Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

    Default Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    I am wondering most of us are now viewing photos using digital media such as LCD monitors, digital photo frames, LCD TV, etc. What does high resolution mean anymore?

    Can someone help to explain the below:

    1) What is 14bit ADC? DSLR comes with 14bit analog to digital conversion. Does it mean it can only capture in 14 bit colours. My graphics card says it supports 32 bit colours. Does it mean my computer can support higher colour output than what the camera can capture?

    2) My camera has a max resolution of 5616x3744. If viewing on my TV which has a resolution of 1920x1080. What effect does it have on the photo?

    3) You calibrate the colours on you computer LCD. Can you calibrate the colour of TV and digital photo frames? If not, what is the point of having accurate pantone colours when you cannot display them as such.

    Should we shift our focus to other parameters of a good photo since we are viewing photos on digital media 80% of our time. What is your strategy on handling this?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    1) It is 14bit / channel.
    2) Your TV will resize the picture. No worries since your photo is much higher resolution than your TV.
    3) TV sets can be calibrated, but some offer more control over the others. TV sets are calibrated differently from computer monitors though.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    3) You calibrate the colours on you computer LCD. Can you calibrate the colour of TV and digital photo frames? If not, what is the point of having accurate pantone colours when you cannot display them as such.
    Accurate pantone colors are primarily for printing.If you make any money off of photography, you'll understand the importance, and why viewing photos on an LCD TV is just for pretty slideshows, and in no way whatsoever should be used for editing or professional review.
    Alpha

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by biggulp View Post
    1) It is 14bit / channel.
    What does it mean 14 bit for R, G and B each?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Accurate pantone colors are primarily for printing.If you make any money off of photography, you'll understand the importance, and why viewing photos on an LCD TV is just for pretty slideshows, and in no way whatsoever should be used for editing or professional review.
    Which brings me to the next Q. For amateurs who do not do print on a regular basis. Having a m4/3 would be as good as having a FF DSLR ?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    What does it mean 14 bit for R, G and B each?



    Which brings me to the next Q. For amateurs who do not do print on a regular basis. Having a m4/3 would be as good as having a FF DSLR ?
    Care to explain your logic on how size of sensor affects the frequency at which you should print your photos?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by brapodam View Post
    Care to explain your logic on how size of sensor affects the frequency at which you should print your photos?
    I am saying if one is using digital media to display photo, you do not need large megapixels. So a photo shot using m4/3 is just as good as the FF.
    Last edited by ManWearPants; 13th June 2010 at 08:12 PM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    I am saying if one is using digital media to display photo, you do not need large megapixels. So a photo shot using m4/3 is just as good as the FF.
    FF is not about megapixels. It's about field of view, pixel size, depth of field control and dynamic range. Don't confuse the issues, there are many many more things about full frame vs. m4/3 then just megapixels.

    I suggest beefing up your basic knowledge first.
    Alpha

  8. #8

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    What does it mean 14 bit for R, G and B each?
    Yes, 14 bits for Red, Green and Blue.

    I am saying if one is using digital media to display photo, you do not need large megapixels. So a photo shot using m4/3 is just as good as the FF.
    To produce the equivalent DoF and framing as a photo shot with say the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L wide open on a 5D Mark II on m4/3 means you need a 43mm f/0.6 lens. FF does give photographers - whether pros and amateurs - more flexibility in DoF.
    5D Mk II | TS-E 17L | 17-40L | 24-105L IS | 35L | 85L | 70-200 f/2.8L IS | 100L Macro | 580EX II

  9. #9

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    I am saying if one is using digital media to display photo, you do not need large megapixels. So a photo shot using m4/3 is just as good as the FF.
    A Olympus EP-1 (m4/3) has 12.3 megapixels, higher than Nikon D700 (full frame) at 12.1 megapixels. So technically a shot using a EP-1 will be better than a shot taken with a D700, because EP-1 has more megapixels?

    The main difference between full-frame and any crop isn't megapixels, it's sensor size.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    FF is not about megapixels. It's about field of view, pixel size, depth of field control and dynamic range. Don't confuse the issues, there are many many more things about full frame vs. m4/3 then just megapixels.
    Quote Originally Posted by frankchn View Post
    To produce the equivalent DoF and framing as a photo shot with say the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L wide open on a 5D Mark II on m4/3 means you need a 43mm f/0.6 lens. FF does give photographers - whether pros and amateurs - more flexibility in DoF.
    Quote Originally Posted by brapodam View Post
    A Olympus EP-1 (m4/3) has 12.3 megapixels, higher than Nikon D700 (full frame) at 12.1 megapixels. So technically a shot using a EP-1 will be better than a shot taken with a D700, because EP-1 has more megapixels?

    The main difference between full-frame and any crop isn't megapixels, it's sensor size.

    ok. don't get so worked up at the slight mention of m4/3 being equivalent to FF. I am not going into the technical aspects neither am I comparing between the 2. I understand about the DoF, FoV and stuff. Just that it does not mean that everytime I bring up FF, I have to type all that to show that I know. What I am trying to ask is that on a digital media, it makes no difference in IQ which camera you use, because the digital media is limiting. Yes or No?
    Last edited by ManWearPants; 13th June 2010 at 09:54 PM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    What I am trying to ask is that on a digital media, it makes no difference in IQ which camera you use, because the digital media is limiting. Yes or No?
    Don't know about myself personally (never subjected myself to a blind test differentiating images shot between FF and m4/3 / APS-C crop cameras) but the guys over at luminous-landscape.com claims that even at web resolutions - the difference between a 645 digital sensor (the PhaseOne P65+) and an excellent FF sensor (the Sony A900 24-megapixel) can be seen:
    I ran into a friend at PMA in Las Vegas, and over a coffee he commented that he found that even on the web he thought that he could see a difference between my P65+ shots from Antarctica and those from the 25 Megapixel Sony A900.

    (snip)

    Even some very savvy technical types in the industry don't have a firm explanation for what it is we're seeing. The best explanation that I've been able to come up with is what I like to call micro-contrast. What we appear to be seeing in large format film and medium format digital (especially from 39MP and up) is the ability for the system to differentiate tiny differences in luminance values, tonality and colour.
    Source: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...us-field.shtml

    I suspect the same thing happens when you compare FF and m4/3 or similar systems.
    5D Mk II | TS-E 17L | 17-40L | 24-105L IS | 35L | 85L | 70-200 f/2.8L IS | 100L Macro | 580EX II

  12. #12

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    What I am trying to ask is that on a digital media, it makes no difference in IQ which camera you use, because the digital media is limiting. Yes or No?
    No. I can see quite a difference in dynamic range, contrast and depth of field from my A900 vs. m4/3 shots.
    Alpha

  13. #13

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    What I am trying to ask is that on a digital media, it makes no difference in IQ which camera you use, because the digital media is limiting. Yes or No?

    No. Many things affect image quality that you will be able to see even using digital media to convey the picture. For example differences in lens sharpness, Chromatic Aberration, noise and depth of field can be quite obvious. So the camera definitely makes a difference because the sensor determines FOV, DOF and noise performance and the lens affects CA and sharpness.

    Yes the digital media will introduce degradation in IQ, but unfortunately it doesn't totally obscure the degradation introduced by everything else.

  14. #14
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    3,268

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    ok. don't get so worked up at the slight mention of m4/3 being equivalent to FF. I am not going into the technical aspects neither am I comparing between the 2. I understand about the DoF, FoV and stuff. Just that it does not mean that everytime I bring up FF, I have to type all that to show that I know. What I am trying to ask is that on a digital media, it makes no difference in IQ which camera you use, because the digital media is limiting. Yes or No?
    If you cannot see the difference between 4/3 and FF and it doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter to you. The thing is, you already know most of the people here know that there IS a difference between 4/3 and FF so rather than having to repeat what you already know, because it's making the rest of us repeat what we already know, it would be easier to just stick with 4/3 if that meets your requirements.

    I on the other hand, have moved from m4/3 (one of first G1 users in S'pore - everyday call up CP ask when come in) to entry level cropped factor and at some point in the future, I will find that I am ready to move to FF. The reason has already been explained by the others on this thread, but if that's not what you want to hear, then just stick with the 4/3

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    If you cannot see the difference between 4/3 and FF and it doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter to you. The thing is, you already know most of the people here know that there IS a difference between 4/3 and FF so rather than having to repeat what you already know, because it's making the rest of us repeat what we already know, it would be easier to just stick with 4/3 if that meets your requirements.

    I on the other hand, have moved from m4/3 (one of first G1 users in S'pore - everyday call up CP ask when come in) to entry level cropped factor and at some point in the future, I will find that I am ready to move to FF. The reason has already been explained by the others on this thread, but if that's not what you want to hear, then just stick with the 4/3
    Sometimes you people have to take a break from comparisons. The focus here is on digital media and not comparing m4/3 and FF. If FF works for you, then by all means, find ways to upgrade to it. I am trying to find out if images being displayed on digital media will make a difference whether you are using m4/3, APS-C and FF. I simply use the examples of m4/3 and FF as they represents the 2 ends in terms of sensor size in 35mm interchangeable lens systems. Sometimes it is just so tiring having to be technically correct even when asking a simple question. I sometimes find the forumers in CS to be over critical and narrow minded. I mean what is the big deal even if you know the difference between a m4/3 and FF to the minute details, when the question is not about m4/3 and FF.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by jaegersing View Post
    No. Many things affect image quality that you will be able to see even using digital media to convey the picture. For example differences in lens sharpness, Chromatic Aberration, noise and depth of field can be quite obvious. So the camera definitely makes a difference because the sensor determines FOV, DOF and noise performance and the lens affects CA and sharpness.

    Yes the digital media will introduce degradation in IQ, but unfortunately it doesn't totally obscure the degradation introduced by everything else.
    Lens sharpness and CA has nothing to do with camera. FoV and DoF has nothing to do with IQ. I guess my question is phrased too vague and causes the wrong focus.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

    Default Re: Digital media, do you need high resolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by frankchn View Post
    Don't know about myself personally (never subjected myself to a blind test differentiating images shot between FF and m4/3 / APS-C crop cameras) but the guys over at luminous-landscape.com claims that even at web resolutions - the difference between a 645 digital sensor (the PhaseOne P65+) and an excellent FF sensor (the Sony A900 24-megapixel) can be seen:


    Source: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...us-field.shtml

    I suspect the same thing happens when you compare FF and m4/3 or similar systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    No. I can see quite a difference in dynamic range, contrast and depth of field from my A900 vs. m4/3 shots.

    Thanks. This is what I wanted to findout. Thanks for the info.

    Thread closed.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •