Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: If its not megapixels what is it?  (Read 51480 times)

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2011, 01:52:56 pm »

Most likely placebo effect.

Well, I was not implying that at all. Michael has so much experience with a huge variety of cameras, DBs and printers that I respect his judgement. What interests me is exactly where the improvement in IQ at small print sizes is coming from, because you see I like to print small. And that so far has always been the limitation of digital printing compared with the wet darkroom - effective quality reduces the smaller that you print.

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #61 on: May 18, 2011, 02:35:45 pm »

...While it is true that very few people can hear the difference between amplifiers or preamplifiers with equivalent specs, it has been shown that experienced listeners can discriminate.  They can even distinguish (better than chance) one make/model of amplifier from another. 
Do you have references on this? I skim through some papers on such topics, but have never seen any supporting your claims.
Quote
Simple specs such as MP and SNR do not fully predict our responses.
Agreed
Quote
In creating a market for subtly improved equipment one places initial samples in the hands of highly experienced individuals who can be relied upon to see the benefit right away.  They will reassure the rest of us that there is something to be gained there, once we train ourselves (and our clients) to see it.  Isn't it wonderful that we never stop learning?
That would be the positive view. The negative would be that cynical sales-people use the gifted few to push their equipment, knowing that we less gifted tend to believe that "if only we make one more purchase", we will be able to make art like this or that person.

Perhaps both the positive and the negative view can be partially right.

-h
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #62 on: May 18, 2011, 02:41:04 pm »

Well, I was not implying that at all. Michael has so much experience with a huge variety of cameras, DBs and printers that I respect his judgement.
Professional medical doctors and professional musicians are prone to the placebo effect. Not because they lack experience or sound judgement, but because all humans are prone to these things. If you _really_ want to know if a wine is different from another, then you need to do some blind testing now matter how experienced you are. Luckily, most of us seldomly really need to know, because life goes on even if we are wrong.

If I chose the "wrong" camera, nothing really bad would happen. I would continue making my humble pictures, enjoy the process of making them and the end-result, never knowing that "brand Y" was, perhaps, slightly better for my perception and use-case.

-h
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 02:44:56 pm by hjulenissen »
Logged

E_Edwards

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #63 on: May 18, 2011, 03:24:09 pm »

I've recently been testing several camera backs and with every new camera I tested, I was convinced that the quality was better than my existing back.

It was only at the end of these tests when I compared the resulting tests against my own, that I concluded that there was little or no difference, either positive or negative between various camera backs. This was reinforced when I showed files to other people without telling them which one was supposed to be better, and the answers were not necessarily the same. They were all too close to call.

Yes, big files are nice to see, and they help when printing large sizes. But for many people they are overkill.
Logged

cunim

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #64 on: May 18, 2011, 05:08:07 pm »

Do you have references on this? I skim through some papers on such topics, but have never seen any supporting your claims.AgreedThat would be the positive view. The negative would be that cynical sales-people use the gifted few to push their equipment, knowing that we less gifted tend to believe that "if only we make one more purchase", we will be able to make art like this or that person.

Perhaps both the positive and the negative view can be partially right.

-h

Some years ago (about 20) one of the audio publications got together a sample of equipment reviewers and another of unsophisticated listeners.  The methodology was sloppy (single blind, a,b,c comparisons I think) but better than it might have been.  The reviewers - but not the listeners - were able to detect particular makes of amplifier by their sonic characteristics.  Not every time but the effect was significant.  This was a learned skill but not a difficult one.  I could do the same at one point.  Sorry, but I can't remember where this was published.  The only reason I mention it is as an example of how our perceptual skills can sometimes outstrip our ability to define quality parameters.  There is a place for pbservation as opposed to controlled studies.

There is nothing cynical about marketing using what the Japanese call "opinion leaders".  It works, and nothing is being hidden.  We are free to ignore any expert who lacks a history that ties in with our own experiences.  In audio, I tend to do that because I just can't seem to replicate many of the expert observations - hearing quality differences between cables for example.  I am better off ignoring the pundits.  In photography, in contrast, I have learned to see more than I used to and many of the things I see correspond to what experienced MF users observe.  OK, so I choose to pay attention.

Of course an upgrade doesn't matter if you can't detect a benefit.  Ignorance is bliss and sure does save money.  I use relatively cheap audio cables because I can't hear a quality difference.  I use LF and MF cameras because I can see one.  Do I think Michael or Mark are reporting real properties of the IQ180?  Probably. Do we have a set of defining parameters for those properties?  Not at this point and I doubt we will any time soon.  Does the whole thing matter to me?  I'll use all relevant data if it does.

Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #65 on: May 18, 2011, 05:38:44 pm »

Do you have references on this? I skim through some papers on such topics, but have never seen any supporting your claims.
-h
Differences in microphone preamplifiers are dramatic in tone and color.  As a recording engineer, the differences are stark.  Differences in power amplifiers are apparent too.  A box full of TL072 opamps in a certain topology have a warm sound that is kind of smeary in phase, producing an appealing warm sound, though not antiseptically clean.  Think "British sound" as in Trident and Toft desks; think OK Computer.  These things are not subtle.  But all this is worlds away from the snake oil that gets sold in the form of pyramids, green magic markers, and rare-earth interconnects.  Some people just have money to throw away on fantasies.  Recording engineers don't have that kind of money.

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #66 on: May 18, 2011, 06:22:23 pm »

Printing from LR to my Epson R2400, I can send a 10x8 print from my 39MP back at either 360 or 720 ppi, and the printer at highest output settings can deal with either without further resampling. But the difference between the prints is remarkably hard to see with the naked eye, even as close as you can focus. It is, however, clearly visible with an 8x loupe. In practice, I would not be able to tell between the two at normal viewing distance, which makes me wonder about what it is that Michael is seeing in his prints.

John

Try this with one of the more recent generation printers such as the R3000 or one of the X900 series printers. You may be surprised at what you see.

Michael
Logged

PeterA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #67 on: May 18, 2011, 09:32:03 pm »

Obviously you've never seen an 8X10" contact print. Obviously you've never seen an 11X17" print from an 80 Megapixel back. If you had you wouldn't be quite so snide in your comments.

It's easy to poke fun at things that we are not familiar with, isn't it?

Michael



Michael you are making strong assumptions about what I have seen, printed, shot with and compared...When I buy an IQ 180 it wont be because I expect to see a printed difference on an 8x11 print compared to what I get from the 40 megapixel backs I shoot with now - and dare I say it even from a sub 20 megapixel camera like my M9! I will buy an IQ 180 to put on the back of my Alpa gear because the UI of the IQ series backs is a game changer for me - the value add wont be in 8x11 print quality it will be from focus mask, levelling and compositonal advantages that come from the UI a swell as teh benefit of being able to use just one raw processor instead of teh three or four I have to contend with now..

As for golden ears - I think the blind tests conducted with these golden eared experts consistently prove what shameless liars they are...lets not confuse the sonic 'singature' of this versus that amplifier - with audio quality from different cables...sound signatures are indicative of poor quality component - for anyone who prefers to hear as close as possible what was recorded.

I am happy you have discovered Alpa Michael - I look forward to hearing your view on how good the outer pixel performance of the IQ180 is...something doesnt have to be mystical or even perfect to be a useful improvement and teh IQ series backs will make my use of Alpa even more fun and simple than it already is.

Cheers
Pete
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #68 on: May 19, 2011, 02:03:06 am »

I am another user of DB on technical cameras. In my case a cambo Ultima with a Leaf Aptus12 R. I dont mind the weight of the rig, even when on long walks and I love the process of using the camera. 80 MP or 33 MP backs all weigh the same but there is a big difference in quality. It is not always needed but when it is it is important.

There is of course more to it than MP. It is a bit like engine capacity. My 4X4 has a bigger engine than a F1 racing car but it sure does not produce anything like the power. Then there is usability of the new backs. The ability to rotate the chip and the flip up LCD make a bigger difference than you would think.

Fortunately my expensive photographic habit is financed by my busy catalogue studio. I dont suppose I would spend all the money on MFDB's if I didn't have the studio to fund them. 
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #69 on: May 19, 2011, 04:44:19 am »

There are those who spend their lives listening to the sound system rather than the music. There are those who spend their lives looking at image qualities rather than images.

amen
Logged

stewarthemley

  • Guest
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #70 on: May 19, 2011, 05:58:29 am »

I think there's a Nikon/Canon effect here. For a while Nikon is top dog, then Canon reply and ease ahead. Then N bounce back...

Right now, Phase backs are better than Hass because of their usability (can't comment on image quality as I have yet to test the IQ180). Until the IQ range was released, H was the innovator (eg, better screen, True Focus which is really useful for many situations). Perhaps H will counter soon with equally enticing features. I agree that if they don't then they might be in trouble. Right now, I'd be hard pushed to make a choice. As good as the IQ range seems, the Phamiya body is manifestly not in the same league as the H4. Glass, near as  dammit, about the same.

Having changed systems too many times in the past, and taking into account the ever increasing cost vs ever decreasing budgets, I would imagine that for most people the most cost-effective approach is to use the cheapest system that does the job, keeps clients happy and that you can tolerate, and not simply chase the latest release.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 07:02:16 am by stewarthemley »
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 251
    • http://
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #71 on: May 19, 2011, 06:31:03 am »

let's compare two A2 prints, one with a IQ 180 and one with a fuji X100  (or any good 35mm)  ... nobody will ever see any difference
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 06:37:21 am by erickb »
Logged

hubell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1135
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #72 on: May 19, 2011, 08:18:26 am »

Count me as another landscape photographer (going on 36 years as a pro) who uses a tech camera - my Phase camera system has been gathering dust ever since I took delivery of an Alpa with those wonderful German lenses. It has not really slowed me down, and in some cases I can shoot faster than with the Phase camera.

The choice of tools to make photographs, like most choices in life, comes down to weighing the plusses and minuses for you and your way of working. I have to assume that the reason why the very top fine art landscape photographers do not use tech cameras is that, for them, the the negatives in terms of making the best images outweigh the positives. These are individuals who come from a large format film background, so I am sure the issues of speed/convenience and the cost of  a tech camera are simply not relevant. OTOH, the lack of an optical viewfinder (or useful groundglass) allowing for precise composition is, IMO, a significant issue when you shoot a tech camera untethered. A key part of composing an image is making effective use of the full canvas captured by the sensor. Another issue is the difficulty of achieving  accurate focusing with a tech camera. Finally, related to the first issue but still distinct is being able to see through the lens, so you have a real time sense of the perspective of the image as captured by the lens. The wide or longer the lens, the bigger the deal this is, because it is quite difficult to really "see" the same way that a wide lens like a 24HR "sees" the world. (I know I cannot.) It will be interesting to see whether the IQ series of backs helps to overcome these disadvantages. Michael R. is using an IQ180 with his new Alpa.

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #73 on: May 19, 2011, 09:11:07 am »

There are people who switched  from LF to Digital and who are happy.
There are people did not switch from LF to Digital and who are happy.
Good for both of them.

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #74 on: May 19, 2011, 09:32:19 am »

...Differences in power amplifiers are apparent too.  ...These things are not subtle. 
They are subtle enough that it is very hard to distinguish in a proper blind-test where level differences and differences in frequency response are taken care of, and where one use statistics to analyze results.
Quote
But all this is worlds away from the snake oil that gets sold in the form of pyramids, green magic markers, and rare-earth interconnects.  Some people just have money to throw away on fantasies.  Recording engineers don't have that kind of money.
That is good to hear.

-h
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #75 on: May 19, 2011, 09:41:31 am »

Do you have references on this? I skim through some papers on such topics, but have never seen any supporting your claims.
Some years ago (about 20) one of the audio publications got together a sample of equipment reviewers and another of unsophisticated listeners.  
I take that as a "no"?
Quote
The methodology was sloppy (single blind, a,b,c comparisons I think) but better than it might have been.  
I have never heard of a,b,c tests. Do you mean ABX?
Quote
The reviewers - but not the listeners - were able to detect particular makes of amplifier by their sonic characteristics.  Not every time but the effect was significant.
Significant as in "chance would have been 50% right, they got 51% right"? Or significant as in "the achieved results would have occured by chance alone in 5% or 1% of the cases"?
Quote
This was a learned skill but not a difficult one.  I could do the same at one point.  Sorry, but I can't remember where this was published.  The only reason I mention it is as an example of how our perceptual skills can sometimes outstrip our ability to define quality parameters.  There is a place for pbservation as opposed to controlled studies.
I dont understand what you are saying here. I think that to really find out how the world works, one has to use great care when studying it. Testing human response to audiophile cables or image quality is really hard because we tend to think that stuff sounds/looks different when it really is not, tend to prefer "favourite" brands and technology etc.
Quote
There is nothing cynical about marketing using what the Japanese call "opinion leaders".  It works, and nothing is being hidden.  We are free to ignore any expert who lacks a history that ties in with our own experiences.  In audio, I tend to do that because I just can't seem to replicate many of the expert observations - hearing quality differences between cables for example.  I am better off ignoring the pundits.  In photography, in contrast, I have learned to see more than I used to and many of the things I see correspond to what experienced MF users observe.  OK, so I choose to pay attention.
If those "opinion leaders" get free stash, money, publicity or something in return for their endorsement, while leading the public to believe that they are not, then I call it cynical. I think that all marketing is to some degree cynical, as it (usually) is about misleading buyers from taking informed, rational choices.

I do agree that one can learn to appreciate qualities (to some degree) that one may not see in the first place, and that "experts" may be able to teach you this. In blind tests it is common to do initial training to make the panel aware of the kind of differences that the test tries to reveal.

-h
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 09:44:53 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

cunim

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #76 on: May 19, 2011, 10:22:17 am »

I take that as a "no"?I have never heard of a,b,c tests. Do you mean ABX?
Hard to remember but I do not believe they used ABX.  I think it was just "Here are three amps.  Which one is Audio Research?"

Significant as in "chance would have been 50% right, they got 51% right"? Or significant as in "the achieved results would have occured by chance alone in 5% or 1% of the cases"?
Again, don't remember and I don't think they reported p values.  The results were fairly gross - e.g. 90% on some units.  This is easy to do.  Various makes have different sounds because they use different circuit topologies.  Yes it gets much harder to discriminate when you equalize but it is not just a matter of frequency response.  Really, none of this is relevant in a photography forum.

I think that to really find out how the world works, one has to use great care when studying it.
Absolutely, but let's respect the observational abilities of some people.  Surveys can tell us a lot without attibuting causality, and a subjective review is a type of survey.

Testing human response to audiophile cables or image quality is really hard because we tend to think that stuff sounds/looks different when it really is not, tend to prefer "favourite" brands and technology etc.  
Agreed.  I would love to see psychophysical data regarding the discriminating power of the measurements we have available (e.g. SNR).  Would make a great thesis for someone.  However, most experienced photographers could care less.  They know what they are looking for.

I do agree that one can learn to appreciate qualities (to some degree) that one may not see in the first place, and that "experts" may be able to teach you this.
Glad that we agree on the main point.  Note that I do not suggest that experts teach us how to see these qualities.  They just tell us they are there.  We learn to see them on our own.


Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #77 on: May 19, 2011, 10:26:48 am »

let's compare two A2 prints, one with a IQ 180 and one with a fuji X100  (or any good 35mm)  ... nobody will ever see any difference


Really? Ya think so?

Looks like you have obliterated the entire medium format industry in a single sentence.

Nice.

Michael
Logged

David Watson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 480
    • David Watson
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #78 on: May 19, 2011, 10:32:44 am »

There are those who spend their lives listening to the sound system rather than the music. There are those who spend their lives looking at image qualities rather than images.

well said!
Logged
David Watson ARPS

David Watson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 480
    • David Watson
Re: If its not megapixels what is it?
« Reply #79 on: May 19, 2011, 10:37:11 am »

let's compare two A2 prints, one with a IQ 180 and one with a fuji X100  (or any good 35mm)  ... nobody will ever see any difference


Possibly, or probably for most non-photographers, but, and it is a big but, is the difference worth something in excess of $40,000 (excluding the cost of the camera body and lenses) and furthermore would the client pay for it?
Logged
David Watson ARPS
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Up