This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009the d300s killer
p.16 #1the d300s killer
Osai wrote:
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.
Sep 15, 2009 at 09:24 AM
p.16 #2the d300s killer
'rhyder' has said many valid things, but he still cannot get the key idea which is incredibly simple and obvious to many of us.
The simple fact is that given two sensors, one FX, one DX, both with the same number of pixels, and the same lens, then for a given framing of the subject, you don't need to be so close with the DX camera. The difference is significant. And I prefer to correctly frame the subject, rather than crop heavily and get poor image quality.
TonyBeach wrote:
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.
Exactly.
The simple fact is that given two sensors, one FX, one DX, both with the same number of pixels, and the same lens, then for a given framing of the subject, you don't need to be so close with the DX camera. The difference is significant. And I prefer to correctly frame the subject, rather than crop heavily and get poor image quality.
TonyBeach wrote:
Osai wrote
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.Exactly.
Sep 15, 2009 at 10:07 AM
p.16 #3the d300s killer
Eh, I'll take the larger photosites thanks. Opinions are like noses, we all have one. I know what I'm looking at and I much prefer the output of the FX sensors. Oh well you can't please everyone 
Sep 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM
p.16 #5the d300s killer
LeifG wrote:
'rhyder' has said many valid things, but he still cannot get the key idea which is incredibly simple and obvious to many of us.
The simple fact is that given two sensors, one FX, one DX, both with the same number of pixels, and the same lens, then for a given framing of the subject, you don't need to be so close with the DX camera. The difference is significant. And I prefer to correctly frame the subject, rather than crop heavily and get poor image quality.
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.Exactly.
Simple and Obvious. Not "exactly" qualities we admire in people.
Don't forget that it was simple and obvious that the Earth was flat. Don't forget that the Sun was once thought to revolve around the Earth. I'm sure that there are still people that don't realize that to double the resolution of a sensor you have to QUADRUPLE the pixels.
The only people that can't learn anything are those that already know everything.
'rhyder' has said many valid things, but he still cannot get the key idea which is incredibly simple and obvious to many of us.
The simple fact is that given two sensors, one FX, one DX, both with the same number of pixels, and the same lens, then for a given framing of the subject, you don't need to be so close with the DX camera. The difference is significant. And I prefer to correctly frame the subject, rather than crop heavily and get poor image quality.
TonyBeach wrote
Osai wrote
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.Simple and Obvious. Not "exactly" qualities we admire in people.
Don't forget that it was simple and obvious that the Earth was flat. Don't forget that the Sun was once thought to revolve around the Earth. I'm sure that there are still people that don't realize that to double the resolution of a sensor you have to QUADRUPLE the pixels.
The only people that can't learn anything are those that already know everything.
Sep 15, 2009 at 04:36 PM
p.16 #6the d300s killer
TonyBeach wrote:
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.
Can't believe this thread is still alive.
Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
Gene
Osai wrote
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.Can't believe this thread is still alive.
Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
Gene
Sep 15, 2009 at 06:56 PM
p.16 #7the d300s killer
Il Medico wrote:
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.Can't believe this thread is still alive.
Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
Gene
I think he was talking about an FX image shot in DX mode that would give you the same picture as a DX sensor would (composition wise) given the same lens and same focal length were used on both cameras.
TonyBeach wrote
Osai wrote
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
Gene
I think he was talking about an FX image shot in DX mode that would give you the same picture as a DX sensor would (composition wise) given the same lens and same focal length were used on both cameras.
Sep 15, 2009 at 07:50 PM
p.16 #8the d300s killer
Osai wrote:
The simple fact is that given two sensors, one FX, one DX, both with the same number of pixels, and the same lens, then for a given framing of the subject, you don't need to be so close with the DX camera. The difference is significant. And I prefer to correctly frame the subject, rather than crop heavily and get poor image quality.
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.Exactly.Simple and Obvious. Not "exactly" qualities we admire in people.
Don't forget that it was simple and obvious that the Earth was flat. Don't forget that the Sun was once thought to revolve around the Earth. I'm sure that there are still people that don't realize that to double the resolution of a sensor you have to QUADRUPLE the pixels.
The only people that can't learn anything are those that already know everything.
What a pile of crap. And what is your point? Or are you trolling?
LeifG wrote
'rhyder' has said many valid things, but he still cannot get the key idea which is incredibly simple and obvious to many of us.The simple fact is that given two sensors, one FX, one DX, both with the same number of pixels, and the same lens, then for a given framing of the subject, you don't need to be so close with the DX camera. The difference is significant. And I prefer to correctly frame the subject, rather than crop heavily and get poor image quality.
TonyBeach wrote
Osai wrote
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens. Don't forget that it was simple and obvious that the Earth was flat. Don't forget that the Sun was once thought to revolve around the Earth. I'm sure that there are still people that don't realize that to double the resolution of a sensor you have to QUADRUPLE the pixels.
The only people that can't learn anything are those that already know everything.
What a pile of crap. And what is your point? Or are you trolling?
Sep 16, 2009 at 01:19 AM
p.16 #9the d300s killer
Il Medico wrote:
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.Can't believe this thread is still alive.
Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
Gene
Some people here seem to be rather dim.
Edited on Sep 16, 2009 at 10:08 AM · View previous versions
TonyBeach wrote
Osai wrote
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
Gene
Some people here seem to be rather dim.
Edited on Sep 16, 2009 at 10:08 AM · View previous versions
Sep 16, 2009 at 01:19 AM
p.16 #10the d300s killer
gman1339 wrote:
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.Can't believe this thread is still alive.
Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
GeneI think he was talking about an FX image shot in DX mode that would give you the same picture as a DX sensor would (composition wise) given the same lens and same focal length were used on both cameras.
It does NOT bring you closer. But because the sensor is smaller, you don't need to be so close to get the same subject framing. e.g. fill the frame. For goodness sake. This is so obvious and basic. What is wrong with people here.
Edited on Sep 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM · View previous versions
Il Medico wrote
TonyBeach wrote
Osai wrote
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
Gene
It does NOT bring you closer. But because the sensor is smaller, you don't need to be so close to get the same subject framing. e.g. fill the frame. For goodness sake. This is so obvious and basic. What is wrong with people here.
Edited on Sep 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM · View previous versions
Sep 16, 2009 at 01:23 AM
p.16 #11the d300s killer
Great discussion, would participate again.
In the meanwhile, returning my D300s, sure the reach is great and the dual card slots are wonderful, but man at higher ISOs, the D700 shines and it is a no-contest. The D300s doesnt give you much room to be off in low light situations. The D700 just does it so much better.
Now if only I could afford the long glass
Maybe I should order a D300 and return the D700
In the meanwhile, returning my D300s, sure the reach is great and the dual card slots are wonderful, but man at higher ISOs, the D700 shines and it is a no-contest. The D300s doesnt give you much room to be off in low light situations. The D700 just does it so much better.
Now if only I could afford the long glass
Maybe I should order a D300 and return the D700
Sep 16, 2009 at 08:43 AM
p.16 #12the d300s killer
TonyBeach wrote:
I've also seen the 100% side by side crops, and I'll take the bigger enlargement.
Don't forget that it was simple and obvious that the Earth was flat. Don't forget that the Sun was once thought to revolve around the Earth.I don't care what the moderators say, because calling someone "simple and obvious" in a snide fashion is a barely concealed insult. My reply to you is shove off jerk. If the moderators have a problem with that, they should have done something about your post first -- indeed, this thread has now gone long past any usefulness.
These are the numbers: 12 MP in DX crop mode = 2784 pixels (along the long axis) versus 12 MP from a DX camera = 4288 pixels (also along...Show more →
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on there Quickdraw. I have NOT called anyone names at all. In fact I'm truly surprised that you thought that it pertained to YOU.
And where did I say that YOU said it was twice the resolution? I've read every word you said and have there is nothing you have written that is hard to understand. When did this become all about YOU? I'm surprised that you get so emotional over your equipment. I've kept the conversation civil and on subject. I haven't called anyone names. Is everyone who disagrees with you a moron? Or as Leif says thick? Why call my replies moronic? Do you call everything you don't understand, moronic. Have you even considered looking at this from another direction? Are you familiar with Plato's Cave? Reread what Rhyder has written, try to visualize what he says. When you think about it, he really does understand the physics behind this whole thing.
Plato's Cave, look it up.
You really don't have to take this personal, IProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
ave not attacked you or your equipment . There is no reason to. I'll present the crops when I get back. I'm traveling on assignment. I'll be in Europe in a few hours. In the meantime, visualize the physics behind the lens, that's where the key lies.
traveler wrote
Eh, I'll take the larger photosites thanks. Opinions are like noses, we all have one. I know what I'm looking at and I much prefer the output of the FX sensors. Oh well you can't please everyoneOsai wrote
Simple and Obvious. Not "exactly" qualities we admire in people. Don't forget that it was simple and obvious that the Earth was flat. Don't forget that the Sun was once thought to revolve around the Earth.
Earlier quote
I'm sure that there are still people that don't realize that to double the resolution of a sensor you have to QUADRUPLE the pixels.Earlier quote
The only people that can't learn anything are those that already know everything.Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on there Quickdraw. I have NOT called anyone names at all. In fact I'm truly surprised that you thought that it pertained to YOU.
And where did I say that YOU said it was twice the resolution? I've read every word you said and have there is nothing you have written that is hard to understand. When did this become all about YOU? I'm surprised that you get so emotional over your equipment. I've kept the conversation civil and on subject. I haven't called anyone names. Is everyone who disagrees with you a moron? Or as Leif says thick? Why call my replies moronic? Do you call everything you don't understand, moronic. Have you even considered looking at this from another direction? Are you familiar with Plato's Cave? Reread what Rhyder has written, try to visualize what he says. When you think about it, he really does understand the physics behind this whole thing.
Plato's Cave, look it up.
You really don't have to take this personal, IProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
ave not attacked you or your equipment . There is no reason to. I'll present the crops when I get back. I'm traveling on assignment. I'll be in Europe in a few hours. In the meantime, visualize the physics behind the lens, that's where the key lies.
Sep 16, 2009 at 09:45 AM
p.16 #13the d300s killer
Osai wrote:
Do you call everything you don't understand, moronic.
I understand the issue very clearly, and your implying otherwise is precisely what I take exception to.
Have you even considered looking at this from another direction?
I have approached this entire issue with an open mind. I understand differences in AOV, DOF, FOV, etc. The issue here is same lens, same distance, same FOV, and what the difference between a 5 MP crop from a shot taken with a 12 MP FX camera will be compared to a shot taken with a 12 MP DX shot.
I'll present the crops when I get back.
Like I said, then this discussion will be over and everyone can see what I've seen -- there is more resolution in a D300 file than a DX crop D700/D3 file. That greater resolution is clearly visible, and it cannot be overcome by Genuine Fractals (you can simply apply the same algorithm to the D300 file, and it will maintain its resolution advantage; besides which, interpolation does not increase resolution).
Do you call everything you don't understand, moronic.
I understand the issue very clearly, and your implying otherwise is precisely what I take exception to.
Have you even considered looking at this from another direction?
I have approached this entire issue with an open mind. I understand differences in AOV, DOF, FOV, etc. The issue here is same lens, same distance, same FOV, and what the difference between a 5 MP crop from a shot taken with a 12 MP FX camera will be compared to a shot taken with a 12 MP DX shot.
I'll present the crops when I get back.
Like I said, then this discussion will be over and everyone can see what I've seen -- there is more resolution in a D300 file than a DX crop D700/D3 file. That greater resolution is clearly visible, and it cannot be overcome by Genuine Fractals (you can simply apply the same algorithm to the D300 file, and it will maintain its resolution advantage; besides which, interpolation does not increase resolution).
Sep 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM
p.16 #14the d300s killer
What Tony says is absolutely correect, my only qualm was when I wanted the stuff outside of the DX crop, The 700 definitely has better resolution at that point
Sep 16, 2009 at 11:31 AM
p.16 #15the d300s killer
LeifG wrote:
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.Can't believe this thread is still alive.
Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
GeneSome people here seem to be rather dim.
Just who are you calling dim? Just what IS your point? That a crop sensor has more resolution than a crop from a FF sensor of the same megapixels?
Well DUH! Seems only someone "dim" would have to blather on for days on end about it.
FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution). I'll take the larger sensor every time.
Gene
Il Medico wrote
TonyBeach wrote
Osai wrote
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
Gene
Just who are you calling dim? Just what IS your point? That a crop sensor has more resolution than a crop from a FF sensor of the same megapixels?
Well DUH! Seems only someone "dim" would have to blather on for days on end about it.
FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution). I'll take the larger sensor every time.
Gene
Sep 16, 2009 at 01:40 PM
p.16 #16the d300s killer
Il Medico wrote:
FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution). I'll take the larger sensor every time.
There are obviously some advantages to larger sensors. However, as for 12 MP FX versus 12 MP DX pixel density being a "slight" difference, it is not. Why does this "discussion" drag on for day after day? Well, because something so obvious is challenged, and those that challenge it cannot (or will not) put forward the proof.
FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution). I'll take the larger sensor every time.
There are obviously some advantages to larger sensors. However, as for 12 MP FX versus 12 MP DX pixel density being a "slight" difference, it is not. Why does this "discussion" drag on for day after day? Well, because something so obvious is challenged, and those that challenge it cannot (or will not) put forward the proof.
Sep 16, 2009 at 02:09 PM
p.16 #17the d300s killer
Il Medico wrote:
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.Can't believe this thread is still alive.
Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
GeneSome people here seem to be rather dim.Just who are you calling dim? Just what IS your point? That a crop sensor has more resolution than a crop from a FF sensor of the same megapixels?
Well DUH! Seems only someone "dim" would have to blather on for days on end about it.
FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution). I'll take the larger sensor every time.
Gene
You said: "Just who are you calling dim?"
I thought you might be bright enough to figure that out. Have I overestimated you?
Some while back 'rhyder' said: ".....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth"
And he also said: "a 1.6 crop is like a 1.6 TC.....This is the funniest thing I've heard in years.!."
I corrected him: "..Longer reach from APS-C is not a myth, assuming the same pixel count in FF and APS-C"
Rhyder said: "...Sure it is. I've proved it using my D3 and D300."
I asked for an explanation and got the following:
"This assumes all pixels are created equal, which is not the case. "
Uninformative and content free. And so on. There is a limit to how long I can humour an idiot. I think he is purposefully trying to wind up people by posting nonsense.
You said "FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution)."
Each has its own advantages: 12 MP crop sensor = cheaper, more reach, more DOF at a given F stop. 12 MP FF sensor: shallower DOF, better noise characteristics.
It does surprise me that many people here do not seem to understand these simple concepts, and why each format has its own niche.
You said "I'll take the larger sensor every time."
Nowt wrong with you choosing what suits your needs but don't expect others to accept your false statements about the two formats.
LeifG wrote
Il Medico wrote
TonyBeach wrote
Osai wrote
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
Gene
Well DUH! Seems only someone "dim" would have to blather on for days on end about it.
FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution). I'll take the larger sensor every time.
Gene
You said: "Just who are you calling dim?"
I thought you might be bright enough to figure that out. Have I overestimated you?
Some while back 'rhyder' said: ".....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth"
And he also said: "a 1.6 crop is like a 1.6 TC.....This is the funniest thing I've heard in years.!."
I corrected him: "..Longer reach from APS-C is not a myth, assuming the same pixel count in FF and APS-C"
Rhyder said: "...Sure it is. I've proved it using my D3 and D300."
I asked for an explanation and got the following:
"This assumes all pixels are created equal, which is not the case. "
Uninformative and content free. And so on. There is a limit to how long I can humour an idiot. I think he is purposefully trying to wind up people by posting nonsense.
You said "FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution)."
Each has its own advantages: 12 MP crop sensor = cheaper, more reach, more DOF at a given F stop. 12 MP FF sensor: shallower DOF, better noise characteristics.
It does surprise me that many people here do not seem to understand these simple concepts, and why each format has its own niche.
You said "I'll take the larger sensor every time."
Nowt wrong with you choosing what suits your needs but don't expect others to accept your false statements about the two formats.
Sep 16, 2009 at 03:27 PM
p.16 #18the d300s killer
TonyBeach wrote:
There are obviously some advantages to larger sensors. However, as for 12 MP FX versus 12 MP DX pixel density being a "slight" difference, it is not. Why does this "discussion" drag on for day after day? Well, because something so obvious is challenged, and those that challenge it cannot (or will not) put forward the proof.
+1
Il Medico wrote
FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution). I'll take the larger sensor every time.+1
Sep 16, 2009 at 03:28 PM
p.16 #19the d300s killer
LeifG wrote:
The difference at 12 MP DX versus 12 MP FX is significant, very significant: DX has 50% more linear resolution than FX does. If you think you can interpolate the FX file to match the DX file, you are sadly mistaken.Can't believe this thread is still alive.
Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
GeneSome people here seem to be rather dim.Just who are you calling dim? Just what IS your point? That a crop sensor has more resolution than a crop from a FF sensor of the same megapixels?
Well DUH! Seems only someone "dim" would have to blather on for days on end about it.
FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution). I'll take the larger sensor every time.
GeneYou said: "Just who are you calling dim?"
I thought you might be bright enough to figure that out. Have I overestimated you?
Some while back 'rhyder' said: ".....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth"
And he also said: "a 1.6 crop is like a 1.6 TC.....This is the funniest thing I've heard in years.!."
I corrected him: "..Longer reach from APS-C is not a myth, assuming the same pixel count in FF and APS-C"
Rhyder said: "...Sure it is. I've proved it using my D3 and D300."
I asked for an explanation and got the following:
"This assumes all pixels are created equal,...Show more →
Wow. I apoligize. I didn't realize that I was dealing with some petty, name calling hobbyists. Anyone who disagrees with you gets labled, Dense,Dim,Thick, Jerk and let's not forget Idiot. You reach a point where your argument falls short and you resort to name calling. Its a shame FM has come to this. It used to be a place where you could share information and have intelligent discourses.
As far as Rhyder not supplying an explanation. He DID supply his method, with which I was easily able to duplicate his results. Your inability to understand does not make He or I, Dense, Dim, Thick, Jerks or Idiots.
Both of your posts show a lack of experience and understanding of where digital technology is today. To say that GF won't uprez well is just irresponsible. Evidently you haven't used it recently. There are other software packages that do this equaly as well. Simply Canvas uses an uprezzer that is great. I have a friend whose company that puts images on the sides of buses and trucks.
I've wasted enough of my time here, I don't expect you to understand, nor do I now care. This thread isn't about sharing information or discussing ideas from different viewpoints. Its about having the "last word". I'll close now and let you have that "last word" comforted by the fact that it probably won't be an intelligent one.
Oh wait, one last thing. Read Plato's Cave.
Il Medico wrote
LeifG wrote
Il Medico wrote
TonyBeach wrote
Osai wrote
I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.Anyway, just how does a 12mp DX image have 50% more "linear" or any other "type" of resolution than a 12mp FX image?
Both are 12mps. They both have nearly identical "linear" resolution as defined by the number of pixels on the horizontal and verticle axis.
A rose is a rose is a rose.....
Gene
Well DUH! Seems only someone "dim" would have to blather on for days on end about it.
FF (larger) sensors have many more advantages versus a slight loss of pixel density (at current FF resolution). I'll take the larger sensor every time.
Gene
I thought you might be bright enough to figure that out. Have I overestimated you?
Some while back 'rhyder' said: ".....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth"
And he also said: "a 1.6 crop is like a 1.6 TC.....This is the funniest thing I've heard in years.!."
I corrected him: "..Longer reach from APS-C is not a myth, assuming the same pixel count in FF and APS-C"
Rhyder said: "...Sure it is. I've proved it using my D3 and D300."
I asked for an explanation and got the following:
"This assumes all pixels are created equal,...Show more →
Wow. I apoligize. I didn't realize that I was dealing with some petty, name calling hobbyists. Anyone who disagrees with you gets labled, Dense,Dim,Thick, Jerk and let's not forget Idiot. You reach a point where your argument falls short and you resort to name calling. Its a shame FM has come to this. It used to be a place where you could share information and have intelligent discourses.
As far as Rhyder not supplying an explanation. He DID supply his method, with which I was easily able to duplicate his results. Your inability to understand does not make He or I, Dense, Dim, Thick, Jerks or Idiots.
Both of your posts show a lack of experience and understanding of where digital technology is today. To say that GF won't uprez well is just irresponsible. Evidently you haven't used it recently. There are other software packages that do this equaly as well. Simply Canvas uses an uprezzer that is great. I have a friend whose company that puts images on the sides of buses and trucks.
I've wasted enough of my time here, I don't expect you to understand, nor do I now care. This thread isn't about sharing information or discussing ideas from different viewpoints. Its about having the "last word". I'll close now and let you have that "last word" comforted by the fact that it probably won't be an intelligent one.
Oh wait, one last thing. Read Plato's Cave.
Sep 17, 2009 at 08:35 AM
p.16 #20the d300s killer
Osai: "I'll close now and let you have that "last word" comforted by the fact that it probably won't be an intelligent one."
A nice example of hypocrisy on your part.
What Tony Beach has said is true. Rhyder has NOT explained himself. And neither have you. You cannot get information from nowhere by using an 'uprez' algorithm. They are nothing more than interpolation methods. The truth is that you need to either get closer, have a higher pixel density, use a teleconverter, or buy a longer lens. I suppose if you do not care about image quality, then yes you can 'uprez'.
One example I have is a photograph of a rare Emerald dragonfly. The dragonfly scarpered before I could get close enough and so I had to crop the few images I managed to get. No amount of 'uprez' can compensate, and the result is barely passable.
"Both of your posts show a lack of experience and understanding of where digital technology is today."
On the contrary. The images I get prove otherwise. As someone with several degrees in physics, this is all very basic stuff.
"To say that GF won't uprez well is just irresponsible. "
You are now attributing to me things that I did not say. One characteristic of both you and Rhyder is to say something, and then subsequently argue about something else, and ascribe to me things that I did not say. Rhyder seems to think I criticised the FF sensors. Not so. 'Discussing' with you both is like wrestling with a greased eel. It is frustrating and pointless.
"This thread isn't about sharing information or discussing ideas from different viewpoints."
You have certainly proved that. By the way, since you and Rhyder believe neither Tony Beach nor me, I suggest you hop over to Thom Hogan's web site and read his article on FF and APS sensors. It says no more and no less than we have said here. But he is a 'big name' so you'll believe him.
A nice example of hypocrisy on your part.
What Tony Beach has said is true. Rhyder has NOT explained himself. And neither have you. You cannot get information from nowhere by using an 'uprez' algorithm. They are nothing more than interpolation methods. The truth is that you need to either get closer, have a higher pixel density, use a teleconverter, or buy a longer lens. I suppose if you do not care about image quality, then yes you can 'uprez'.
One example I have is a photograph of a rare Emerald dragonfly. The dragonfly scarpered before I could get close enough and so I had to crop the few images I managed to get. No amount of 'uprez' can compensate, and the result is barely passable.
"Both of your posts show a lack of experience and understanding of where digital technology is today."
On the contrary. The images I get prove otherwise. As someone with several degrees in physics, this is all very basic stuff.
"To say that GF won't uprez well is just irresponsible. "
You are now attributing to me things that I did not say. One characteristic of both you and Rhyder is to say something, and then subsequently argue about something else, and ascribe to me things that I did not say. Rhyder seems to think I criticised the FF sensors. Not so. 'Discussing' with you both is like wrestling with a greased eel. It is frustrating and pointless.
"This thread isn't about sharing information or discussing ideas from different viewpoints."
You have certainly proved that. By the way, since you and Rhyder believe neither Tony Beach nor me, I suggest you hop over to Thom Hogan's web site and read his article on FF and APS sensors. It says no more and no less than we have said here. But he is a 'big name' so you'll believe him.
Sep 17, 2009 at 08:50 AM