Visible difference

[Hsg]

I usually post images at 900x in here and I think that is an ideal size for forum posting.

At 900x, as an example, is it possible to differentiate between a 36mp camera or a 10mp camera - shot at ISO 100, in a forum posting?

 

[airfrogusmc]

Probably not. <100kb jpgs on a website posted from a host site is not anyway to judge.

 

[daveleo]

Probably not. <100kb jpgs on a website posted from a host site is not anyway to judge.

Absolutely. Using internet forum postings to (seriously) compare technical details of images is simply not going to work.

EDIT: you are compressing the 36Mp image much more than you are compressing the 10MP image. Whatever quality that you added by shooting 36MP is blown away by the compression.

You might ask the inverse question ..... "If I am making 3mX2m prints, would I be able to see the difference between a 36Mp file and a 10Mp file? "

 

[Hsg]

Let me ask the following question then:

At what size for posting images online, there is a visible difference between 36mp vs 10mp @ ISO100?

Is it possible to calculate this?

 

[daveleo]

If you are print at 300ppi resolution, a 10Mp image will hold up to a print area of 111sq-in. (That's 10M/300/300).
A 36Mp image will hold up to 400sq-in, printed at 300ppi (that's 36M/300/300).

I say that with about 66.66% confidence.


If you're posting to monitors at 100ppi, redo the math, but the area ratio will remain the same.

 

[Hsg]

Thanks. Posting large size images annoys other posters in the forums because of load time and bandwidth so 900x is a good compromise.

 

[Fixcinater]

What's nice and/or potentially frustrating depending on your angle, about the compression of sharing picts online: technique in resizing and sharpening matter more in terms of apparent quality than the sensor or film you choose.

 

[Dwig]

Let me ask the following question then:

At what size for posting images online, there is a visible difference between 36mp vs 10mp @ ISO100?

Is it possible to calculate this?

When displaying an uncropped image, the highest resolution monitors are only able to display the equivalent of about 8mp or possibly 10mp. That means that at present it is unlikely that it is possible to show any difference between a 10mp original and a 36mp original on any computer monitor without cropping in to a small section of the whole image. The common "Full HD" class monitors (1920x1080) can only display a 2mp image.

 

[Hsg]

When displaying an uncropped image, the highest resolution monitors are only able to display the equivalent of about 8mp or possibly 10mp. That means that at present it is unlikely that it is possible to show any difference between a 10mp original and a 36mp original on any computer monitor without cropping in to a small section of the whole image. The common "Full HD" class monitors (1920x1080) can only display a 2mp image.

Even 4k can only display an 8mp image.

I guess, for people like me who are mostly sharing images online, its a little depressive because there is no incentive to buy a higher mp camera or better lenses etc..

 

[Hsg]

What's nice and/or potentially frustrating depending on your angle, about the compression of sharing picts online: technique in resizing and sharpening matter more in terms of apparent quality than the sensor or film you choose.

I agree. Monitors, due to their black-lit nature, are very ruthless when it comes to showing even small blemishes.

Color balance, saturation and sharpening has to be 'correct' or it can be distracting.

 

[jsrockit]

When displaying an uncropped image, the highest resolution monitors are only able to display the equivalent of about 8mp or possibly 10mp.

The iMac 5k is equivalent to 14mp I've heard.

 

[daveleo]

The iMac 5k is equivalent to 14mp I've heard.

That's what the specs say. That is a bit over 2X the typical monitor resolution of 96ppi.

 

[Hsg]

I have never enjoyed the photos I take by looking at them alone, the images become interesting once its shared with others. This problem of sharing at small size is going to be there for sometime. In fact by the time image size display is dealt with, the photoshop of that era will have an up-sampling capability to transform a 10mp image to a higher resolution without degradation.

As to the question of prints, if there is demand for it then it makes sense to print, otherwise I'm not going to print for myself - i'm not going to be the collector of my own prints, that is just absurd to me.

 

[airfrogusmc]

You should print for yourself for the pure enjoyment of looking at printed pieces and it's prints that really matter. You don't print everything you shoot but some things need to be printed. In both my professional work and my personal work it is prints that actually mean something. In my professional work its ads, billboards, publications, brochures, annual reports, etc and in my personal work it's mounted and framed prints in exhibits.

 

[Hsg]

I have never felt any affinity to photography prints. I have never felt a desire to make prints because to be honest I don't have a very high estimate for photos that i take.

When the desire arises for prints then I will print but so far I'm most happy when I shoot, the rest is a chore.

 

[airfrogusmc]

That is a real shame. If you don't value what you create then what is the point?

 

[Hsg]

If you don't value what you create then what is the point?

I don't 'create' anything. The world is out there, I capture impressions of it with a camera. Those impressions are 99% of the time not to my liking and the ones I like seem fine to me in digital form.

I like the open-ended nature of a digital file, its like a living thing, it keeps changing as software changes and my taste change.

 

[airfrogusmc]

But you still must have value in it otherwise why do it and even more important why share it?

 

[Hsg]

A photo's value only comes into being once its shared. What I mean by that is, a photo becomes valuable once its seen by many eyes. a photo that is not seen by anyone, has no value. So my photos have no value for me, until the point I share them with others and then some like them some don't, but that act of sharing has made it something valuable.

So for me sharing a 900x image on this forum is as important as an exhibition.

 

[airfrogusmc]

So why do you share things that hold no value to you and how do you choose which to share? One has to have more value than the other or you would just share everything. No editing.