How Many MegaPixels Can A Human See?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 тра 2024
- Get 50% off Prints from Saal Digital:
www.saal-digital.com/lp/fstop...
Enter this month's Critique the Community: fstoppers.com/contests
How many Pixels to make a billboard: • How Many Megapixels In...
Fstoppers Photography Tutorials!
➡️fstoppers.com/store?fsa=305&f...
Subscribe to the Fstoppers UA-cam Channel:
➡️ua-cam.com/users/FStopper...
Our Gear: 📷 and 🎥Workflow Recommendations:
🥰Our Favorite Gear
➡️bhpho.to/3Q5pm01
💻Software📀
Adobe Creative Cloud
➡️ bit.ly/3hjVXdE
Boris FX Optics:
➡️bit.ly/3N83bD6
Luminar Neo
➡️ skylum.evyy.net/M6RAM
Capture One
➡️ captureone.38d4qb.net/NO29q
🛒🏪🛍 Support Fstoppers by shopping at:
B&H Photo and Video
➡️ bit.ly/3K7CrlX
Amazon
➡️ amzn.to/3hkTEXS
📸Follow Fstoppers on Instagram:
➡️ / officialfst. .
Follow Lee and Patrick's Puerto Rico Instagram:
➡️ / fstopperspr - Розваги
Cropping in post (or in camera, I often toggle apsc mode with a custom button) is a very important reason to want more mp.
I use the APSC on a button all the time and it is the only reason I hope the next A7S or FX3 will get more MP Like 18-20 MP so I can use crop in 4k filming. apart from that I dont need more than that for any case
Not only important, but I'd say the the predominant (and legitimate) reason given by most photographers--particularly wildlife photographers.
@@smepableits absolutely unnecessary to have more pixels if your pictures are shown online only. Even stills from a 1080 video (2mp) is good enough. With 4k (8mp) you are gold online.
Wouldn’t downsizing a photo keep as much detail as the original vs enlarging a photo diluting the detail? Curious & thanks for any replies.
For cropping we want higher pixel density. This can be achieved with the same or lower number of pixels by using an aps-c or mft camera instead of full frame.
like other have said:
- Downsampling a high resolution image is a software process that yields very different results than shooting the same amount of MPX with a sensor that has that as native resolution. Remake this video using the best camera you can find that shoots at those MPX and then we can talk about it. Both of these scenarios are also different from cropping a high MPX image into a lower one. All these methods affect noise differently (Cropping also warrants its own section in such a video)
- Cropping is a very valid use case for higher MPX count and it's an essential tool of a lot of genres (everytime you can't just "zoom with your feet", everytime you're photographing fast action and you want some leeway, etc.).
The video premise is great, but you've barely scratched the surface with a methodology that is probably the least used one (downsampling a high MPX image) of the bunch.
Also note that everything that is lower than 24MPX (without cropping) is probably a fairly old sensor, which also has to be taken into account if you want to say that it's good enough for a print.
Surely in the days of old what was available at the time was good enough for prints that range from postcards to skyscrapers' billboards, but that doesn't mean the difference is not noticeable with what can be achieved today
I still shoot with a Nikon D810. Hit the shelves 2014. I do mostly wildlife & post on a forum sometimes. You most definitely can see a difference in the detail & clarity of the photos from the cameras that have come out in the last 3 years. Happy shooting.
Back in 2005 I was printing Canon 1Ds II images at 16mp onto huge canvases for weddings. They still look amazing now, yet non-photography people with cameras complain that 24mp is not enough.
The nr one problem of your approach is, with scaling down you did processing first. And there you go, you have many pixels you can solve noise while maintaining details, then scale down and you have a nice quality low res picture. Now start with a low light, low res picture that you had to shoot on high ISO. The real question should be, how many effective pix do you need? Then there is the question, how much can you crop while maintaining sharpness with your lenses? A lot more with a 50MP compared to a 12MP.
My thoughts exactly
Either way, when talking maintaining the most pixels available in a camera-lens combo, the highest optical quality lens of one’s desired focal length would be desired.
I would add that unless you have a Foveon sensor, these pixels are only displaying interpolated colours. I used to reduce my photos by a factor of two (four times smaller file size / mega-pixels) and it’s pretty much impossible to tell the difference.
@@RikMaxSpeed What is a Foveon sensor? Thanks for any replies.
Crop, crop, crop, you guys are like parrots as if people can't plan ahead just a bit to minimize cropping. I find it saves time to get the image as close to what I want in camera not just with composition but exposure and color as well. A few seconds of thought on site can save a lot of time in editing later.
A few years ago I took a photo of an elephant at the zoo with my 16mp micro-four-thirds GX85. I liked it enough that I decided to print it but I was worried about the quality because not only was it only 16mp, it was severely cropped into the elephant's face. But what the heck it's only for me personally so I sent out for a 36x36. It came out amazing. I can see all the detail of the eyes and wrinkles and I realized that maybe megapixels aren't everything camera companies sell us on.
I printed a 20 by 30 inch print of a photo of my dog with a tennis ball with only a 5 MP camera just as a test. The boundary between the tennis ball and surrounds looked a little odd, but aside from that it looked pretty good despite being a bit beyond the general rule not to beyond the 300 DPI limit.
I got my hands on the 20 MP R6 and 45 MP R5 and upscaled the R6 files to match the R5 (you can pick MP output in Adobe Camera Raw). I then layered the files on top of each other without labelling them. My friend and I have about 35 years of photo/PS experience and even when zoomed in to 100% on 5K monitors, we often couldn't tell which was which. Our hit rate was about 50%.
Then I used the Adobe built in Superscale feature to upscale the R6 files and then downsample them to match the 45 MP of the R5 and repeated the above. We picked the R6 files as sharper and more detailed 90% of the time. This was in portrait, studio and landscape photos using the best RF primes.
Finally we did the same but used a free AI upscale on the R6 files, then downsampled to 45 MP and repeated the above. 100% of the time we picked the R6 files as sharper and more detailed.
MP is truly overrated at this point. I think on full frame 35mm sensors that we have reached a near saturation point. I've also had billboards made from 8 MP 1D2N files that looked amazing!
Because of this I got the R6 II (24 MP) instead of the R5 and got better AF, and other newer features and used the $2000 I saved on a 70-200 lens.
The lens and AF accuracy makes a bigger difference than the MP ultimately. A 24 MP cam with a great lens and perfect AF will match or beat a 45 MP cam with a good lens and maybe slightly off AF. And even when all things are perfect for both the difference in real world (prints, etc) is not noticable anymore. And the same applies to cropping (as you can blow up the smaller files then crop though I never crop).
I think you forgot about the Bayer. 24mp image out of a 24mp camera isn't the same as 24mp image scaled down from a 100mp camera. The difference in detail will be dramatic.
So I agree that 8 mp is plenty when every one of those 8 million pixels contains all RGB information. And to get that - you need a higher MP camera.
You neeeeeed what can be visually discerned in the viewing environment. Unless you're pixel peeping (and who wants their art dissected like that?) this viewing test, and others, show less than 8 MPx is all that's really needed in a printed image.
This experiment is just to find out how big a printed pixel people can see from a given distance, correct? That's definitely a valid investigation, but it's also a missed opportunity. Given your intro about how photographers always want more megapixels, shouldn't this be a test of the actual value of having a sensor with more pixels? (Spoiler - it's not just chasing numbers. It makes a difference.)
I can take the same photo with my D750 (24 Mp) and my D850 (47 Mp), and see a clear difference at 100%. No surprise there. But even after reducing both images to, for instance, 2400 px on the long edge, the level of detail in the D850 image is still clearly superior. You should be testing the level of detail retained when images of different resolution are reduced to the same pixel dimensions. *That* would show the actual value of higher resolution sensors.
True!
You say you can, but many photographers have done tests where they printed even huge images 4 foot wide and viewers couldn't tell the difference between a 12mpx a7s3 photo and a 100mpx medium format image. In fact most viewers ended up preferring the a7s3 image which was a trip.
I don't want to be mean but this test was clearly almost a ad for the printing company (and thats fine) so not really the use of the camera. The reason why many of us want/use high megapixel cameras is to be able to crop and/or zoom into a image. I think most if not all agree that a 10mp is fine in the end also we use images differently i can only talk for myself but i love to watch images on a 12.9" ipad and zoom in and out of part of the image at times there it also helps if i start with a 50MP or 61MP image.
@@scb2scb2 almost everything photography on you tube is an add. You tube is a marketing tool. There probably are some channels that teach & just rely on views but….
@@scb2scb2 You would think people would agree but the comments argue otherwise! I agree with you that being able to crop and still see tons of details is very valuable. As much as I try to fill the frame, real world photography doesn't always allow it.
The billboard thing is how the Shot on iPhone campaign works so well. It's honestly genius marketing (per usual from Apple). Fun fact its also how their Retina Displays work. The pixel density is different on iPhones vs MacBooks because the average view distance is different for each product and therefore MacBooks needs fewer pixels per inch than iPhones because we hold iPhones closer to our faces.
When i shot weddings back in the day, i would set my 5Dmk2 to 10mpx raw, just because more was not needed. The prints on the wedding book looked great and it made the files smaller and easier to work with.
Pixel peepers need more pixels - but then they do not print... 😊
The real world situation of viewing and appreciating photos is even less strict. Instead of hanging 3 prints of the same scene side by side, you only have one print on the wall from whatever MP. The viewer’s attention is on the content instead of searching for detailed areas to compare because there isn’t another print to compare with.
And often the viewer does not know how the objects on the photograph should look like or does not care about the details. Nobody will criticize a landscape shot because the bark on the tree doesn't have all the detail. In wildlife, on the other hand, unsharp feathers or hair make substantial difference easily noticeable by other wildlife photographers.
Great practical video Lee. Thank you.
I love these informational videos. More of these, please!
they should have used a human, face, hand, etc. and letters too. for the test, or part of the test. its way easier to tell resolution difference on skin or a object close up, then a broad image of a tree.
though your thesis statement would still be true, but you can tell the difference depending on the image itself. though for prints I'm sure it matter less.
The prints are all probably printed at 300dpi, so the digital file resolution is upscaled to that. When people are looking at the prints, the pixelation has been mostly removed by the interpolation.
ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC VIDEO!!! THANKS FOR YOUR WORK AND FOR SHARING!!!! 🙏🙏🙏
Awesome. Great info again Fstoppers crew
I have a few of the Saal galary and alu dibond prints in my house the largest ones are 120x80cm (48"x30"). They are all shot and printed in 20-24mp and look gorgeous.
I sometimes feel the itch for a higher mp body, but my old and trusted D610 still gets the job! so i buy glas and old fimcameras instead of a d850 or z7.
It's interesting. . . images taken with early digital cameras from 2004-2007 still look great IMHO in sizes about 30cmx40cm and perhaps even bigger. I'll routinely crop my recent bird shots from 45 mp to 6 mp and they look great on the computer screen and would print great at 8x10, maybe even bigger. But If I'm going to print those, I'd probably export as TIFF to higher rez. Anyway, 21mp is amazing quality. So is 10 mp. What we have today as photographers is mind blowing.
We had a photographer shoot our engagement photos. She sent them to us using Facebook Messenger and it looked very pixelated. Not sure what Facebook did, but it still reported that it was a 24mp photo. It just looked like a 360 video on UA-cam.
I routinely printed 4mpx images from my old Canon 1D to 16x24 and most recently an 18mpx image from my Leica M9 to 32x48 without any issues. I also had an 8mpx photo from my old Canon 1D2 printed used for a billboard ad again without any issues.
Although I now shoot mostly the 41mpx Leica M10M, I still think that 16 mpx is the sweet spot and anything greater than 24 is too much, except if you need to crop.
A suggestion: please compare film vs digital cameras :D I've met so many guys who are extremely confident the difference is obvious
All i'm really concerned with is getting the best out of my lenses - i shoot low MP but have stupidly good quality glass. My body-upgrade path is very limited. Maybe you're looked at that topic already - maybe i need to take a better nose through your archive. Cheers for this vid - most interesting.
I like high resolution in order to be able to crop significantly. Allows me to carry shorter lenses.
Doesnt matter what camera I use ( I dont buy more than 24MP) I post process to 3840x2560 (4k) or cropped to another format like anamorphic or 3x4 because in my lifetime I will never see it on higher than a 4K monitor. I would rather save the space on my hard drive ;-)
hey 8k monitor becoming more common is right around the corner. like several new one are about to be release.
Mostly pointless but still.
@@AL-lh2ht considering both how long 4K conversion takes and how little interest there is in 8K TV's shes probably right. Manufacturers were trying to push 8K TV's for few years now but people dont fall for the lure. Not surprised at all considering how bad 4K content situation was for many years.
Hard drive space is so affordable this days. I have a computer with about a 700GB hard drive and that was filling up so I bought a 4 TB Toshiba USB Aux drive to keep my photos on, and an additional aux drive that I back them up to in case the primary photo drive fails.
Thank you !!
Yes, and also with images that are not perfectly in focus; so many images look so much better when printed rather than looking at tons of pixels, your head will swim looking at just pixels. Make more prints people!
I see you gave the prints some really great lighting
Imperial units are so funny! Great video, thanks for sharing. :D
Unless your image's ppi at full size exceeds the ppi of the printer, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 20mp and a 45mp on an image printed at the industry standard of 300 dpi. Viewing didtance is the perceptual key. Even a 200 mp image at full size will show pixelation in a 5' print or a 2' print if get a foot away from it. That, and when you convert to a lossy format like jpeg for printing, you may as well be shooting 8 or 10 mp.
Thanks, cool video. Would be great to see the impact of upscaling software like Gigapixel. Also would be really cool to see if software like Sharpen can make cheap lenses as good as pro glass.
My issue with this test is that both images have still started as extreme high res… not testing lower res sensors vs high res sensors (obviously lens resolution comes in to this massively)
But a good test on viewing distance I guess.
Speaking of special use-cases: A local café asked to use one of my older Photos as a wallpaper. It was printed in 7m by 3.50m (22 by 11ft) and the guests are sitting right next to it. So I was glad I shot it on my Canon 80D with 30MP and still ai-upscaled it 4 times. This was really the only time, where I doubted the image resolution but it came out looking awesome!
Lots of additional technical comments here. A complex subject that I feel can be expanded on in future videos.
Best use of higher MP in camera is the ability to heavy crop part of the image without loss of definition / sharpness.
When you next open a large mp photo view it at 100% and scroll around the entire periphery of the image. You'll realise how insanely massive your photo is even if it is printed at 300dpi. Now of you were to half the dpi your print has the potential to be twice as big again and will look good at nose close. Now go twice as big again and it will look good at 8 feet away. All quite ridiculous for your average shooter who in reality had more than enough pixels with their 20 year old dslr 8mp.
Just a thought, do the same test but this time do various crop percentages. That would be very interesting.🤔👀
77MP 300 dpi vs 8MP 96DPI difference is only visible from nose close, from 0.5m away they will look the same.
I print 45MP this big which comes ataround 220dpi final, and there is no way someone would see that, as ink by itself do merge between the dots, it's fluid, so no pixels will be visible unless you do something like very very low dpi stuff, and even then, if you upscale the image first with some AA to blend pixels, print will come out nice, without visible pixels/dots, only the details will be not there, but as long as sharp edges are not visible, nobody outside the pros would not see it.
The one place more MP is handy is in action photography. I shoot sports and wildlife and being able to "shoot loose & crop tight" is a very handy thing. I used to shoot film and then small MP sensors when the industry converted to digital. Even back 3 years ago I was shooting a 20MP Nikon D5 and, although it worked, it wasn't ideal. Steve Fine, former image manager for Sports Illustrated use to say "there isn't a sports image that can't be made better by cropping closer" and it's true. Although there is another reason that this was true in print was because using up too much paper was expensive. We don't have that problem in digital. And although sometimes you want to show a sense of place in sports, mostly you want to more in very close to the action to pick up the expression on the athletes face and, if you're lucky, some dirt and grime. It's just more impactful. Same for wildlife. Sorry, didn't mean to be so verbose. Go video - very interesting!
It's a great test. I would be curious if it made a bigger difference to actually shoot with an 8 and 16 and 60 mp camera. Perhaps using the same glass.
I would expect it would. My hunch is that if I take a photo with a 60mp camera and shrinking it down to 16mp - for a particular output pixel, I would have taken around 4 pixel's worth of red, green (x2 for bayer) and blue of input information. With a 16mp camera, I just had one of those pixels for input data - thus I would assume it not resolving as much color and detail.
It would make a big difference, especially in low light and you have to increase ISO. The 8MP would crumble down to a less then 2MP and the rest is noise, where the 60MP can be corrected. But hey, it's an advertisement video to promote printing.
I’m not so sure and it would be an interesting test. I’ve printed some images with horrific noise on a monitor only for them to look noiseless when printed large. It’s like noise kind of blurs out in physical prints but is more noticeable on a computer screen at 100%. -P
@@FStoppers I really wasn't mentioning noise... I was thinking that maybe detail is retained when down sampling from high mp to 8 and 16 mp... In the same way downsampling 6k to 4k video in the A74 eg results in a sharper image.
The answer would be to use the same lense on different mp FF cameras. Do it! I think you'd get more views as it's a interesting test.
I have been using the in camera DX crop on my D750 and D600 bodies without hesitation for some extra reach with my 24-70mm when i am too tired to carry second camera with 70-200 when shooting weddings. This ability to crop even on an “ancient” camera like mine is amazing! I guesss with 40plus MP camera these days once can get away a 24mm lens and take portraits and full length from the same spot😂
I have been seen some amazing enlargements from a 4.1MP nikon D2HS abt 20 years ago… I thought it was shot on velvia 50! Thats when I was convinced that digital was good enough for pro work.
I have A7SIII with 12MP and A74 with 33Mp. Even when capturing with less MP the A74 has to process the whole 33 MP and is less responsive. For example it takes time to save to SD snd prevents me from taking the next shot while saving.
Dayum.... time to break out the old Nikon D200 again!
Great video. Was thinking of going with the Nikon Zf - but I already have a Nikon D850. Basically halving the "mega-pixels". Was kinda dragging my feet, even though the Zf has so many features I want... Now you pushed me over the edge, and my apprehension is somewhat subsided. Cropping still is a concern, but I have the glass to reach out. Thank you!
Where pixel resolution matters is Military Satellite and Ariel Reconnaissance. High resolution photography with Spy planes and satellites is insane.
It's all about print size. I've come fairly close to giant photos on shop fronts at the mall. You can absolutely tell which photos are lower resolution.
In a print, dots of ink or toner etc are more important than the files pixels.
Thank you for the info, is there any desirable difference between an 8 bit 16 bit images?
Do you have a published per reviewed reference for the equation relating ppi to distance? Your equation and table list values similar to those I have viewed elsewhere and would like to list the reference for discussion purposes. Thanks. By the way, excellent video on this subject. The viewing test by your compadres was especially conclusive.
I own a Sony A7RIII since 2018, still feels like a top camera and very happy with it. Perhaps I would be also interested in other Sony cameras that have very good low light dual ISO thing for video, but other than that, it's still an amazing pro grade camera
What microphone and set up do you use to record your videos?
We're masters at stacking.
Did you change the dpi for the prints? Or only the ppi for the digital image
People should also consider lens' own resolving power. Even top end 24-70 f/2.8 lenses can't resolve more than around 26-32 MP according to DXOMark. While some primes can resolve better, many people out there will also be using lesser zoom lenses perhaps even kit lenses that won't be outresolving the 20MP sensor on their camera. TLDR is just don't worry about MP count.
This is not the say video is done wrong, it uses a medium format camera to make these comparisons. I am just saying it doesn't really apply to most people out there. People with low MP cameras will also have low MP lenses on them. People who invested in Sigma ART prime collection or a 500mm f/4 will have a high end body which mostly comes with a high MP anyway.
so basically if you don't crop and zoom in, for normal prints you don't need more than 16 MP. if you print fine art like 1m large size then yes, you need 50MP.
What effect does printing have on resolution? Squirting wet ink onto absorbent paper must surely reduce the sharpness of an individual pixel (in a good way actually).
I'd be curious to see this test done using a milky way photo or other landscape astrophotography image with stars (high contrast point sources).
savage experiment :-D 250 mpx.. lol crazy
Totally agree
8 mpx îs about 4K size which is interesting. That is generally the size I consider the minimum to usably crop my images.
did you print them at different dpi? if not the low and high res images would essentially look the same right? I could be wrong tho. please help?
Shouldn't you consider the printer too (like how many dpi has it been printed at) ?
used d3300 for 6 years then got z6ii 2.5yrs ago. not planning to upgrade until something game changer event happens
Does print dpi makes a difference ? Or the printer itself ?
That's a good question. We don't know how these were printed. Tony Northrup mentioned in his video that the difference is clear when comparing higher and lower resolution prints.
The math is valid for pixels a Human can resolve but agree with others comments that you downscaled Hi Res Images for the test. Also what are the printer capabilities feeding a 77Mb image maybe irrelevant to a printer that cannot use that amount of Res in its output. I can certainly see the difference in detail between phone image print Vs My canon
Well, actually I'm quite happy with my 12mp D700.
Maybe its because of the size, but when I go to a photo gallery or even a Peter Licht gallary or a museum, its quite often that I'm next to a 5' tall print and when I pixel peep, it looks quite bad.
I think it comes down to the "texture" of the image. IE if I can see oversharpening artifacts, pixellation, jpeg artifacts, and occasionally chromatic aberration, it can look unacceptable and would stop me from considering purchasing the print. Other times, I've seen huge prints of a 35mm black and white film and it's super grainy but doesn't look bad up-close, because the grain is sharp even if there's no real detail.
Maybe this test points to that the file you printed was well prepared. I'd love to see it done on larger prints and perhaps different subject material.
It’s all about the size of the finished piece, the freedom of movement available to the viewer and what you want to accomplish with the image. Basic boardroom art doesn’t require 250 megapixels. But for one project I printed a 16k x 8k pixel GFX panorama image at 10’ x 5’ and no matter how close you get to the image, more details emerge. It never breaks down and pixelates. The print is right at the edge of the lens’ resolving power and limited by temperature gradients in the air. That was my intention and I went to a specialty printer who could reproduce that much detail. But at 36” x 18”??? Beyond overkill. Always start with the deliverable and know how that does or doesn’t match up with the equipment on hand. If there’s a mismatch. Rent. Oh and let’s not forget that the GFX 100 and similar cameras take 16-bit images which provides more refined color gradients which improves effective resolution. Some typical sized 16-bit prints do look and feel different. It’s subtle and requires a high end photo printer like the Canon Pro-1000 but sometimes it’s worth the effort.
The answer is it depends on the subjects, colors , contrast and the smallest discernible detail for the viewing size.
i am a painter and because I have painted the paintings I know them and if the painting is larger than 50 cm , 24 mp is not enough. 1m x 1m needs 100 mp
When you get to gallery prints that are several metres wide, you definitely see a difference. And yes, of course people go up close to prints at a gallery. The same goes for ads at bus stops etc. People stand right next to it and you can clearly see the difference.
Howerver, that's sort of besides the point imo. Cropping is the main reason most people wan't high res sensors.
My principal need for my 46 megapixels arises as I begin to crop.
Cropping should be minimal if one plans ahead. As I gained experience I find I have to crop less often, crop less from the image when I had to, and a little bit of planning to get things closer in camera saves time because one has to fiddle less in the editing software. Overreliance on cropping is a problem especially since eventually one gets beyond the resolution of the lens unless the sensor size grows.
I was worried about getting a Fuji S5 Pro because of the resolution (effectively 8 MP), guess I'll take the plunge now
Where is that tree located? It’s amazing
Angel oak outside Charleston going towards Kiawah island. It’s the oldest “living thing” east of the Mississippi River. -P
I have a Fuji X-H2s and a Fuji X-T5, different megapixels but i didn't buy the X-T5 camera because of the 40MNP sensor, I bought it for the size and controls. The same reason I don't buy a FF camera system, being mostly a travel photographer weight is more important to me. I've never taken a photo that i wished i had a FF body instead. We can pixel peep and compare all we want, but if you can get the photos you need then thats what reall matters and pretty much all the camera systems on the market can do that. However yes i am lusting after a Fuji GFX100ii or maybe the upcoming GFX100IIs.
8k 12bit 4 2 2 we reached the limits...
Find some old 8mp camera and lets ACTUALLY see a difference.
I love your test, but I do like the math. I get the (distance-in-inches x 0.000291) which assumes 1 arc second of human acuity (sin(1/60 degree)). I am not sure why you divided by 2. Are you accounting for the Nyquist frequency or are you assuming 1/2 arc second of acuity? One thing I would like to point out is that this formula is based on a worst case scenario of distinguishing very high contrast lines (black next to white, think of power lines against.a white sky or black characters on a white background) vs lower contrast (different shades of green leaves) subjects, so the resolution will differ based on subject matter. Also, a 4x6 inch photograph is likely to be examined much closer than a 24x36 image, and the different resolution images would much more likely be distinguishable if printed 4 ft x 6 ft using the same megapixel files. Finally, my guess is whether someone would hang something on their wall has much more to do with composition, color, and mood rather than resolution or Van Gogh and Monet would have been out of business. I use an A7RV because it’s the highest resolution I can afford, but I due process a fair number of panos.
It could be better understood as ppi=2/(distance-in-inches x 0.000291). Its (probably) still 20/20 or 1 arc minute acuity as this is standard. 2 comes from the fact you need two pixels to differentiate a line. When you say resolving power of a lens is 60 lines/mm for example, you don't mean 60 pixels, you need 2x amount of pixels; 60 blacks representing lines and 60 whites representing spaces between lines.
A high MP camera allows you to crop way more than a low MP camera.
While it's theoretically right, in reality micro-jitters affect high-mp sensors more, and this cropped image will be of poorer quality regardless.
OK but let's be realistic here. You may lose 15-30% due to crop, if you did particularly bad shot from which you want to get something out then maybe 50-60% but not 95%. At 32MP you can cut it in half and still be left with 16MP which is plenty as this vid showed.
@@sznikers ah,, bless you. It’s easy to confuse how sizes increase when doubling the dimensions. Cropping normally involves both dimensions so you end up with a quarter of the MP, not half.
@@SirHackaL0t. Aaaaa, yup its squared xD what a f up
@@sznikers :)
I don't look for megapixel but user experience. The r6 with it's 20mp has been a good camera. It's the over heating in 4 k that sucks
Of course they will look similar when printed at those sizes. If you were to print them wall sized.... 10 feet high... THEN.... it there will be a difference between the 8mp and 77mp.
I know this as my work is creating gigapixel resolution imagines to be printed wall sized and larger, and when viewing it from 6 inches away... the details are there.
When I sell prints... they average 6 to 8 feet wide. To me a 36" x 24" print is tiny!
Is anyone here using Saal Digital software on a recent MacBook Pro with XDR display? Whenever I look at images inside the application they are more saturated compared to when I open them in any other application. It doesn’t affect the print results but it bugs me since there seems to be some issue with the color management.
I contacted the support, provided screenshots of the same image opened in Photoshop, C1 and the Saal Design Software next to each other, but what they told is basically that it must be my fault.
did u tried to use the 180º rule for video? oh god my eyes
as a photographer, I'm extremely happy with my camera and understand camera doesn't determine the quality of the photos. the meat ball holding it does.
well that and the photo editing.
You were testing print resolution here. NOT sensor resolution. And I bet all of the prints actually had the same print resolution.
Then the question should be: for a certain photo size, how far away does the viewer need to be to appreciate the whole photo?
Then you go to your table and find out the ppi needed. And then you can determine the photo size in Mp
I agree the "need" for high MP is overrated and it's really hard to see the differences at normal viewing distance. But testing like you do is the wrong approach. Downsizing a high-res image wont give the same result as shooting with a low-res sensor.
MP no. But sensor size give gradation that a smaller sensor simply does not give. A 24MP FF just look completely different than 200 MP Samsung phone
after1.5mb the different stops unless you edit the picture.
Wolfcrow new videos is about that
Canon 5DSr (50mp) downsized to Canon RP size (26mp) kills the "native" 26mp of the Canon RP
i do my at home on my canon 8720 printer.
panoramic negates pixel count. It is still just 105 for whatever portion you are looking at
and again the body matters less then people think
With the help of Ai upscale software, we can even do better with low pixel.
You've forgotten something. The value of being able to see it both close and far away. I've looked at paintings from masters. I don't just view them from 2 meters. I move into them. The picture moves me. I want to see more detail. The brush strokes. The color differentials. The 3 dimensional view of the painting.
Now, what resolution was a 6x7 print on slides when printed from a master printer wet. Take the negative and what MP can you get from a high end drum scan? Why was that so valued back in the day. The 6x7 and up to a 8x10 negative or slide? Because the picture printed allowed you to be immersed in it.
If you want non art. Non detail. Non 3 dimensional. Cheap prints. I agree. Billboards were never about quality. If you want the best of the best print. Yes, you use high MP cameras. And never put it up against a pro printed wet print from a 6x7. Because it now will never match that quality still.
I love my Canon 5DM3s. Only wish the lens manufacturers would not abandon the mount type.
The real question is. How were you able to photograph the Angel Oak without getting harassed by attendant bothering you about having a camera. Even if you do have a permit. They are not been very nice about it.
Great video.
Are they weird about having a camera now? This was taken without a tripod and just stitched together. -P
@@FStoppers Last time I went. Whole area around the tree was fenced. You couldn't get within 50ft of the actual tree.
Dang that sucks. This shot was taken maybe 12 years ago and the entire park was fenced in but you could go right up to the tree and even climb it. They would yell at you for climbing it but people did it. Look up “Tree Spirit Project”. It was one of the first Fstoppers videos we ever did.
It’s funny, sometimes I rent apartments and airbnbs and see stock photos of the angel oak and they are always such bad photography. Having taken my version of the tree, it’s interesting seeing other images of it fairly often. -P
@@j.peytonphotography7801 According to their website a permit is required only for weddings and wedding photoshoots, and that admission for the general public is free. Perhaps you caught them at a time when the place had been rented for a wedding, I don't know.
Why do so many bird photographers treasure high megapixels? They’d prefer the Sony A1 to the Sony A9iii!
That is because you can crop a lot..
Isn’t printing larger pretty close to cropping tighter though?
@@LtDeadeye Sure. But you want to crop *and* print large.
I agree, that differences in solution are hard to identify on the screen and even more in print. One point I would criticize is, that calculating down the resolution keeps more detail, than a camera that takes the same picture with that same native resolution.
I think this comparison doesn't really make sense in real life. In my eyes it would make more sense to get 3 cameras with different native megapixels sensors and compare that. Get a Fujifilm S1 pro, X-T1, X-T5 and GFX100 II, shoot the same picture raw, use same edits, and compare that. That'd be interesting. Downsampling a huge image file is not the same
I agree this is a test we should do but…how do you get the same image and apply the same edits when the raw files themselves are different? Each camera would have a different lens with unique sharpness, color cast, vignetting, and aperture which would come into play. Wouldn’t people complain about that? Having the image come from the exact same file removes any of those other variables from the test. -P
@@FStoppers I'm not saying this test is not valid, it just doesn't really say anything to me. Of course, different sensors, lenses will make different photos. If that test makes sense or not depends on what would your message be. Maybe something like you don't need 100MP to produce a regular sized print on your wall... or what is the megapixel that you do definitely need. What is the megapixel you _need_ to produce a billboard, magazine cover... something like that could be interesting to us, I think. Downgrading an 100MP picture is not life-like to me, because if you already have the funds to own a Hasselblad, than you don't have problems storing the 500MB raw files. The question is, if you can shoot certain printable with let's say an X-T4, or a Z8, A6000 ,etc...
@@FStoppers btw, there is a software that can alter your colour palette to get as close as possible to another cameras profile. I haven't tried it yet, but I remember watching a video about them... so basically you could shoot like Fuji X-T5 on a Canon R5. Maybe this could be an opportunity to do a collab with them... but just a random idea