Camera resolution myths debunked

[jonpais]

2 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

2k falls apart on 85 inch. Even blueray quality 2k. 

2K looks fine in the theater.

[Emanuel]

Acquisition is actually the key.

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

2K looks fine in the theater.

 

[meanwhile]

4 hours ago, jonpais said:

2K looks fine in the theater.

Yes. The point of larger screens is that you are supposed to watch them from further away. An 85 might show problems with 4K if you shove your face against it... But that's not what you are supposed to do!

[Emanuel]

10 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

2K looks nice on 20m.

On another note,

TV broadcasters have always been more interested in color depth and dynamic range In HD over 4K.

Among many cinematographers and still photographers its pretty well known that good lighting can make an image appear way sharper than resolution. Resolution is only good for lab tests.

Same with those crazy lens sharts. An image from a lens with a technically low score can be sharper and more alive than an image from a high scoring lens.

Specs still don't mean jack.

Well said.

In any case, neither resolution is the opposite of a good picture outcome as much as people tend to see it.

A sort of tennis match ; )

That said, long life to higher hopes on resolution... LOL

Large formats might never be less welcome.

Or... there's somehow uncertainty that our content may surpass the time and be future proof ;-)

 

Lots of FUD over this topic as usual seen when conservatism defeats pragmatism :-)

[meanwhile]

10 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

 

Same with those crazy lens sharts. An image from a lens with a technically low score can be sharper and more alive than an image from a high scoring lens.

 

That's because what those charts test isn't resolution but resolution of high contrast information. A lens or sensor designed to test well may sacrifice resolution of lower contrast information to do that. 

..Then there's the issue of highlight spil and roll-off, which none of the test sites even consider, but which have a huge impact on "aliveness". Film and foveon sensors handle them more or less as the eyes does, which is their images look better when highlights are in frame

http://www.13thmonkey.org/~boris/photos/Foveon2/foveon-highlights.html

Film tends to handle low contrast resolution better than digital, which is another reason it look can more natural

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

[Emanuel]

7 minutes ago, meanwhile said:

That's because what those charts test isn't resolution but resolution of high contrast information. A lens or sensor designed to test well may sacrifice resolution of lower contrast information to do that. 

..Then there's the issue of highlight spil and roll-off, which none of the test sites even consider, but which have a huge impact on "aliveness". Film and foveon sensors handle them more or less as the eyes does, which is their images look better when highlights are in frame

http://www.13thmonkey.org/~boris/photos/Foveon2/foveon-highlights.html

Film tends to handle low contrast resolution better than digital, which is another reason it look can more natural

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

Different worlds, unparalleled results, despite any effort to match the obvious that economy rules over all of it and state-of-the-art is meaningless when one is wholly meaningful over the other.

E :-)

[meanwhile]

29 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Different worlds, unparalleled results, despite any effort to match the obvious that economy rules over all of it and state-of-the-art is meaningless when one is wholly meaningful over the other.

E :-)

And when you have an easily comparable number, everyone builds their marketing around it.

[ND64]

13 hours ago, meanwhile said:

 

..Then there's the issue of highlight spil and roll-off, which none of the test sites even consider, but which have a huge impact on "aliveness". Film and foveon sensors handle them more or less as the eyes does, which is their images look better when highlights are in frame

http://www.13thmonkey.org/~boris/photos/Foveon2/foveon-highlights.html

 

Amazingly he didn't say anything about white balance in that article, which can make undesired look in saturated areas, and apparently is not aware of the curves raw developers apply when you open the raw file, which push some highlights closer to saturation point. 

22 hours ago, jonpais said:

2K looks fine in the theater.

"fine" is very relative term for describing the amount of details. 

18 hours ago, meanwhile said:

Yes. The point of larger screens is that you are supposed to watch them from further away. An 85 might show problems with 4K if you shove your face against it... But that's not what you are supposed to do!

New generation used to shove their face against it, because of...gaming! 

[jonpais]

5 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

Amazingly he didn't say anything about white balance in that article, which can make undesired look in saturated areas, and apparently is not aware of the curves raw developers apply when you open the raw file, which push some highlights closer to saturation point. 

"fine" is very relative term for describing the amount of details. 

Fair enough. I suppose if I'm pixel peeping a film at the movie theater, the movie must be pretty awful.  

[meanwhile]

4 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Amazingly he didn't say anything about white balance in that article, which can make undesired look in saturated areas, and apparently is not aware of the curves raw developers apply when you open the raw file, which push some highlights closer to saturation point. 

"fine" is very relative term for describing the amount of details. 

New generation used to shove their face against it, because of...gaming! 

I have no idea at all why you think someone writing an article that technical doesn't know what a curve is just because he doesn't discuss them in an article where they are largely irrelevant to the point being made - which is that Bayer sensors, film and Foveon have different highlight behaviour, and the last two are more organic. Ditto white balance. 

..If everyone writing an article about anything stopped to point out every possible related point, no matter how obvious... Well, it might help some people, but it would be a drag for the rest of us.

[ND64]

16 hours ago, meanwhile said:

I have no idea at all why you think someone writing an article that technical doesn't know what a curve is just because he doesn't discuss them in an article where they are largely irrelevant to the point being made 

I didn't say he doesn't know what a curve is. I said he seems unaware of curvers applied by default when opening a raw file which affects the look of the image and histogram. And also these converters change hues based on intensity of light, based on their interpretation of "correct color". So comparing highlights of two raw files in Adobe raw converter to judge the performance of two sensors is almost pointless, unless you know what exactly they do to the values, and undo all of them. 

21 hours ago, jonpais said:

Fair enough. I suppose if I'm pixel peeping a film at the movie theater, the movie must be pretty awful.  

Resolution is addictive. Once you consume a highly detailed image, you start demanding higher. 

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

Resolution is addictive. Once you consume a highly detailed image, you start demanding higher. 

not in my case.

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

not in my case.

LOL Film and gaming addicted gangs to babble about. My course too ; ) from my 1024x768 collection of home projectors in full HD and 4K now ages for my classics : D

Well, I second my two cents on that one that resolution can actually help but on acquisition side IMO, not every time but for future proof when content is not mandatory, I see :-)