Wonder about the value of High Resolution

Any number of pixels is plenty, right up to the point where you need more.

How do you know when you need more? You will know when you get there.

Here are a few eagles for Shun :) Shot with the D850 and a 70-200 VRII.

 

[ATTACH=full]1374066[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=full]1374067[/ATTACH]

Great images. I suspect they are highly cropped if you were using a 70-200 lens.

Since we were discussing the need for high pixel counts to enable cropping, would you please post a (reduced size) full image so we can see how much cropping was done and how the high pixel count of the D850 facilitated it?

how much cropping was done

Based on the image size, I'd say about 1/2 for the first and a little less than 1/3 for the second are left of the original image.

Great images. I suspect they are highly cropped if you were using a 70-200 lens.

 

Since we were discussing the need for high pixel counts to enable cropping, would you please post a (reduced size) full image so we can see how much cropping was done and how the high pixel count of the D850 facilitated it?

Sure thing, here you go. Screen grabs off a low-res monitor. Pictures were edited in Capture One V12

Where are you getting that number? At what aperture? Acuity and resolution are not the same. I've seen lots of detail that has low micro-contrast and needs additional sharpening to give it some snap. I'm sure there is a resolution number attached to the AA filter, but I doubt it ever reaches 33% at any aperture, and by the time I'm working at f/11 I suspect it amounts to zero.

Mostly from experience.

I'm not the only one who has experienced color moiré using various older lenses on my D800, so my experience is that the D800 sensor isn't resolving as much as some of the older lenses I put in front of it.

For example, a Leica M9 with 18 MP is sharper than a Sony A7iii with 24 MP, the ratio being roughly 1:1.5 (or 0.67:1).

All my D800 files can be sharp or dull depending on the Sharpness setting. What you are describing here sounds like a function of the Raw conversion and not the sensors' resolution.

Sharpening improves acuity, but not necessarily resolution.

Right, and a file with more resolution can be sharpened more easily or requires less sharpening than a file with less resolution.

The D800E used two AA filters, the second to somewhat counteract the first, much like sharpening in POST. Nothing really helps those legacy lenses in comparison to modern lenses designed for Sony or other MILC's.

By "legacy" do you mean lenses like the:

• AF-S 50mm f1/4G and the three PC-E Micro-NIKKOR lenses (24mm, 45mm, & 85mm) that came out in 2008?
  
• AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G and AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G that came out in 2007?
  
• AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G VR that came out in 2006?
  
• AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2G VR and AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G VR that came out in 2005?
  
• AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G VR and AF-NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D that came out in 2002?
  

That's eleven legacy lenses that came out well before the D800 or even the D7000 (which has the same pixel density) that can easily trigger color moiré on a D800. There are a bunch of other lenses that will also resolve more than what a D800 can record, like all the exotic telephoto lenses, the Micro-NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8, etcetera.

When it comes to who "needs" what, who makes that decision?

I would imagine you don't want anyone else to make this decision or any other decision for you. Others can only offer opinions and sometimes even evidences. That's why there are so many variety of camera equipment, right? We are not even talking about the variety of food that people eat; the docs and nutritionist can only offer their opinions. ;)

Sure thing, here you go. Screen grabs off a low-res monitor. Pictures were edited in Capture One V12

[ATTACH=full]1374187[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=full]1374188[/ATTACH]

Thank you very much, Kevin. Having 46+ MP to work with certainly help when you have to make crops like this (of course excellent technique and talent are also apparent). You have your panning technique down cold to be able to set such a sharp image with a 1/640 shutter speed. Was it hand held or were you on gimble? The detail in your cropped images was superb.

I'm guessing the Z lenses are notably sharper than their F predecessors, not because the Z7 sensor is any higher res than the D850, but the Z8 or 9 will be. And to fully utilize that increase the old F lenses just don't cut it.

There was a time in sensor development where it was empty resolution, most images were no better from a 36MP than a 16MP sensor. However, lenses have now caught up and off we go again...:)

Thank you very much, Kevin. Having 46+ MP to work with certainly help when you have to make crops like this (of course excellent technique and talent are also apparent). You have your panning technique down cold to be able to set such a sharp image with a 1/640 shutter speed. Was it hand held or were you on gimble? The detail in your cropped images was superb.

Thanks for the nice words. It was handheld. Honestly the camera does most of the work. AF-C and a group of 9 focus points is all it took with some luck.

Here are a few eagles for Shun :) Shot with the D850 and a 70-200 VRII.

Nice!

My copy of that lens (on my D850) was never that happy at 200mm even tripod mounted with delayed action. I think it had had a knock in it's past. I'd AF fine tuned for the long end and tried zoomed LV AF, but it never really popped.

I sold it.

Nice!

 

My copy of that lens (on my D850) was never that happy at 200mm even tripod mounted with delayed action. I think it had had a knock in it's past. I'd AF fine tuned for the long end and tried zoomed LV AF, but it never really popped.

 

I sold it.

It's strange how some lenses work and some simply can't be made to function. I had a 1.4G 50 mm like that. Simple enough lens, but no matter what I tried, I could never get a good shot with it. Or if it was sharp per chance it was kind of "meh". I sold it and bought a Zeiss 1.4 50 mm which is a jewel. Incidentally, since I am awaiting the arrival of the Df on Monday, I set up yesterday and ran all my lenses through an AF fine-tune process. Took all day. The 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 didn't need an adjustment. The oldest lens I have, a 105 2.8 Micro and a newer 35 1.8G were fine as well. I guess most are more forgiving since they are 2.8 and 1.8. The one lens that did need some work was the 1.4G 85mm. That ended up with +5 on the AF-fine tune. I always was a bit suspect that it missed here and there but now it seems to focus quit reliably at 1.4 and produces very sharp results. I suspect I will have to do it all over again next week with the Df. My 2 manual lenses are luckily a bit "off", so I know where to set them just left and right of the green dot as the travel during the time the green dot is lit is too great to provide accurate focus.

I don't print much. I find my 20mb enough for slide shows on my 75" 4K TV (8mb). 20mb camera also provides cropping room. I also show 4K movies on it. Frankly, it's hard to see any difference between 4K (2160-8mb) and 2K (1080-2mb) uprezed by the TV to 4K unless you get within a few feet of the TV. CAn't imagine how anyone would see a difference with 8K (4320-32mb).

It's a sales trick ... If you are in the store and walking back and forth between 4K LED or 4K Sony or 4K OLED TV's, then you will see quite a difference and of course you'll want the best picture. Once you get the TV home, you'll be simply amazed how good it is, even if you bought the cheaper of the options. After 20+ years without a TV, I went through this process just the last few weeks. Ended up with a non-OLED Sony LED TV and a 4K UHD Blu-ray player to watch movies (I don't have or want cable). Since the whole rig is attached to the wall and has wifi, it can rotate through my slideshows as well, which is a treat. Part of the reason I bought it was more for photography than anything else, but those TVs need a bit of work to get the picture to be realistic.

It's a sales trick ... If you are in the store and walking back and forth between 4K LED or 4K Sony or 4K OLED TV's, then you will see quite a difference and of course you'll want the best picture. Once you get the TV home, you'll be simply amazed how good it is, even if you bought the cheaper of the options. After 20+ years without a TV, I went through this process just the last few weeks. Ended up with a non-OLED Sony LED TV and a 4K UHD Blu-ray player to watch movies (I don't have or want cable). Since the whole rig is attached to the wall and has wifi, it can rotate through my slideshows as well, which is a treat. Part of the reason I bought it was more for photography than anything else, but those TVs need a bit of work to get the picture to be realistic.

I calibrated mine too. But after a while, you get used to whatever the TV shows, within reason of course.

Frankly, I think a TV does a better on than old-time projection. TV's backlight, similar to your monitor. Projectors reflect the light off a screen. So TV slide shows are deeper and brighter and more contrasty, things I like. TV's are also easier to set up, always ready to show to surprise your unsuspecting guests. :)

The TV in our living room just went out of service. I'm looking at those TV's to replace it that are made for displaying home photos so they look like a framed picture. They're pricier but have gotten good reviews. After Covid ends, and we can get out, we'll go to the stores and check them out. Does anyone have any experience with them?

Based on the image size, I'd say about 1/2 for the first and a little less than 1/3 for the second are left of the original image.

A high MP image leaving plenty of room for cropping is surely handy for re-composition. That's probably why we see a lot more well composed (or beautifully cropped) wildlife images now than before, especially bird-in-flight images. This makes one recall renewed respect for great wildlife photographers of slide-shooting days.

Why is it high resolution digital cameras seem less affected by aliasing and Moire patterns? I think it's a matter of scale. Interferrence patterns are proportional to the size of the pixels.

In days of old (12 years ago), when high-end digital cameras had 12 MP or less, garbage cans and picket fences bore rainbow stripes unless equipped with AA filters. I had to be very careful with fences, fabric (and corrugated metal) with my 16 MP Hasselblad back. The same with my 18 MP Leica M10, but to a lesser extent. On the other hand, none of the Sony A7R cameras have used AA filters, with little problem with Moire. Details leading to Moire are usually too small to be discerned by the unaided eye, and any Moire as well.

Why is it high resolution digital cameras seem less affected by aliasing and Moire patterns? I think it's a matter of scale. Interferrence patterns are proportional to the size of the pixels.

 

In days of old (12 years ago), when high-end digital cameras had 12 MP or less, garbage cans and picket fences bore rainbow stripes unless equipped with AA filters. I had to be very careful with fences, fabric (and corrugated metal) with my 16 MP Hasselblad back. The same with my 18 MP Leica M10, but to a lesser extent. On the other hand, none of the Sony A7R cameras have used AA filters, with little problem with Moire. Details leading to Moire are usually too small to be discerned by the unaided eye, and any Moire as well.

I've actually tried to force it with the D850, shooting a straight pattern with stacking. Even when slightly out of focus, there is no moire to be seen, which is good. This was with a 105 2.8 micro

Sorry Mary, but I'm not that impressed by Gigapixel AI after a 'quick' experiment.. that took me the best part of a day.

I shot a pixel-shifted image at a mere 240 megapixels, with my Sony a7RIV and 55mm f/3.5 micro-Nikkor. A lens that I know can resolve 200 lppmm.

Here's the full-frame with the cropped area highlighted (~ 710 x 380 pixels).

Firstly, here's the high res original - left - alongside a straight Bicubic 2x Photoshop upsize of a non-pixel-shifted frame, which was taken from the 16 shot pixel-shift series.

As you can see, the pixel-shifting really does work, and the detail is incredible. Dust and all!

Now here's what Gigapixel made of the upsize.... eventually.... after grinding my 8 core CPU into the ground for over an hour.

Looks sharp at a distance, but really doesn't bear close scrutiny IMHO.

Adding some smart sharpen filter to the straight PS upsize gets us this.

I think it looks remarkably similar to the Gigapixel result.

To be fair, Gigapixel AI worked a bit better on a smaller file. This was shot with the same framing and a 35mm lens on a 24 megapixel D7200.

This time I applied the best sharpening settings I could to the 300% upsize on the left. Gigapixel, on the right, is a slight improvement in my view. However, I found that the way it dealt with RAW files was just weird. The brightness and colour saturation were all over the place.

A bit of a thumbs down from me I'm afraid.

Sorry Mary, but I'm not that impressed by Gigapixel AI after a 'quick' experiment.. that took me the best part of a day.

Did you use the latest version? They update it just about every single month. For me, the few that I tried were excellent. It is also possible that we are looking for different things. For example, I am not enlarging for engineering precision. If the AI "makes a decision" that enhances the nature and wildlife photo, so much the better.

Also, the crop area you enlarged is ridiculously tiny. You did this as an extremely picky test, and this is unlikely to happen in real life. If someone shoots like that with no regard for what he/she is trying to capture, I would suggest he/she does something other than photography. :eek:

See Topaz Gigapixel AI in 2020 | Best At Photo Enlarging | Cool Wildlife

'quick' experiment..

I sure hope no "photographer" crops like that. ;)

Mary, the crop was from a 60 megapixel frame that's 9,000 pixels wide! It was still 710 pixels high by 380 wide.

Anything much bigger would have been too large to post inline here.

I also tried it on a much larger crop of a latticed window with a vine growing round it. The brickwork around the window gained a 'painted' look, while the vine was made to look like a plastic plant. There was also a colour speckling given to the stone mullions of the window. I tried all 3 settings - Auto, Normal and Architectural.

Again, the straightfoward Bicubic upsize and smart sharpen filter in Photoshop gave a result that would print more than adequately wile not looking at all artificial.

The version of Gigapixel used was 5.2.2, which I believe is quite recent.

Heaven help us if AI ever starts flying planes!

Does Gigapixel have a Photoshop plugin?

Only for the latest CC versions.

To elaborate a bit more on Gigapixel's workflow.

I always shoot RAW + JPEG, and usually work from the RAW file. Now Gigapixel's handling of RAW files is basic. No lens corrections or exposure or CA correction can be applied - as far as I can see. Therefore something like ACR or the excellent CaptureOne need to be used first, and the file exported as a TIFF to retain the most detail.

Then Gigapixel will take minutes ploughing its way through a moderately big file. To give a result you may not like at the end.

All I'm saying is that it results in at least a doubling of time in workflow and it's not all rosey and neat and tidy.

It's not value, it's selling point. We have cell phones with 100 megapixel and we have new generation of new customers, not photographers, who are willing to pay for those pixels.

This market is driven by wants, not needs. Those customers don't even realize that Instagram only 1080 pix wide:)