FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Is the World Ready for 4K?

Page  <12
Author
stiuskr View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 01 September 2006
Country: United States
Location: West Virginia
Status: Offline
Posts: 11261
Post Options Post Options   Quote stiuskr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2017 at 12:17
The race for resolution didn't play out as expected, I remember reading a while back after the 4K rollout and it's poor market acceptance that the push now would be for more color accuracy and higher dynamic range.
Rob Suits Jr.
a99M2 a99 a77 a700 KM7D|Min24/2.8 Min35/2 So50/1.4 So50/2.8 Min85/1.4G Tam90/2.8 Tam180/3.5|Tam17-50 CZ24-70G2 KM28-75D So70-200G1 So70-300G So70-400G1| SonyF60 AD200R2
 



Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14166
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2017 at 16:23
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

My HDTV is only 2.5Mp, and even a new 4k TV is 12Mp ...

I use estimates of 2mp and 8mp. How are your estimates calculated?

... and I'm not sure I'd see the difference anyway at the distance I sit (around six feet from the TV).

I've examined the practicalities of that myself. I'm looking at a 24mp file displayed on a 40" 4k TV. I can either view it at 3840x2160 by running it directly to the TV, or run it through a Blu-ray player to view it at 1920x1080 upscaled to 4k by the TV.

When I switch between the two sources, I can't see any difference in resolution until I'm about two feet from the screen. That's not the way I intend to enjoy photographs.

Why am I concerned whether my camera is 20Mp or 24Mp or 42Mp?

For cropping and/or printing large ... but not much else.
Back to Top
brian33 View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group

Joined: 21 October 2008
Location: France
Status: Offline
Posts: 7199
Post Options Post Options   Quote brian33 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2017 at 16:38
Yeah I was going to say that the only reason for 20/24/42MP cameras is big prints. Pretty much zero value on screen. I've never made bigger than 30x45cm prints on 10mp camera and the quality is good enough that you can have your nose up against the print and can't see anything but pure smooth image at low ISO so I've always assumed if I had ever printed bigger with 10mp camera I'd be fine. I've made 40x60cm prints with 24MP cameras and same thing: your nose up against the print and there are zero artefacts. And in my opinion you print for the space you're going to put the photo, so a very large print for instance isn't necessarily designed to have your nose right up against it. The whole point is to be able to stand back from it and look at the whole photo.

But then I shouldn't make these arguments to vehemently, the secret MP police may come after me!
I detest bugs, especially spiders.
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3250
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2017 at 22:47
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

My HDTV is only 2.5Mp, and even a new 4k TV is 12Mp ...

I use estimates of 2mp and 8mp. How are your estimates calculated?

Okay, 2.5Mp was a bit of an approximation. It's just over 2Mp I think.
Yes, the quoted value for 4k is 8Mp but that's 16:9. If you take 4:3 or 3:2 images as I generally do, they start out as 10-12Mp before you crop them.

And this is one of my gripes about the latest HD/4k monitors - they are all widescreen which is fine for watchign videos, but if you take many pictures in portrait format they are only half the size, and nowhere near the stated Mp. I find the shift really annoying.

This is why I still keep an old 1280x1024 monitor for editing, so the landscape and portrait pics are both about the same size. Are there any modern affordable monitors with square or near-square size, say around 2k x 2k pixels?

Edited by Miranda F - 11 December 2017 at 22:51
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 701
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2017 at 00:55
Hi Miranda, Help please, how do we get to 12Mp?

A 4k/8Mp screen is a 3:1 pixel mapping to a 24Mp sensor, and a 1080p is 12:1. OTOH, neither screen resolution seems to map cleanly to a 6k x 4k 24Mp sensor. That's where we get into screen ratios, 720p, 1080p, 4k and FUHD (8k) are all 16:9 ratios, not 3:2 as is coming off the sensor. Makes my head hurt . I expect the remapping the display adapter has to do to show us an image without distortion further degrades display sharpness.

I am tempted to dig out my A100 and shoot a side by side with the a6500. My guess is that at 4k I won't be able to tell them apart beyond that the colors off the old CCD sensor will be better. No wonder some of us have been happy with our old Minolta glass. We can't see much but dollar signs in expensive new glass. Think the Sony engineers sit around in the evenings over drinks laughing that for the latest and greatest camera body @ $3,200 they'll move the video button, give us a joystick, a bigger battery and 2 card slots? Or that for another couple of thousand bucks we can't see a sharpness difference between a $20 dollar relic and a $2,000 dollar new lens?

I'm using two monitors for a low tech editing solution, one placed landscape and the other portrait. I generally use the landscape oriented screen for editing, but with portrait shots, the portrait oriented screen comes in handy. The price premium has come so far off new screens, it is not very expensive to throw TVs at the problem. FWIW, 1280x1024 is a 5:4 ratio. That was an oddball for native ratio. Most VGA variations from base 640x480 or like 1024x768 were 4:3. None of the common computer displays have ever been 3:2.

Funny you should mention it, I've got an old roughly square 17" monitor/Tv. The back light quit, but I couldn't stand to throw it out because I paid a hundred dollars an inch for it in 2000. I keep threatening to get a replacement part and fix it, but never quite get around to it.     
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3250
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2017 at 10:23
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

Hi Miranda, Help please, how do we get to 12Mp?    

Well, if you start from 24Mp you can use a 1.4x digital zoom.
Or you can just crop the top and bottom till you get there

I agree the numbers don't always seem to agree exactly with teh various sizes and I'm not sure how the system copes with small differences without losing bits off the sides. I presume it involves resampling, which makes me wonder what the costs are. Downsampling by a lot is usually okay, but downsampling by fractional amounts doesn't sound too good!
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
 



Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 701
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2017 at 16:11
Makes sense. At this point we've got a measure of crop limits before losing resolution. For display at 4k it is about 8Mp, 1/3 of a 24Mp frame and less than 1/5 of a 42Mp. For 1080p it is about 2Mp, 1/12th and 1/20th of a frame respectively. Not only is 4k indistinguishable from 1080p from more than several feet, depending on screen size, but 1080p is indistinguishable from 720p, that's about 1Mp, at more than about 5-6 feet on a large screen.

4k on a large screen is indistinguishable from 720p from a reasonable viewing distance. 720p was superseded by 1080p the better part of a decade ago. Sensors have out resolved viewing screens at least since the Minolta 5D era. The last real increase we've been able to see on from a reasonable viewing distance was when VGA transitioned to 720p. Even that was not dramatic if the move was from XVGA or higher, and with that we are back to the scan rates, phosphor dot pitch and electron gun focus of CRTs.

It puts a fine point on the silliness of pixel peepers blowing images way up to show artifacts and resolution fall off or lens tests that highlight defects that will never show up on a screen. It is also helps explain the rise of phone based photography. It is a variation on the old cartoon, on the internet no one can tell you're a dog.

It might not be a bad idea for Dyxum to update its picture posting size to 720p, 1366x768. That produces a file that is only marginally larger than the current guideline of 1024x960. Neither correspond to sensor 3:2 ratio, but 720p at least hits a display standard. An alternative would be to drop back to 1024x768 the XVGA standard.

This discussions also makes me wonder about the sharpness ratings in Dyxum's lens review data base. We cannot see much of the resolution of sensors. How much of the lens sharpness ratings are based on usable lens performance and how much to other factors, like focus, coatings and herding to cluster with previous ratings?
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm
Back to Top
stiuskr View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 01 September 2006
Country: United States
Location: West Virginia
Status: Offline
Posts: 11261
Post Options Post Options   Quote stiuskr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2017 at 17:56
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

...the current guideline of 1024x960...


It's recommended to post images no wider than 1024px or none taller than 960px, not a 1024x960 format.
Rob Suits Jr.
a99M2 a99 a77 a700 KM7D|Min24/2.8 Min35/2 So50/1.4 So50/2.8 Min85/1.4G Tam90/2.8 Tam180/3.5|Tam17-50 CZ24-70G2 KM28-75D So70-200G1 So70-300G So70-400G1| SonyF60 AD200R2
Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 701
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2017 at 17:58
There is no 1024x960 display format. That was the point I was making. There are 1024x768 and 1280x960, those are obsolescent XVGA and SXGA respectively. HD Ready (720p) is 1280x720 and HD basic at 1366x768 are newer standards. Neither of which will display 960 vertical pixels. We have to get to 1080p to resolve 960 pixels, but that remaps to 1080 high and the horizontal is an unacceptable 1920 pixels wide. The VGA derived standards are a 4:3 ratio, and all HD related standards are 16:9 ratios, versus the sensor 3:2. HD Ready produces files 6.7% smaller than the Dyxum standard, and HD Basic 6.7% larger.

What I was suggesting was that Dyxum's upload standard might conform to a display standard, preferably one of the HD 16:9s. 1024x960 does not seem to do that, nor does it appear to match a native sensor format. You have now made me curious what the logic to the Dyxum upload sizing format is, beyond "not too big" (with which I entirely agree). Help please.

edits: extend and quantify screen display standards and ratios

Edited by Cliff - 12 December 2017 at 19:13
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm
Back to Top
stiuskr View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 01 September 2006
Country: United States
Location: West Virginia
Status: Offline
Posts: 11261
Post Options Post Options   Quote stiuskr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2017 at 23:38
Here's the reasoning behind the recommendation of 1024 wide or 960 high, and the place to continue this discussion and make a suggestion.

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537
Rob Suits Jr.
a99M2 a99 a77 a700 KM7D|Min24/2.8 Min35/2 So50/1.4 So50/2.8 Min85/1.4G Tam90/2.8 Tam180/3.5|Tam17-50 CZ24-70G2 KM28-75D So70-200G1 So70-300G So70-400G1| SonyF60 AD200R2
Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 701
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2017 at 14:32
Thank you, I will pursue it over there. Please understand that the reasoning for specific 1024x960 rather than a similar sized HD display standard is not addressed at the link you provided.

Specifically the question may be is Dyxum ready for HD, a narrower subset of is the world ready for 4k.
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Dyxum Community > Open Talk Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.