If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Actual Pixels or not
Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think" DP |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Actual Pixels or not
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote:
Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend... Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think" DP I should think 400% would be even better. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Actual Pixels or not
On Apr 19, 8:16 pm, "John Smith" wrote:
Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend... Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think" DP If the system is really bad, it may show up the fact at less than 100% :-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Actual Pixels or not
"ray" wrote in message news On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote: Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend... Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think" DP I should think 400% would be even better. I agree, but I'm under the impression that at anything other than 100 percent or actual pixels, you're actually looking at how the software is interpreting the image rather than what the sensor/lens is putting out. is that incorrect? DP |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Actual Pixels or not
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:10:41 -0400, John Smith wrote:
"ray" wrote in message news On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote: Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend... Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think" DP I should think 400% would be even better. I agree, but I'm under the impression that at anything other than 100 percent or actual pixels, you're actually looking at how the software is interpreting the image rather than what the sensor/lens is putting out. is that incorrect? DP I would agree in the case of less than 100% - at 200 or 400 you should actually be able to SEE the pixels - you can't hardly see one pixel on your screen. At 200% each pixel should be a 2x2 square. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Actual Pixels or not
"ray" wrote in message news On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:10:41 -0400, John Smith wrote: "ray" wrote in message news On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote: Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend... Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think" DP I should think 400% would be even better. I agree, but I'm under the impression that at anything other than 100 percent or actual pixels, you're actually looking at how the software is interpreting the image rather than what the sensor/lens is putting out. is that incorrect? DP I would agree in the case of less than 100% - at 200 or 400 you should actually be able to SEE the pixels - you can't hardly see one pixel on your screen. At 200% each pixel should be a 2x2 square. I'm not so much concerned with seeing the actual pixel. I just want to be sure that what I'm looking at is the actual output from the camera and not resampling or resizing by whatever viewing program I'm using. DP |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Actual Pixels or not
On Apr 20, 9:48 am, Jim Townsend wrote:
John Smith wrote: Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend... Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think" Looking at an 8MP image zoomed to 100% on your monitor is the same as printing a 35mm film frame at about 41 inches by 27 inches. That's like looking at a poster ~ 3.4 feet by 2.25 feet. I think that would be enough enlargement to determine lens sharpness. But it still may be limited by the resolution of the monitor rather than the inherent image itself. Now, I think Mac world may be different, but in the Windows world, not only can the monitor itself have differing resolution, but there is a graphics setting in the options of the operating system, so that the monitor is not even displaying the number of pixels the monitor is capable of. For instance, one setting is 1024 by 780. This is less than a megapixel! There are higher resolution monitors and settings, but you'd have to have an awfully good one to have a monitor with 8 mp. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Actual Pixels or not
On Apr 20, 9:48 am, Jim Townsend wrote:
John Smith wrote: Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend... Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think" Looking at an 8MP image zoomed to 100% on your monitor is the same as printing a 35mm film frame at about 41 inches by 27 inches. That's like looking at a poster ~ 3.4 feet by 2.25 feet. I think that would be enough enlargement to determine lens sharpness. But it still may be limited by the resolution of the monitor rather than the inherent image itself. Now, I think Mac world may be different, but in the Windows world, not only can the monitor itself have differing resolution, but there is a graphics setting in the options of the operating system, so that the monitor is not even displaying the number of pixels the monitor is capable of. For instance, one setting is 1024 by 780. This is less than a megapixel! There are higher resolution monitors and settings, but you'd have to have an awfully good one to have a monitor with 8 mp. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Actual Pixels or not
Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
[] For instance, one setting is 1024 by 780. This is less than a megapixel! There are higher resolution monitors and settings, but you'd have to have an awfully good one to have a monitor with 8 mp. 1024 x 768, perhaps? Very sharp pixels from an LCD monitor compared to those in a CRT or a print..... David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can hot pixels become dead pixels? | kl_tom | Digital Photography | 4 | October 5th 06 07:52 PM |
actual size of photos | CNN_news | Digital Photography | 6 | February 11th 06 06:22 PM |
Actual users of Canon SD30? | Mike | Digital Photography | 4 | November 12th 05 12:29 AM |
ISO and actual sensitivity in DSLR's (D70, *istD, 20D, S3...) | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 253 | March 30th 05 07:28 PM |
can one print at actual pixels size? | nobody nowhere | Digital Photography | 97 | July 6th 04 10:54 AM |