I'm not sure how much weight I think that whole argument holds though. I've seen a normal FOV lens on a 8mp camera show details I couldn't discern with me eye balls.
people who walk up are not expecting to or want to see the whole thing. they expect to see more detail and for things to go out of view, just as if they were there standing where the camera was and walk further into the scene from where the camera was positioned.
all of these arguments ignore what people really did with large landscape paintings. people didn't paint a 10ft x30 ft painting to be admired from 50 ft away and no-one mounted and presented them that way. you were expected to walk up to almost within touching distance and the paintings had the detail to allow it. all you have to do is read the original reviews of some Hudson River School paintings to see that is exactly what people did and were encouraged to do by the artists. Thomas Cole's later work, much of Frederick Church's, and many others of the school painted with dimensions of 3ft to 4ft on the short side and anywhere from 4ft to 10ft on the long side. a 4ft x 12ft panorama print at 300dpi is a little over 600 megapixels. at a gallery show with one of these, i expect to be able to walk up to within touching distance and be able to see every last detail, just as i would with a landscaspe painting that size.
Herb...
bourbonnais wrote:
When you reach that point, walking closer to an image causes only part of the image to be viewed by the human eye. This means that if the optical issues can be resolved, that sensor megapixel count will find its limit when it can produce images that exceed the resolving power of the human eye, when the eye is at a distance from the display where the field of view of the human eys just starts to clip the edges of the image.
Then what you are saying is that you want a 600mp sensor?
I don't think they can do that in a 35mm body limited by the physics of the glass and sensor.
So, to get the level of detail that you want, it will either be stitching or a digital sensor in a medium format to a Large Format body.
Robin
//-------------------------
HerbChong wrote:
people who walk up are not expecting to or want to see the whole thing. they expect to see more detail and for things to go out of view, just as if they were there standing where the camera was and walk further into the scene from where the camera was positioned.
all of these arguments ignore what people really did with large landscape paintings. people didn't paint a 10ft x30 ft painting to be admired from 50 ft away and no-one mounted and presented them that way. you were expected to walk up to almost within touching distance and the paintings had the detail to allow it. all you have to do is read the original reviews of some Hudson River School paintings to see that is exactly what people did and were encouraged to do by the artists. Thomas Cole's later work, much of Frederick Church's, and many others of the school painted with dimensions of 3ft to 4ft on the short side and anywhere from 4ft to 10ft on the long side. a 4ft x 12ft panorama print at 300dpi is a little over 600 megapixels. at a gallery show with one of these, i expect to be able to walk up to within touching distance and be able to see every last detail, just as i would with a landscaspe painting that size.
when did any of of this thread restrict capturing to one sensor?
Herb...
bourbonnais wrote:
Hi Herb,
Then what you are saying is that you want a 600mp sensor?
I don't think they can do that in a 35mm body limited by the physics of the glass and sensor.
So, to get the level of detail that you want, it will either be stitching or a digital sensor in a medium format to a Large Format body.
I dunno, but 21MP is pretty good for 35 mm (24x36). ~30MP may be enough for fine resolution, but I'd rather have >100MP capture (oversampling) if it were feasible. MF backs should have 2-3x the number of pixels, reasonably proportional to sensor area.
Well 12 seams to be the luck number for now. My old company (a large bank in california) I shot all of our billboards with a canon 5D. They looked great and never had any issues
Yeah, but that is not really a practical substitute for a DSLR mots of the time. Perhaps one day there will be a true gigapixel sensor for 4x5 or 8x10 with better lenses, etc., but where is the market?
in the meantime, stitching works for certain kinds of subjects and that is what i do occasionally. using a 24MP camera reduces the number of shots i need provided that i use lenses that are up to the task. that's part of the reason i started getting Zeiss lenses.
I have a question about these Zeiss lenses: how do you know that they will be good for up to 40MP? Is it from the MTF charts? I mean, there's no practical way to tell is there?
i don't know if they are good for 40MP, but i do know that the ones i have tried are sharper and have less distortion and CA than their Nikon counterparts even when used at their optimum apertures and on a 12MP camera. i can tell objectively because i know how much i have to sharpen using my deconvolution filters to get haloing and i have to do about 20% less when i shoot with my Zeiss 25/2.8 compared to every other Nikkor lens that covers that focal length range.
Herb...
Edited on May 22, 2008 at 10:54 AM
May 22, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Avi B wrote:
I have a question about these Zeiss lenses: how do you know that they will be good for up to 40MP? Is it from the MTF charts? I mean, there's no practical way to tell is there?
The theoretical limit is to assume the optics are diffraction limited and compare that to the pixel size.
May 22, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
With regards how many mega pixels are needed, it all relates back to print size. Some simple math along with some basic standards know for years in the print industry should suffice to tell you what you need.
This does not take into account up-resing an image and other such techniques, but it becomes clear that raw 12MP is good for most people (maybe even most pros) and raw 24MP for most professionals. There will alway be exceptions and/or irrational desires.
i have a friend who had been in the photo gallery business a long time and especially in the landscape photography side of things. her response to all this when i asked her a long time ago is that for landscapes, big is good and bigger is better for sales and profits. 11x14 counts as small and 16x20 as medium.
Herb...
May 22, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
HerbChong wrote:
i have a friend who had been in the photo gallery business a long time and especially in the landscape photography side of things. her response to all this when i asked her a long time ago is that for landscapes, big is good and bigger is better for sales and profits. 11x14 counts as small and 16x20 as medium.
Herb...
No doubt, but photo galleries of this type account for a small part of the over-all users of photographic equipment, including professionals. And, even in the film days, were often dominated by MF and LF.
Like I said, MOST ... there are always exceptions. The average person (and pro) is doing everything at 8X10 or less.
for that matter, most people don't need DSLRs and sales reflect that. not being in the category of most is what matters to me. why would someone buy my prints if i am like just like most? a talent agent friend of mine said to me once that when bands come up to her and describe their music as "like X" her response to them was "if you are like X, why shouldn't i get X instead?"
Great discussion guys! I guess this is why FM is my favorite site, I learn more here than anywhere else.
I look at some of my old pics from the D100 and I'm amazed at how good they are! Some of them I printed at 4' x 6', they still looked good. I thing we all get lost at times with the megapixel mumbo jumbo and really don't understand what we've got or what we're looking for.
I'm no math expert, but this all makes some sort of sense, again, thanks for the interesting input.
Perhaps one day there will be a true gigapixel sensor for 4x5 or 8x10 with better lenses, etc., but where is the market?