Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
  

Archive 2017 · Does more resolution on full frame cameras even matter?

  
 
matejphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Does more resolution on full frame cameras even matter?


For me high megapixel count is great for large group shots (think wedding groups of 50-200 guests). It is great when you make a big print and then you can come close and see everyone's facial expression. For this application, the more pixels the better (as long as you have a good lens). You could stitch, but that is very tricky with groups of people.

I think an ideal camera for me would be 80-100MPix. but there needs to be a new workflow option in lightroom. This is how it should work:
1.) Take all images at 100Mpix (even at expense of FPS speed)
2.) During culling you will select which pictures you want to keep at 100Mpix (this would generally be few images, thinking 0-10%)
3.) Everything else would be reprocessed from 100Mpix RAW to 25Mpix RAW (2x2 binning) for ease of storage and speed of processing. This might be computationally demanding, but it can easily run in the background at night.

That type of camera and setup would do it for me for a LONG time (probably until something new comes, like curves sensors or non-silica based chips).



Jul 25, 2017 at 08:10 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Does more resolution on full frame cameras even matter?


matejphoto wrote:
For me high megapixel count is great for large group shots (think wedding groups of 50-200 guests). It is great when you make a big print and then you can come close and see everyone's facial expression. For this application, the more pixels the better (as long as you have a good lens). You could stitch, but that is very tricky with groups of people.

I think an ideal camera for me would be 80-100MPix. but there needs to be a new workflow option in lightroom. This is how it should work:
1.) Take all images at 100Mpix (even at expense
...Show more

My proposed workflow would be like this (as it has been from 6 to 42mp):

1. Take all images at highest resolution and lossless RAW settings (sadly, uncompressed RAW since Sony couldn't manage to do compressed lossless).

2. Keep everything at full resolution as RAW masters. Discard only egregious mistakes (lens cap on; totally blown).

3. Work only on selects. Output as needed.

4. Backup, archive, etc.

Processing power, GPU performance (on some tasks), and storage really don't concern me. My 85 MB RAW files are fine to work with, store indefinitely, etc.

I want as much resolution as the system (lenses, etc) can handle. I'll keep upgrading the computational and storage aspects as needed. Give me that sweet sweet megapickles, great noise control, and processing-friendly DR baby. To this day I open and work on files and I'm thrilled with how good they can be. I felt that way a few years (and cameras) ago too. I'll feel that way again in the future.

To each their own.



Jul 25, 2017 at 09:51 AM
matejphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Does more resolution on full frame cameras even matter?


justruss wrote:
My proposed workflow would be like this (as it has been from 6 to 42mp):

1. Take all images at highest resolution and lossless RAW settings (sadly, uncompressed RAW since Sony couldn't manage to do compressed lossless).

2. Keep everything at full resolution as RAW masters. Discard only egregious mistakes (lens cap on; totally blown).

3. Work only on selects. Output as needed.

4. Backup, archive, etc.

Processing power, GPU performance (on some tasks), and storage really don't concern me. My 85 MB RAW files are fine to work with, store indefinitely, etc.

I want as much resolution as the system (lenses,
...Show more

Just out of curiosity:
How many images do you take a year?
How many do you end up after culling?

I hear it all the time that storage is cheap but for me personally, keeping up with archiving is significant amount of work (and I only have 80D and 5dm2). I guess I need to up my game with respect to disk space and performance.



Jul 25, 2017 at 10:00 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Does more resolution on full frame cameras even matter?


matejphoto wrote:
Just out of curiosity:
How many images do you take a year?
How many do you end up after culling?

I hear it all the time that storage is cheap but for me personally, keeping up with archiving is significant amount of work (and I only have 80D and 5dm2). I guess I need to up my game with respect to disk space and performance.


I take between 5,000 and 20,000 a year, averaging (this is eyeballing it) around 12-13,000 images. I likely delete fewer than 1% of those images. I process perhaps 25-30% of those images.

All these images live in a single Lightroom library on a 5TB 7200 HDD that is roughly half-full. I backup the master RAW files (organized by date) along with the current library to an external drive of the same size after nearly ever SD->Computer dump. I backup my library (edits, etc) to the cloud weekly, or after any paid job or important shoot.

In addition, once or twice a year I do a total backup-- and often cycle in new drives-- and store those full backups off-site (on another continent, not that this is necessarily by design/desire).

Mind you, I keep my video files on 2x3TB drives in the computer in RAID. Similar backup scheme. I have two bootable Mac OS system SSDs, with one my daily boot (so that I can test all upgrades before upgrading the daily boot). And I keep a Windows SSD for those rare times I need something special I can only do there (haven't booted it in 6 months).

I basically keep everything. I post a lot of images online at small size. I submit a lot of assignments to editors. I print.

Keeping up with archiving is basically down to risk tolerance. The more frequently you archive, and the more places you archive-- the lower your risk. Shelling out $100-$200 a year for that feels worth it to me. Shelling out $1K doesn't really.

My ideal archiving would include full-master, incremental (say, weekly + manual) backups to the cloud. I haven't taken that leap because of a number of issues that aren't clear to me yet: total cost, first backup speed (some companies let you send in a physical drive), total download speed, security in transit and storage, ongoing bandwidth and scheduling.

It's the way of the future, I think. But I'm not ready. In the meantime, cycling and or accumulating archives at friends/family feels like a good alternative every 6 months or so.



Jul 25, 2017 at 12:02 PM
1       2       3      
4
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.