p.4 #1 · Comparing 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
p.4 #4 · Comparing 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
p.4 #5 · Comparing 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)
p.4 #6 · Comparing 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.
p.4 #7 · Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
vdo1 wrote:
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
p.4 #8 · Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
p.4 #10 · Comparing 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.
p.4 #11 · Comparing 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.
p.4 #12 · Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
naturephoto1 wrote:
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.
p.4 #13 · Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
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?
p.4 #14 · Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
naturephoto1 wrote:
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
p.4 #16 · Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
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
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.
p.4 #17 · Comparing 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.
