The S line up used a CDD sensor with hexagon shaped pixels, Fuji claimed that it had double the resolution of it's pixel count as there was no wasted space between the pixels. A better argument than Sigma made that because the Favon sensor has all three colors on one pixel it had 3 time the resolution of a CDD or CMOS sensor. Over the years I read 2 stories, one was the sensor was made by Fuji, the other that some sensors were made to order by Sony which were defective resulting in a recall.
Would you buy a 6MP DSLR...
-
D
- Thread starter Horatio
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale BOOK SALE! Weston, Karsh, Kenna, Worth, Sexton
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Complete Mamiya RB67 Pro SD collections with camera bags
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
Want to Buy JOBO ATL 1500/1000 or JOBO CPP2
- Started by balazsfff
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Sold Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
You can easily double the pixel count in each axis by 2X, but that does NOT increase the apparent detail resolution of the photograph...it is still a photo with 6MP of detail resolution. Increasing pixel count in software only reduces the apparent size of a single pixel in a very large print, and decrreases the 'aliasing' (stairstepping of straight lines not perfectly on the X-axis or Y-axis).
That said, I have taken a Canon S110 image of about 12 MPixels, and used Lightroom to output a JPG file of a landscape shot large enough to print a 12" x 60" canvas print, and no one -- even standing 2' from the print -- has ever commented about not enough detail or pixels that are too large and visible from a close distance. I created a JPG file from RAW, sufficiently large to provide 250 pixels per inch on a 60" wide print!
As for my initial venture into digital 20 years ago, that was a 4MPixel camera. And my first dSLR was an 8MPixels. But you also need to also understand that I shot professionally, had given up all 135 format film shooting, and shot everything with Medium Format and Large Format film Yet an 8MPixel APS-C format camera I considered to at least equal or better or shooting a 135 film image in many ways!
And when someone bemoaned the inadequacy of his P&S photos compared to the dSLR photos in a camera club full of shooters, I proved that he (and others) could NOT correctly identify the three 4MPixel P&S images from the three 8MPixel dSLR images which I posted on a photo forum.
That said, I have taken a Canon S110 image of about 12 MPixels, and used Lightroom to output a JPG file of a landscape shot large enough to print a 12" x 60" canvas print, and no one -- even standing 2' from the print -- has ever commented about not enough detail or pixels that are too large and visible from a close distance. I created a JPG file from RAW, sufficiently large to provide 250 pixels per inch on a 60" wide print!
As for my initial venture into digital 20 years ago, that was a 4MPixel camera. And my first dSLR was an 8MPixels. But you also need to also understand that I shot professionally, had given up all 135 format film shooting, and shot everything with Medium Format and Large Format film Yet an 8MPixel APS-C format camera I considered to at least equal or better or shooting a 135 film image in many ways!
And when someone bemoaned the inadequacy of his P&S photos compared to the dSLR photos in a camera club full of shooters, I proved that he (and others) could NOT correctly identify the three 4MPixel P&S images from the three 8MPixel dSLR images which I posted on a photo forum.
Last edited:
ive said it before, I’ll say it again: once you hit a minimum resolution, almost nobody will notice more resolution or sharpness unless they have side by side comparisons to look at, and even then, they have to know what to look for. There’s nothing wrong with more resolution, and pursuing more resolution, and it can have its uses, but realistically, once you’re up at 100+ pixels per inch on a big print, almost nobody in the general public will care, especially if the subject matter is good.
^
At a viewing distance of 24", the average person's visual acuity is limited to detail which is 0.0035". It takes three total pixels to represent two lines separated by a space. So one inch can represent 143 line-pairs of detail per inch at that viewing distance, or the eye will never detect finer detail. And to present full detail in a 60" wide print, viewed from 24" away takes 17240 horizontal pixels.
OTOH, even the very best lens are not likely provide the necessary detail to the sensor to produce a 'full detail' print of 60" size!
OP
OP
To me, the main advantage of greater resolution is freedom to crop an image. I'm striving to crop before pressing the shutter release.
If I wanted to shoot one, I'd buy a Nikon D50 or D70, Had both of those many years ago in a short lived attempt to go digital. The pics looked fine, for what the cameras were, and you could make nice sized prints from that size sensor. But, I could never see the difference between my files and the high priced DSLRs, and the B&W conversions from digital were, well. Sub optimal.
How many people look at a 60 inch print from 24 inches away? I know I don't. Yes, if you get really close, more fine detail and sharpness can be seen, if you actually have that detail, but again, in practice and reality, very few people will notice or care.
Take a computer monitor or an HDTV or 4K TV as an example. They're rarely more than 100 pixels per inch, and yet when you play a slideshow of images on them, nobody complains that they look low resolution. I wonder why.
doesn't it enhance a 3x4MP(12) resolution2x in both directions, making it 6x8MP(48)MP?
I don't know. I just don't think software enhancement would work. But I do think 6MP is OK and the Contax N digital is a nice thing. Just that $6000 when it's introduced is too much for me.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,311
- Format
- Medium Format
I had a Fuji S1 Pro which was based on the Nikon N60 (iirc) with the hexagon pixels. This camera handled color so nicely, reminded me of Portra with a bit more bite to it. The only drawback I see to using old vs new DSLRs is the modern cameras have much wider dynamic range to work with when editing.
I don't do editing other than cropping. Much prefer making darkroom prints but I'm getting old.
I don't do editing other than cropping. Much prefer making darkroom prints but I'm getting old.
Adobe’s new ACR resolution enhancement feature doubles the pixel dimensions in both directions, so a 2000x3000 pixel image becomes a 4000x6000 pixel image. You go from 6MP to 24MP.
Every time I talk about viewing distance for 60" print being more than 60" away, somebody argues "But must folks will put their nose up to the print to see how much detail there is to be seen." Now you argue against them... I gave that up long ago as a futile position to defend!
The 'proper' viewing distance, vs. the reality of what viewers will really do, are two positions that we face as photographers, and both points of view should be analyzed as reality. I am not saying 'You need this much detail...", but merely representing how much detail you need in order to stand up to scrutiny at very close distances. Whether or not the photographer strives at all to MEET those super high expecations is a different matter, for the individual photographer to accept or reject!
As I have described already, the typical lens CANNOT meet those expectations. Period.
Last edited:
Im not one of those somebodies arguing that. Yes, there will be people who do that, mostly other photographers that are just looking for a reason to pick. The vast majority of the general public doesn’t do that. Most of them have a hard time telling the difference between a nice high quality SDTV picture and an HDTV picture. When my parents upgraded their TV to an HDTV, they commented that they don’t really see much of a difference. They were watching HDTV down scaled to SD before they upgraded. When they see 4K on my 4K TV they’re like “meh”. A lot of people are like this. The bar to minimum acceptable picture quality is way lower than many experts would lead you to believe.
thnks for the verification. Inall though, Ithink, Adobe's 'enhance' leave lots to be desired and has some stiff competition.
Yes and no. From the testing I've done with it, if you do it with a raw camera file (i.e. CFA Bayer samples), it appears that it enlarges directly from the CFA Bayer samples using their AHD (or whatever they're using nowadays) algorithm for the enlargement. This does yield better results than first demosaicing the CFA data, then enlarging the RGB samples as demosaicing is enlarging, but on a per color channel basis and looking at the neighboring samples and interpolating in the direction that provides the sharpest results and least amount of aliasing for each color channel. Their demosaicing algorithm in ACR is actually quite good, and having it interpolate twice as many samples directly from the original sample data instead of doing the normal demosiac does yield results about as good as you'll get without applying some super heavy duty smarts and image analysis.
Where people on the internet are falling down a little bit is they're testing it with regular RGB files, where the interpolation intelligence won't be as good because the image has already been demosaiced from the raw bayer samples. In that instance, you do kind of need to apply a lot of smarts to the image processing to try to figure out the best way to enlarge it while still maintaining good image detail, and there, yes, Adobe does have quite a lot of stiff competition.
Last edited:
MurrayMinchin
Membership Council
Tangent time...sort of.
When you think about it, we see digitally.
Light comes into or out of focus on rods & cones in our eyes, gets converted to electrical signals, then gets interpreted by the brain as images. Any guess on how many years till cameras start brushing that threshold?
Pretty easy-peasy stuff...mantis shrimp can see into both the ultra violet and infrared spectrums and each 'eye' can both move and polarize light independently. Talk about cool!
When you think about it, we see digitally.
Light comes into or out of focus on rods & cones in our eyes, gets converted to electrical signals, then gets interpreted by the brain as images. Any guess on how many years till cameras start brushing that threshold?
Pretty easy-peasy stuff...mantis shrimp can see into both the ultra violet and infrared spectrums and each 'eye' can both move and polarize light independently. Talk about cool!
Bayer RGGB sensors already mostly mimic the eye, and the good camera makers tailor the spectral response to be pretty close to what the eye registers. In terms of raw resolution, modern cameras are at parity or better.
I have done so. A Samsung GX-1L, which is a Pentax in disguise. Came with 18-55 and 80-200 lens. All for £50. The reason I went for it is that it uses the same lens as the analogue MZ-50 I have. 18-55 works on MZ-50 although obviously vignette on the 18mm setting. It is also my first digital SLR and it actually takes some getting used to. I have found that 6MP is more than enough. Nice camera as well, AA batteries and SD card.
Not long ago I bought a Samsung GX 1L as well to pair with my K2000 which is 10MP, I use the K2000 in Black and White mode and the Samsung in color, I give a nod to the Samsung in terms of color. My digital travel kit is 2 bodies, 3 lens, a 18 to 55, 70 to 300, and 50mm 1.4 AF.
-
- wahiba
- Deleted
- Reason: already answered
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |