The ongoing saga as to why I`m seeing poor results from 5D3

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
end

dave chilvers
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · The ongoing saga as to why I`m seeing poor results from 5D3

You might remember that I was initially concerned regarding the on screen IQ of my new 5D3. The viewing at 100% has mainly been cleared up by thinking I could use a 24-105 and get results to look similar to my MF lenses and I think I might have to get the lens checked. OK, so that`s more or less put to bed.

Now! at the time of getting the 5d3 I also loaded CS6. Yesterday I stumbled across why normal viewing at full screen doesn`t look as detailed and sharp as it used to. You might remember that using PS some years ago saw a degrading of images at certain magnifications, that has more or less gone now( might have been sensor design or something in PS), BUT! after conversion I always sit back and look at the image at "fit to screen" which magnifies a Full size image up to 27.7%, click on "fill screen" and the mag goes up to 32.8% (just below one of PS`s standard magnification points of 33.3%) a 5d2 file is 28.4% and 33.7% respectively.

Now I can tell you that my 5D3 images look a whole lot better at 32.8% than they do at 27.7% and even more so at 33.3%. This seems to be even more exaggerated after post when a touch of sharpening has been applied.

OK, I can hear some of you saying "didn`t you know that then"!!! Well yeh! I knew that I have seen unusual things happen at certain mags in the past but the penny just didn`t drop when view 21million as opposed to 22million could make enough of a difference as to make the 5d3 images look like a step back to cropped chipped technology.

Whether it`s the same on what ever monitor software others use I`m not sure. I use a 27" calibrated Dell as my work space( @1920x1200) with a 22" Dell to the left for all my palettes.

I suppose I`m leaving my self open for ridicule but rather that and inform others than make out I`m Mr Guru

I`d be interested at views on this but at least I`m actually seeing the 5d3 files for what they are now more or less and it might also be why after sending a disk to a friend so that we could compare like for like whilst on the phone he was shouting the praises of the images more than me.

Dave
(and my new PC specs work better now

Jul 30, 2012 at 08:06 AM

Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · The ongoing saga as to why I`m seeing poor results from 5D3

Wow, I think I know your problem. 1900 x 1200 on a 27" is quite a large pixel and I can tell you when I got the 24" Dell with this same resolution and started using it for my work, I noticed straight away that my images looked terrible compared to when I viewed them on my 1900 x 1200 17" laptop screen. Until I discovered this fact I assumed my IQ was crap and I'd forgotten how to shoot. properly. The pixel pitch differences are enormous and I can't imagine what they would be like on a 27" monitor. Now this makes me wonder what Dell monitor you have as the only 27" Dell I know of runs 2560 x 1440 and that's the U2711. I urge you to try you photos on a laptop with full HD screen or a 27" with the 2560 x 1440 resolution and you will be shocked.

BTW, you're not running you monitor at a non-native resolution are you?

Note PS CS5/6 makes use of GPU acceleration to allow for good looking images at any resolution, although they might look even better with integer scalings of 12.5%, 16.6% 25%, 33.3% etc.

Jul 30, 2012 at 08:30 AM

dave chilvers
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · The ongoing saga as to why I`m seeing poor results from 5D3

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Wow, I think I know your problem. 1900 x 1200 on a 27" is quite a large pixel and I can tell you when I got the 24" Dell with this same resolution and started using it for my work, I noticed straight away that my images looked terrible compared to when I viewed them on my 1900 x 1200 17" laptop screen. Until I discovered this fact I assumed my IQ was crap and I'd forgotten how to shoot. properly. The pixel pitch differences are enormous and I can't imagine what they would be like on a 27" monitor. Now this makes me wonder what Dell monitor you have as the only 27" Dell I know of runs 2560 x 1440 and that's the U2711. I urge you to try you photos on a laptop with full HD screen or a 27" with the 2560 x 1440 resolution and you will be shocked.

BTW, you're not running you monitor at a non-native resolution are you?

Note PS CS5/6 makes use of GPU acceleration to allow for good looking images at any resolution, although they might look even better with integer scalings of 12.5%, 16.6% 25%, 33.3% etc.

The monitor is a Dell 2707WFP, max res I can select is 1920x1200. It`s around 5 years old now but calibration and colours are fine at present. Now I know that I need to select a native magnification in PS to see the images at the best then no problems.

Thanks

Jul 30, 2012 at 09:52 AM

Monito
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · The ongoing saga as to why I`m seeing poor results from 5D3

If you want to assess at the pixel level, then look at 100%. If you want to see the whole picture then you can't assess the fineness of things at pixel level.

If you want to get the best viewing for the whole picture to review them, for example in Bridge or Windows Photo Viewer, then batch resize them with Photoshop Batch and use Bicubic Sharper to resize.

The quick and dirty resizers in at different view magnifications in Photoshop are not nearly as good. 50% and 25% are excellent because those are integer resizes (as PixelPerfect states above), but 33% less so, and odd random resizing factors much less so.

In my workflow, I ingest via DIM4, open DPP, delete obvious clunkers, make basic adjustments, and then batch convert to 1500 x 1000, which is what I use for fast everyday browsing of my photos in Bridge or Photo Viewer. DPP will use two cores in Batch, and if I have a lot, I can start three Batches simultaneously on thirds of the set and get all six cores operating at once. Usually I just do something else for a few minutes.

I do tests on the 1500 px images, for example for making stitches or HDRs, since it goes much faster when the area is only 10 % of the originals. If the results are encouraging, I work them up full size.

Any photos that I want to post-process I convert to 16 bit TIFF and work on in Photoshop CS 5. I will get Lightroom soon, though it is less smart about cores.

Jul 30, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · The ongoing saga as to why I`m seeing poor results from 5D3

dave chilvers wrote:

The monitor is a Dell 2707WFP, max res I can select is 1920x1200. It`s around 5 years old now but calibration and colours are fine at present. Now I know that I need to select a native magnification in PS to see the images at the best then no problems.

Thanks

That's not what I was saying as the main point. Your real problem is the low resolution for such a large monitor. If you can put images on a laptop with a good screen and compare them side-by-side I assure you the laptop image will look far superior. You just have to try it to see what I mean. The image should still look good in PS at any size if you have a GPU that supports OpenGL acceleration. If not then stick to the integer scalings of 25%, 50%, 100%.

Jul 30, 2012 at 10:42 AM

andyjaggy82
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · The ongoing saga as to why I`m seeing poor results from 5D3

I use a Hanns-G 27 inch at work, but it's only 1080P, the same amount of pixels spread across a 27 inch screen instead of a 24 inch screen makes images not look as sharp. I think that's what Pixel Perfect is saying.

Never trust an image that isn't 25% or 50% or 100% magnification. Perhaps that has changed since earlier version of photoshop but it's a habit that has stuck with me.

Jul 30, 2012 at 03:47 PM

n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · The ongoing saga as to why I`m seeing poor results from 5D3

It's not just the pixel size, monitors like U2711 have Sharpness setting. That throws another variable into the mix.

Post a 100% crop of the area where there's a lot of details and we'll see who will perceive it as sharp and soft.

Jul 30, 2012 at 05:19 PM

dave chilvers
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · The ongoing saga as to why I`m seeing poor results from 5D3

n0b0 wrote:
It's not just the pixel size, monitors like U2711 have Sharpness setting. That throws another variable into the mix.

Post a 100% crop of the area where there's a lot of details and we'll see who will perceive it as sharp and soft.

Mine has a sharpness setting and I set it in the middle, much further up the scale and you can see the over sharpened look.

Jul 30, 2012 at 06:21 PM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · The ongoing saga as to why I`m seeing poor results from 5D3

It sounds like you are ready for a retina display

Jul 30, 2012 at 06:29 PM

end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell end