Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
p.4 #1Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
So here is another series but see the red dots they are out of focus but something is in the middle of the frame . I think there is a way too eliminate that and stay on first acquisition . But the rest are dead on and again at 1.8
Sep 17, 2019 at 12:46 PM
p.4 #2Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Someone asked about the Rokinon 85 1.4 . Well its dang good
Sep 17, 2019 at 12:50 PM
p.4 #3Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Just for curiosity. 
I've upsampled a A7R4 file (shot with CV 65/2 APO @f/4) using Photoshop Bicubic and Topaz Gigapixel.
The amount was more than double the Sony A7R4's linear resolution. The resulting file is about ~322MP.
Here are the 1:1 crops: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
As suspected, large enlargements is where Topaz GP shines!
BTW: The 322MP file is 1.95GB in size. Thanks AI !!
Center 1:1: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
Mid-zone 1:1: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
Extreme corner 1:1: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
I've upsampled a A7R4 file (shot with CV 65/2 APO @f/4) using Photoshop Bicubic and Topaz Gigapixel.
The amount was more than double the Sony A7R4's linear resolution. The resulting file is about ~322MP.
Here are the 1:1 crops: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
As suspected, large enlargements is where Topaz GP shines!
BTW: The 322MP file is 1.95GB in size. Thanks AI !!
Center 1:1: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
Mid-zone 1:1: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
Extreme corner 1:1: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
 |
||
 |
||
|
Sep 17, 2019 at 02:37 PM
p.4 #4Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Sony FE 135/2.8 GM: Sony A7R3 vs A7R4
Here is a comparison with one of the best native lenses at center. Just like with the CV 65/2 APO, we can have an idea of what to expect when comparing resolution between R3 and R4.
1:1 crop: A7R3 (left), A7R4 (right), native resolution for both
1:1 crop: A7R3 (left), A7R4 (right) - A7R3 interpolated to A7R4 size using Topaz GP (auto settings)
2:1 crop showing the previous comparison (A7R3+Topaz vs A7R4 native). As you can see, Topaz does a great job adding contrast and making the edges more refined but th A7R4 still shows more detail
Here is a comparison with one of the best native lenses at center. Just like with the CV 65/2 APO, we can have an idea of what to expect when comparing resolution between R3 and R4.
1:1 crop: A7R3 (left), A7R4 (right), native resolution for both
1:1 crop: A7R3 (left), A7R4 (right) - A7R3 interpolated to A7R4 size using Topaz GP (auto settings)
2:1 crop showing the previous comparison (A7R3+Topaz vs A7R4 native). As you can see, Topaz does a great job adding contrast and making the edges more refined but th A7R4 still shows more detail
Sep 17, 2019 at 05:36 PM
p.4 #5Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Not sure how the above would compare in prints. The A7R4 shows slightly more fine detail whereas Topaz GP gives the impression of more detail. Of course GP can be used with the A7R4 as well...
Curious to know your thoughts!
For those curious, here is Photoshop Bicubic vs Topaz GP (A7R3 interpolated to 60MP)
PS: This software is worth the money for those who make big prints. (no affiliation)
Curious to know your thoughts!
For those curious, here is Photoshop Bicubic vs Topaz GP (A7R3 interpolated to 60MP)
PS: This software is worth the money for those who make big prints. (no affiliation)
Sep 17, 2019 at 05:44 PM
p.4 #6Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
Not sure how the above would compare in prints. The A7R4 shows slightly more fine detail whereas Topaz GP gives the impression of more detail. Of course GP can be used with the A7R4 as well...
Curious to know your thoughts!
For those curious, here is Photoshop Bicubic vs Topaz GP (A7R3 interpolated to 60MP)
PS: This software is worth the money for those who make big prints. (no affiliation)
I think you would need to print them as they would interact with the printer driver and the printer’s characteristics and the result is open.
But there is something else I would like to mention regarding my perception. In the first pic (135mm at native resolution for both cameras) - the R3 and R4 pics look to me like they’re both of the same sharpness, with the R4 being just larger (and thus with a little bit more discernible detail) but otherwise pretty much the same. With the 65mm they were looking more different. I have no idea why or whether my perception is accurate or not.
Edited on Sep 17, 2019 at 06:01 PM · View previous versions
Not sure how the above would compare in prints. The A7R4 shows slightly more fine detail whereas Topaz GP gives the impression of more detail. Of course GP can be used with the A7R4 as well...
Curious to know your thoughts!
For those curious, here is Photoshop Bicubic vs Topaz GP (A7R3 interpolated to 60MP)
PS: This software is worth the money for those who make big prints. (no affiliation)
I think you would need to print them as they would interact with the printer driver and the printer’s characteristics and the result is open.
But there is something else I would like to mention regarding my perception. In the first pic (135mm at native resolution for both cameras) - the R3 and R4 pics look to me like they’re both of the same sharpness, with the R4 being just larger (and thus with a little bit more discernible detail) but otherwise pretty much the same. With the 65mm they were looking more different. I have no idea why or whether my perception is accurate or not.
Edited on Sep 17, 2019 at 06:01 PM · View previous versions
Sep 17, 2019 at 05:56 PM
p.4 #7Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
vdo1 wrote:
Curious to know your thoughts!
For those curious, here is Photoshop Bicubic vs Topaz GP (A7R3 interpolated to 60MP)
PS: This software is worth the money for those who make big prints. (no affiliation)I think you would need to print them as they would interact with the printer driver and the printer’s characteristics and the result is open.
But there is something else I would like to mention regarding my perception. In the first pic (135mm at native resolution for both cameras) - the R3 and R4 pics look to me like they’re both of the same sharpness, with the R4 being just larger but otherwise pretty much the same. With the 65mm they were looking more different. I have no idea why or whether my perception is accurate or not.
Thanks! The Topaz interpolation feel a bit like cheating though.
So, yes, once they are presented in their native resolution 'detail' does not seem too far apart but once we match the R3 to the R4 resolution using PS Bicubic, the difference is noticeable (see below).
Here is the R3 interpolated to 60MP using PS bicubic compared to the native R4.
I will make some printing simulations and see what happens.
1:1 crop: A7R3 (left), A7R4 (right), A7R3 interpolated to 60MP using Photoshop Bicubic
Fred Miranda wrote
Not sure how the above would compare in prints. The A7R4 shows slightly more fine detail whereas Topaz GP gives the impression of more detail. Of course GP can be used with the A7R4 as well...Curious to know your thoughts!
For those curious, here is Photoshop Bicubic vs Topaz GP (A7R3 interpolated to 60MP)
PS: This software is worth the money for those who make big prints. (no affiliation)
But there is something else I would like to mention regarding my perception. In the first pic (135mm at native resolution for both cameras) - the R3 and R4 pics look to me like they’re both of the same sharpness, with the R4 being just larger but otherwise pretty much the same. With the 65mm they were looking more different. I have no idea why or whether my perception is accurate or not.
Thanks! The Topaz interpolation feel a bit like cheating though.
So, yes, once they are presented in their native resolution 'detail' does not seem too far apart but once we match the R3 to the R4 resolution using PS Bicubic, the difference is noticeable (see below).
Here is the R3 interpolated to 60MP using PS bicubic compared to the native R4.
I will make some printing simulations and see what happens.
1:1 crop: A7R3 (left), A7R4 (right), A7R3 interpolated to 60MP using Photoshop Bicubic
Sep 17, 2019 at 06:01 PM
p.4 #8Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
Curious to know your thoughts!
For those curious, here is Photoshop Bicubic vs Topaz GP (A7R3 interpolated to 60MP)
PS: This software is worth the money for those who make big prints. (no affiliation)I think you would need to print them as they would interact with the printer driver and the printer’s characteristics and the result is open.
But there is something else I would like to mention regarding my perception. In the first pic (135mm at native resolution for both cameras) - the R3 and R4 pics look to me like they’re both of the same sharpness, with the R4 being just larger but otherwise pretty much the same. With the 65mm they were looking more different. I have no idea why or whether my perception is accurate or not.Thanks! The Topaz interpolation feel a bit like cheating though.
So, yes, once they are presented in their native resolution 'detail' does not seem to far apart but once we match the R4 resolution using PS Bicubic, the difference is noticeable (see below)
Here is the R3 interpolated to 60MP using PS bicubic compared to the native R4.
I will make some printing simulations and see what happens.
At just 120% maybe bicubic could work too, with a little bit of sharpening after the interpolation. Of course it won’t have “real” detail but it could create similar overall visual effect. Maybe not sharpening but one of those “clarity” or “structure” controls. Dunno how they’re called in Photoshop these days, that’s C1 lingo.
vdo1 wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Not sure how the above would compare in prints. The A7R4 shows slightly more fine detail whereas Topaz GP gives the impression of more detail. Of course GP can be used with the A7R4 as well...Curious to know your thoughts!
For those curious, here is Photoshop Bicubic vs Topaz GP (A7R3 interpolated to 60MP)
PS: This software is worth the money for those who make big prints. (no affiliation)
But there is something else I would like to mention regarding my perception. In the first pic (135mm at native resolution for both cameras) - the R3 and R4 pics look to me like they’re both of the same sharpness, with the R4 being just larger but otherwise pretty much the same. With the 65mm they were looking more different. I have no idea why or whether my perception is accurate or not.
So, yes, once they are presented in their native resolution 'detail' does not seem to far apart but once we match the R4 resolution using PS Bicubic, the difference is noticeable (see below)
Here is the R3 interpolated to 60MP using PS bicubic compared to the native R4.
I will make some printing simulations and see what happens.
At just 120% maybe bicubic could work too, with a little bit of sharpening after the interpolation. Of course it won’t have “real” detail but it could create similar overall visual effect. Maybe not sharpening but one of those “clarity” or “structure” controls. Dunno how they’re called in Photoshop these days, that’s C1 lingo.
Sep 17, 2019 at 06:09 PM
p.4 #9Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Pixel-shift shots anyone?
Sep 18, 2019 at 08:33 AM
p.4 #10Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
snapsy wrote:
Pixel-shift shots anyone?
I will try one today with the CV 65/2 APO (4 and 16-shot). I'm working on a plugin that will automatically replace movement from the Pixel-shifted image with one of the RAWs from the sequence. So, it may be a good solution even for landscapes.
Pixel-shift shots anyone?
I will try one today with the CV 65/2 APO (4 and 16-shot). I'm working on a plugin that will automatically replace movement from the Pixel-shifted image with one of the RAWs from the sequence. So, it may be a good solution even for landscapes.
Sep 18, 2019 at 12:34 PM
|
p.4 #11Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will try one today with the CV 65/2 APO (4 and 16-shot). I'm working on a plugin that will automatically replace movement from the Pixel-shifted image with one of the RAWs from the sequence. So, it may be a good solution even for landscapes.
Hi Fred,
It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
Rich
snapsy wrote
Pixel-shift shots anyone?Hi Fred,
It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
Rich
Sep 18, 2019 at 12:37 PM
p.4 #12Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
naturephoto1 wrote:
I will try one today with the CV 65/2 APO (4 and 16-shot). I'm working on a plugin that will automatically replace movement from the Pixel-shifted image with one of the RAWs from the sequence. So, it may be a good solution even for landscapes.Hi Fred,
It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
Rich
Even if it moves, it will be fine. The plugin will replace the areas with artifacts with the same area from on a RAW file from the pixel shift sequence (without artifacts). Same will be done for changes in lighting.
Basically we end up with a pixel shifted image without artifacts but the problematic areas won't be pixel-shifted.
Fred Miranda wrote
snapsy wrote
Pixel-shift shots anyone?It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
Rich
Even if it moves, it will be fine. The plugin will replace the areas with artifacts with the same area from on a RAW file from the pixel shift sequence (without artifacts). Same will be done for changes in lighting.
Basically we end up with a pixel shifted image without artifacts but the problematic areas won't be pixel-shifted.
Sep 18, 2019 at 12:43 PM
p.4 #13Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will try one today with the CV 65/2 APO (4 and 16-shot). I'm working on a plugin that will automatically replace movement from the Pixel-shifted image with one of the RAWs from the sequence. So, it may be a good solution even for landscapes.Hi Fred,
It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
RichEven if it moves, it will be fine. The plugin will replace the areas with artifacts with the same area from on a RAW file from the pixel shift sequence (without artifacts). Same will be done for changes in lighting.
Basically we end up with a pixel shifted image without artifacts but the problematic areas won't be pixel-shifted.
Hi Fred,
Really the moving areas will be replaced? I would have thought that would be an issue. How does the software know which one of the moved portions to keep/use?
Rich
naturephoto1 wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
snapsy wrote
Pixel-shift shots anyone?It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
Rich
Basically we end up with a pixel shifted image without artifacts but the problematic areas won't be pixel-shifted.
Hi Fred,
Really the moving areas will be replaced? I would have thought that would be an issue. How does the software know which one of the moved portions to keep/use?
Rich
Sep 18, 2019 at 12:46 PM
p.4 #14Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
naturephoto1 wrote:
I will try one today with the CV 65/2 APO (4 and 16-shot). I'm working on a plugin that will automatically replace movement from the Pixel-shifted image with one of the RAWs from the sequence. So, it may be a good solution even for landscapes.Hi Fred,
It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
RichEven if it moves, it will be fine. The plugin will replace the areas with artifacts with the same area from on a RAW file from the pixel shift sequence (without artifacts). Same will be done for changes in lighting.
Basically we end up with a pixel shifted image without artifacts but the problematic areas won't be pixel-shifted.Hi Fred,
Really the moving areas will be replaced? I would have thought that would be an issue. How does the software know which one of the moved portions to keep/use?
Rich
That's a secret.
It may be available as a PS action instead as I don't have time to develop a plugin at the moment.
Basically we would need to bring 2 files to PS as layers.
1) Pixel shifted image (4 or 16 shot)
2) One of the RAW files from the pixel shift sequence
Fred Miranda wrote
naturephoto1 wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
snapsy wrote
Pixel-shift shots anyone?It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
Rich
Basically we end up with a pixel shifted image without artifacts but the problematic areas won't be pixel-shifted.
Really the moving areas will be replaced? I would have thought that would be an issue. How does the software know which one of the moved portions to keep/use?
Rich
That's a secret.
It may be available as a PS action instead as I don't have time to develop a plugin at the moment.
Basically we would need to bring 2 files to PS as layers.
1) Pixel shifted image (4 or 16 shot)
2) One of the RAW files from the pixel shift sequence
Sep 18, 2019 at 12:49 PM
p.4 #15Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will try one today with the CV 65/2 APO (4 and 16-shot). I'm working on a plugin that will automatically replace movement from the Pixel-shifted image with one of the RAWs from the sequence. So, it may be a good solution even for landscapes.Hi Fred,
It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
RichEven if it moves, it will be fine. The plugin will replace the areas with artifacts with the same area from on a RAW file from the pixel shift sequence (without artifacts). Same will be done for changes in lighting.
Basically we end up with a pixel shifted image without artifacts but the problematic areas won't be pixel-shifted.Hi Fred,
Really the moving areas will be replaced? I would have thought that would be an issue. How does the software know which one of the moved portions to keep/use?
RichThat's a secret.
It may be available as a PS action instead as I don't have time to develop a plugin at the moment.
Basically we would need to bring 2 files to PS as layers.
1) Pixel shifted image (4 or 16 shot)
2) One of the RAW files from the pixel shift sequence
Doesn't one of the camera makers claim they do that already (Panasonic?).
naturephoto1 wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
naturephoto1 wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
snapsy wrote
Pixel-shift shots anyone?It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
Rich
Basically we end up with a pixel shifted image without artifacts but the problematic areas won't be pixel-shifted.
Really the moving areas will be replaced? I would have thought that would be an issue. How does the software know which one of the moved portions to keep/use?
Rich
It may be available as a PS action instead as I don't have time to develop a plugin at the moment.
Basically we would need to bring 2 files to PS as layers.
1) Pixel shifted image (4 or 16 shot)
2) One of the RAW files from the pixel shift sequence
Doesn't one of the camera makers claim they do that already (Panasonic?).
Sep 18, 2019 at 01:39 PM
p.4 #16Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will try one today with the CV 65/2 APO (4 and 16-shot). I'm working on a plugin that will automatically replace movement from the Pixel-shifted image with one of the RAWs from the sequence. So, it may be a good solution even for landscapes.Hi Fred,
It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
RichEven if it moves, it will be fine. The plugin will replace the areas with artifacts with the same area from on a RAW file from the pixel shift sequence (without artifacts). Same will be done for changes in lighting.
Basically we end up with a pixel shifted image without artifacts but the problematic areas won't be pixel-shifted.Hi Fred,
Really the moving areas will be replaced? I would have thought that would be an issue. How does the software know which one of the moved portions to keep/use?
RichThat's a secret.
It may be available as a PS action instead as I don't have time to develop a plugin at the moment.
Basically we would need to bring 2 files to PS as layers.
1) Pixel shifted image (4 or 16 shot)
2) One of the RAW files from the pixel shift sequence
That sounds similar to the S1r's "Mode 2" for pixel shift. It combines the images in camera, however. The brief amount I've tested it so far seems to work quite well, although in every case I found small artifacts (twigs, etc) that the in-camera "combiner" didn't catch. Lots of painstaking editing in PS is the end result if you want near-perfect results.
naturephoto1 wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
naturephoto1 wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
snapsy wrote
Pixel-shift shots anyone?It may be a good solution for landscapes as long as nothing moves during the exposures.
Rich
Basically we end up with a pixel shifted image without artifacts but the problematic areas won't be pixel-shifted.
Really the moving areas will be replaced? I would have thought that would be an issue. How does the software know which one of the moved portions to keep/use?
Rich
It may be available as a PS action instead as I don't have time to develop a plugin at the moment.
Basically we would need to bring 2 files to PS as layers.
1) Pixel shifted image (4 or 16 shot)
2) One of the RAW files from the pixel shift sequence
That sounds similar to the S1r's "Mode 2" for pixel shift. It combines the images in camera, however. The brief amount I've tested it so far seems to work quite well, although in every case I found small artifacts (twigs, etc) that the in-camera "combiner" didn't catch. Lots of painstaking editing in PS is the end result if you want near-perfect results.
Sep 18, 2019 at 01:40 PM
p.4 #17Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
I would love similar shots like Fred Miranda's for the Sony 24-70mm GM (F5,6-F8), especially 24-35mm but also long end. Trying to decide if i will like this lens on A7RIV. I'll try to find your old thread with r3? to make a base for comparison.
Sep 18, 2019 at 01:49 PM
p.4 #18Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
Just for curiosity.
I've upsampled a A7R4 file (shot with CV 65/2 APO @f/4) using Photoshop Bicubic and Topaz Gigapixel.
The amount was more than double the Sony A7R4's linear resolution. The resulting file is about ~322MP.
Here are the 1:1 crops: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
As suspected, large enlargements is where Topaz GP shines!
BTW: The 322MP file is 1.95GB in size. Thanks AI !!
I love the Topaz AI line of products - I just wish they didn't take so long to process!
Just for curiosity.
I've upsampled a A7R4 file (shot with CV 65/2 APO @f/4) using Photoshop Bicubic and Topaz Gigapixel.
The amount was more than double the Sony A7R4's linear resolution. The resulting file is about ~322MP.
Here are the 1:1 crops: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
As suspected, large enlargements is where Topaz GP shines!
BTW: The 322MP file is 1.95GB in size. Thanks AI !!
I love the Topaz AI line of products - I just wish they didn't take so long to process!
Sep 18, 2019 at 01:51 PM
p.4 #19Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Yes, Panasonic does something similar but unfortunately Sony does not offer any in-camera or post-processing options with their Imaging Edge.
Sep 18, 2019 at 01:55 PM
p.4 #20Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
saxguy wrote:
I've upsampled a A7R4 file (shot with CV 65/2 APO @f/4) using Photoshop Bicubic and Topaz Gigapixel.
The amount was more than double the Sony A7R4's linear resolution. The resulting file is about ~322MP.
Here are the 1:1 crops: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
As suspected, large enlargements is where Topaz GP shines!
BTW: The 322MP file is 1.95GB in size. Thanks AI !!I love the Topaz AI line of products - I just wish they didn't take so long to process!
I've updated my video card (Vega 64) and things got much faster with GPU.
Fred Miranda wrote
Just for curiosity.I've upsampled a A7R4 file (shot with CV 65/2 APO @f/4) using Photoshop Bicubic and Topaz Gigapixel.
The amount was more than double the Sony A7R4's linear resolution. The resulting file is about ~322MP.
Here are the 1:1 crops: Left (PS Bicubic), Right (Topaz GP)
As suspected, large enlargements is where Topaz GP shines!
BTW: The 322MP file is 1.95GB in size. Thanks AI !!
I've updated my video card (Vega 64) and things got much faster with GPU.
Sep 18, 2019 at 01:56 PM