jhapeman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Peter Figen wrote:
It's not just based on opinion and conjecture. It's based on facts and actual numbers and how we see and perceive images. And one of the places I see it on a daily basis when shooting to a tethered laptop in the studio, tethering a Fuji GFX100s 100mp camera to Capture One on a 14 inch M1 MacBook Pro with the Retina screen. Because of the size of the screen pixels and our human inability to resolve that size natively (and if you can, kudos to you) you have to zoom the Capture One image to 200 percent in order to see all of the detail in the image. If the screen pixels were larger but just barely beyond our ability to resolve, the image would be larger on screen and you'd actually see more fine detail at 100 percent, not less, because that fine fine detail is being lost in your eye's inability to resolve it - y'know - until you zoom in to 200 percent.
Not unlike the fact that if you're sitting 15 feet across the room from your big screen tv, you cannot see the difference between 720P and 1080P or between 1080P and 4K until you're close enough to the screen to almost resolve the screen pixels with your own eyes.
You're being fooled into thinking the 4k display is sharper when it's just showing you smaller images. If you have an image with the actual detail and pixels are too small to resolve, you're going to be missing visible detail in your image that you can only see (like with the Retina MBP) by zooming to 200 percent or more.
It's all pretty simple really. ...Show more →
Except not really. I am fortunate and I have excellent vision and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I also prefer to see the entire image when culling, not only part of it, so the larger high-resolution screens are ideal for that function. As for zooming, of course that's required to do the final check but that is irrelevant of screen size and ppi; I personally cull bad compositions at full resolution and then zoom to 100% or 200% to check critical focus.
Not being able to see the difference between say 100-120 ppi and 218 ppi on an Apple Retina display is not the same as saying the extra resolution is not useful. The TV comparison is not really a valid one either, because they are completely different use cases. I'm not zooming to 100% and checking critical focus on a TV. I also think a lot of the confusion/difference of opinion on this topic is aggravated by differences in how people set things like display scaling, which will have an important effect, regardless of actual resolution and ppi and of course individual visual acuity.
Unless you are always culling images at 100%, pretty much every image is going to be resized in an application to fit in the window (Fit Image in Lightroom, for example). I personally use the Apple 32" ProDisplay XDR. It's 32" and 218ppi. When I view an image from my Sony A1 at full size it's only scaled down a tiny bit to fully fit on the screen. I can 100% tell how sharp it is at that size. The tiny difference between a very sharp image and absolute tack sharp is then very easy to see with a quick 100% zoom. Being able to see a larger portion of the image at 100% is also very useful for checking the plane of focus.
I think making a claim that the resolution is wasted is just too broad. Not everyone has the same use cases, eyesight, software, etc. In other words, your mileage may vary. Certainly if you don't have the visual acuity then it's not needed.
|
