasons,
>some technical, some not. A large part
>of art is knowing what to keep and what
>to toss.

So you would agree, I hope, that a minor fault on a 6Mp image that can
only be seen at 200% zoom is not relevant for 99.9% of users, because
that's the real situation.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:44:34 -0000, andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
wrote:

>rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> I disagree that you need a print to properly see or
>> judge a digital image.
>
>Indeed not. To print, you almost always have to compress the gamut
>and/or the dynamic rnage.

Agggh! but the whole point of capturing the image (in *most* people's
use of a DSLR) is to PRINT IT.

Yes, gamut gets compressed, yes data gets discarded, yes the frame
gets cropped slightly, yes a paper texture is introduced, yes
reflected chemical or pigment prints look different to
backlight-screen images. But we *accept* all of that because the final
product IS THE PRINT.

...if we can't see the defect in the print, then there *is no defect*.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
>>of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
>>have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
>>manufacturers' marketing departments.
>
> In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
> image quality?
>
> In the presence of noise, more signal is always
> desirable. It certainly works that way for film,
> and in fact for any other physical measurement
> that I know of.

Upto around 6Mpixels image quality undoubtedly improves.

But more pixels on the same sized area of silicon produces a trade off
in dynamic range and signal to noise that starts to be an issue around
8-10Mpixels on the current die sizes and manufacturing tolerances.

A physically larger sensor with more pixels would always be better, but
with ever more pixels on the same size chunk of silicon eventually you lose.

> Now, it's possible that not all 15.0 x 22.7 mm
> sensors are equally efficient at creating
> images... but I haven't seen any hard data at
> all on that topic.

The more pixels there are the smaller the capacitance of each pixel well
- lower dynamic range and more susceptibility to noise.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:


> In what way is it better? Why does the small sensor of the human eye have
> better resolution than the large sensor of a 35 mm frame?


The human eye has this thing called
a brain behind it. The human eye has
great resolution over a very small
viewing angle. But the brain can direct
that super-sensitive area (the fovea)
instantly to where it's needed.

In many ways the human eye is a pretty
poor design. Light actually has to
pass through a layer or two of neural
processing tissue before it lands on
the retina!



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com