Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Resolutio versus Image Quality  (Read 6211 times)

Bo_Dez

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2017, 06:32:38 AM »

Probably, but the numbers don't tell us which is going to be the better photograph so round and round we go.

The better photograph has nothing to do with pixel count so no, it doesn't go round and round. 100Mp cameras make better 3 meter prints than 24Mp cameras.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10638
    • Echophoto
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #41 on: February 24, 2017, 12:09:54 PM »

Hi,

No doubt about that, but that also makes serious demands on the photographer. Utilising 100 MP in real life can be hard. But, it would often work for landscape or architecture. The key is:

  • Use tripod and eliminate vibrations
  • Focus accurately - can be hard
  • Don't stop down to much
  • Use an excellent lens

Best regards
Erik

The better photograph has nothing to do with pixel count so no, it doesn't go round and round. 100Mp cameras make better 3 meter prints than 24Mp cameras.

Bo_Dez

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2017, 01:00:30 PM »

Hi,

No doubt about that, but that also makes serious demands on the photographer. Utilising 100 MP in real life can be hard. But, it would often work for landscape or architecture. The key is:

  • Use tripod and eliminate vibrations
  • Focus accurately - can be hard
  • Don't stop down to much
  • Use an excellent lens

Best regards
Erik

In theory, you would think, but in use not so much. I've not found it excessively demanding. Hand held in low light wth a moving target - no problems.
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3783
    • waynefox.com
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #43 on: February 25, 2017, 03:54:42 PM »

I have a 4m wide print made with a 24 MP camera just outside my office, there is no blur at all, but it is only 90 cm high and it is stitched from around 9 images.

sorry Erik but this seems pretty irrelevant.  I don't think anyone would deny that stitching increases your effective resolution dramatically.  In the case of this image your are referring to, it was captured with an effective resolution of well over 100mp so the fact you took it with a 24mp camera doesn't really apply.  The question would be if you capture it with a single shot, and printed an identical size print, how would that compare?  Obviously you didn't think a single shot would capture adequate detail or you probably wouldn't have done a stitch.

The most skilled printer in the world cannot make up for detail that's not there.  So resolution is an important factor, but is related to output size.

The basic challenge of those who feel they only need 24mp or so "most of the time" because they only need an A3 print is to figure out when they need more, and if they do can they stitch to compensate for it.

personally I look at it the other way.  I'm going to capture with as much resolution as I can, assuming I need to make an 85" print.  That means stitching if possible even with a 100mp back.  Certainly some of the time the image doesn't lend itself to being that large, and in fact often isn't even worth printing.  I only end up printing about 3% of what I shoot.  And to be honest the quality out of single captures with my IQ180 or now IQ3 100 at 85" is pretty impressive, so I find myself stitching a little less often. But I'd rather get the detail than be sorry I didn't when it comes time to offer an image for sale.

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1621
    • The Last Word
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #44 on: February 25, 2017, 04:09:03 PM »

And the skill requirement for landscape photography isn't high. Most of it is down to planning (using Google Earth, TPE and astronomy and weather charts), physical stamina and luck (weather, etc.). If you can meet this basic skill requirement, the only difference between your photo and a photo taken by someone standing next to you is the gear.

Whenever I have done landscape work in the company of other photographers, the results have been dramatically disparate. Often, it hard to say that one set is better than another, but they certainly are quite different.

Jim

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10638
    • Echophoto
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #45 on: February 25, 2017, 05:01:32 PM »

Hi Wayne,

You are obviously right on the issue. On the other hand, would I shoot anything with a 4:1 aspect ratio, I would stitch. Why would I crop away pixels I have paid for? So I stitched with 6MP and I still stitch with 42 MP. Would I have 100 MP, I would still stitch. Aspect ratio doesn't fit? Stitch! It obviously doesn't work always but it works very often, so it is worth a try.

Having 100 MP is a great advantage over 36-50 MP we have in smaller formats right now, and that allows something like 41% larger print size based on resolution, unless you need to crop. On the other hand, I often used stitching on MFD to avoid cropping.

Yes, I think that 100 MP medium format makes a lot of sense. But it is not a magic wand, it's more like quite bit more.

Best regards
Erik

sorry Erik but this seems pretty irrelevant.  I don't think anyone would deny that stitching increases your effective resolution dramatically.  In the case of this image your are referring to, it was captured with an effective resolution of well over 100mp so the fact you took it with a 24mp camera doesn't really apply.  The question would be if you capture it with a single shot, and printed an identical size print, how would that compare?  Obviously you didn't think a single shot would capture adequate detail or you probably wouldn't have done a stitch.

The most skilled printer in the world cannot make up for detail that's not there.  So resolution is an important factor, but is related to output size.

The basic challenge of those who feel they only need 24mp or so "most of the time" because they only need an A3 print is to figure out when they need more, and if they do can they stitch to compensate for it.

personally I look at it the other way.  I'm going to capture with as much resolution as I can, assuming I need to make an 85" print.  That means stitching if possible even with a 100mp back.  Certainly some of the time the image doesn't lend itself to being that large, and in fact often isn't even worth printing.  I only end up printing about 3% of what I shoot.  And to be honest the quality out of single captures with my IQ180 or now IQ3 100 at 85" is pretty impressive, so I find myself stitching a little less often. But I'd rather get the detail than be sorry I didn't when it comes time to offer an image for sale.

hogloff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #46 on: February 25, 2017, 05:28:01 PM »

Hi Wayne,

You are obviously right on the issue. On the other hand, would I shoot anything with a 4:1 aspect ratio, I would stitch. Why would I crop away pixels I have paid for? So I stitched with 6MP and I still stitch with 42 MP. Would I have 100 MP, I would still stitch. Aspect ratio doesn't fit? Stitch! It obviously doesn't work always but it works very often, so it is worth a try.

Having 100 MP is a great advantage over 36-50 MP we have in smaller formats right now, and that allows something like 41% larger print size based on resolution, unless you need to crop. On the other hand, I often used stitching on MFD to avoid cropping.

Yes, I think that 100 MP medium format makes a lot of sense. But it is not a magic wand, it's more like quite bit more.

Best regards
Erik

There are many situations for which stitching is not practical or even possible. I shoot a lot of moving water which by its nature cannot be stitched with any degree of accuracy.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10638
    • Echophoto
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #47 on: February 25, 2017, 06:17:59 PM »

Hi,

My experience is that stitching moving water works remarkably well, at least when using good stitching programs. Still water with rippled surface is more problematic.

The stitched image I have on my office wall is 28270x5925 pixels, something like 167 MP, also, it covers around 180 degrees of field of view. The IQ3100 MP has 11608 pixels, so I would still need to made 3-4 exposures to match the image quality using the IQ3100 MP.  The image was taken back in 2009, by the way. The IQ3100 MP was not available at that time, the IQ 180 was releases 2 years later, 2011 I think, so P65+ was the top end at Phase One at that time.

Best regards
Erik





There are many situations for which stitching is not practical or even possible. I shoot a lot of moving water which by its nature cannot be stitched with any degree of accuracy.

hogloff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #48 on: February 25, 2017, 08:00:42 PM »

Hi,

My experience is that stitching moving water works remarkably well, at least when using good stitching programs. Still water with rippled surface is more problematic.

The stitched image I have on my office wall is 28270x5925 pixels, something like 167 MP, also, it covers around 180 degrees of field of view. The IQ3100 MP has 11608 pixels, so I would still need to made 3-4 exposures to match the image quality using the IQ3100 MP.  The image was taken back in 2009, by the way. The IQ3100 MP was not available at that time, the IQ 180 was releases 2 years later, 2011 I think, so P65+ was the top end at Phase One at that time.

Best regards
Erik

Really...your concept of moving water must be different than mine. How would you stitch these?

Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1621
    • The Last Word
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2017, 11:53:33 PM »

Really...your concept of moving water must be different than mine. How would you stitch these?

This is before Autopano tweaking. There are a few oopsies, like the deconstructed boogieboard, but I kinda like them.



Jim
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 11:59:45 PM by Jim Kasson »
Logged

razrblck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 483
  • Chill
    • Portfolio
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #50 on: February 26, 2017, 02:23:49 AM »

How fast did you shoot those? I can count at least 11 frames, that's between 1 and 2 seconds on a DSLR or mirrorless camera, but over 10 seconds on a digital back.
Logged
Instagram (updated often)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10638
    • Echophoto
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #51 on: February 26, 2017, 03:03:06 AM »

Yes,

I was more thinking about things like waterfalls and flowing water, like rapids. A stitching program can select where to put the cuts, so it often works remarkably well.

The image I have on the office wall is this one:


Just to say, I have done a lot of stitching in my medium format days. For the image below I needed an ultrawide, but only had a 40 mm lens for my P45+. So I stitched, that image has no moving water.


This one is also stitched. I realised that the sky was very nice. It was possible to use a shorter lens, turn the back vertical and crop. But the choice made here was to shoot two images, a base composition and one with more sky and stitch. That shot was probably with the Distagon 60 and the closest wider lens I had was 40 mm. So cropping would have wasted 55% of my pixels. The stitched image is 49.7 MP.


This one was also about getting around wide angle limitation. That image was quite tricky to stitch.


Sailboat rigs are very difficult to stitch, BTW. A hard learned lesson.

Best regards
Erik


Really...your concept of moving water must be different than mine. How would you stitch these?

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10638
    • Echophoto
Getting back to the original question…
« Reply #52 on: February 26, 2017, 03:29:50 AM »

Hi,

For some reason we drifted away from the original question that was really about if the Leica S2 makes technically better images than a Nikon D810, if I recall it correctly.

In that case I would say that far more depends on the photographer than on the device. To start with, the camera needs to be focused correctly. Lens selection obviously matters, but the original posting was more about per pixel quality. The Leica S2 has 2008 era CCD sensor 37.5 MP vs 36 MP. Both have pixels with around 60000 e- full well capacity, which would give the same signal/noise levels in bright areas. The Nikon probably has something like one fourth (1/4) of the readout noise. So the Nikon image would be cleaner in the shadows.

Leica lenses are said to be great, but so can we put great lenses on the Nikon, having the option to use Zeiss Otus and Sigma A lenses in addition to the Nikon lenses. Lens quality doesn't affect tonality, but it may be that less sharpening is with an excellent lens. If you need to stop down for DoF diffraction comes into the play, requiring more sharpening.

Thriving for the best image quality the 100MP backs are the obvious choice, they have up to date sensor technology, best of breed DR and have a healthy advantage in surface area. Leica really needs to consider the Hasselblad GFX and the Fuji GFX. A few more pixels, with great DR and in all probability excellent lenses.

Best regards
Erik

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1621
    • The Last Word
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #53 on: February 26, 2017, 12:32:54 PM »

How fast did you shoot those? I can count at least 11 frames, that's between 1 and 2 seconds on a DSLR or mirrorless camera, but over 10 seconds on a digital back.

Nikon D4 set to max continuous rate: I can't remember if it's 10 or 11 fps. I no longer own the camera.

You're right; it wouldn't work with a MF digital back.

I just wanted to point out that the usual way of doing stitching, with a series of slow, considered, careful captures, is not the only way, and that there are some advantages to a rapid set of captures.

Jim

razrblck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 483
  • Chill
    • Portfolio
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #54 on: February 26, 2017, 01:49:17 PM »

Nikon D4 set to max continuous rate: I can't remember if it's 10 or 11 fps. I no longer own the camera.

You're right; it wouldn't work with a MF digital back.

I just wanted to point out that the usual way of doing stitching, with a series of slow, considered, careful captures, is not the only way, and that there are some advantages to a rapid set of captures.

Jim

Absolutely, I've stitched many times with my Nikons like you did. If the background doesn't change I shoot people or action first, then the rest later.
Logged
Instagram (updated often)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10638
    • Echophoto
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #55 on: February 26, 2017, 03:29:11 PM »

Hi Jim,

Nice stuff, I considered that something like that could be made, but it is not exactly my workflow. Very nice images and I like the way you don't crop those panos.

Best regards
Erik

This is before Autopano tweaking. There are a few oopsies, like the deconstructed boogieboard, but I kinda like them.



Jim

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2137
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2017, 05:00:17 PM »

Very nice images and I like the way you don't crop those panos.

Me too. Embrace the artifacts.  ;)

-Dave-
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1621
    • The Last Word

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2137
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #58 on: February 26, 2017, 05:16:32 PM »

I love those panos, Jim. I also realize I've looked at them before!  :o  And the Ted Orland photos too. Info and image overload…

-Dave-
Logged

hogloff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #59 on: February 26, 2017, 09:24:15 PM »

iphone photo in pano mode. Does all the necessary stitching for you and it is ready to send off within seconds. Why tinker around with multiple shots and merging during processing when you can get this with a press of the shutter. ;D

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up