Higher camera or screen resolution?

<p>I am a happy 5D mark II owner who has quit printing my pictures, all goes online. In these days of megapixel race, wouldn't it be better if our SCREENS had higher resolution instead? It would be nice if Canon (or other) made screens with the same resolution as the cameras.<br>

A 42", 4000x6000px screen anyone? Would be the price of a car I guess, but I really think effort should be put on the presentation of images instead. Anyone agree?</p>

<p>Google "8K TV". It will give you 7680 x 4320 pixels.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/01/10/ces-sharp-shows-off-8k-lcd-16x-hd-resolution/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/01/10/ces-sharp-shows-off-8k-lcd-16x-hd-resolution/</a></p>

<p>You can't afford it. In fact you can't even buy it yet. As they say "...Resolution this good is coming. If you live long enough..."</p>

<p>Right now, for $50,000 you can buy the Mitsubishi 3480 x 2160 52" monitor though. Perhaps you'll be able to put up with that for a while?</p>

<p>

I suspect that if you no longer print and just view images online that a 5D MkII will be way overkill for the next 10 years. In fact any current DSLR will be way overkill. If I was shooting for web use only, I'd probably get a Nikon Coolpix 510 with a 24-1000mm zoom and save myself a lot of money and inconvenience.

<p>I have a 27" 1920 x1440 Cinema Display and still it's a long way from the rez of my 5D2. I wouldn't mind a little bigger display but I'd like to keep my wall for pictures and books. Unlike Jorgen, I print, mat and frame my images much more than my film days as it's cheaper, faster and better quality than it ever was. My typical prints are 11x14 and 12x18 but mural sized prints on canvas are great for those special scenes. The main problem is wall space. Maybe I'll try mounting to my ceilings...</p>

<p>I agree with Bob, if you don't print big there is no advantage to using a 5D2, just bulk. I'd save a few bucks and pounds and get a smaller prosumer model that shoots RAW.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I was shooting for web use only, I'd probably get a Nikon Coolpix 510 with a 24-1000mm zoom and save myself a lot of money and inconvenience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I agree. I think the full frame/high resolution thing has become religion, disconnected from any user needs. Kind of like 0-60 in four seconds, I can't think of anywhere except the race track an hour away that I could even try that out. I have a show up in a corporate location, 20"x30" prints from shots taken with a 1.3x 11.3Mpix camera. So far nobody thinks they look anything less than stellar. I don't need a screen with that kind of resolution, I think I would go blind trying to look at it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the... high resolution thing has become religion, disconnected from any user needs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends <em>entirely </em>on what you shoot.</p>

<p>With my bird images, comparing the output of my 7D with my 40D (using exactly the same lens) I can see clear and worthwhile differences in microcontrast and fine detail at screen sizes, and<em> </em>at A4 (8" x 12" approx) they're even more obvious. By A3 (12" x 17" - as big as I usually print) the benefits of the 7D's additional resolution are pretty glaring, a trend I would expect to continue if I printed bigger than that.</p>

<p>They're writing about users whom never print and only display images on web galleries. Since you actually print your images, you obviously benefit from the better resolution and noise performance.</p>

<p>How do we know that we'll never print again? Storage is cheap enough that I shoot and process everything in the highest resolution possible and then resize for online usage. I was thankful that I did so when I decided to make an 11x15" book with three 11x30" dual page spreads of some travel pictures. The 5D2 printing was stunning and can easily stand up to much larger printing.</p>

<p>If you decide to offer images for sale as prints, then resolution is going to be critical again. I suppose that I might be more careful with my GBs if storage weren't so inexpensive.</p>

<p>Unless you are displaying your images to raptors or to people who are standing way to close to the display, the answer is simple:</p>

<p>Increasing the resolution of a display medium past what they eye can resolve is pointless. The HDTV standard (1920x1080) wasn't picked at random, but was actually chosen to provide about the maximum level of detail a human eye can resolve at typical viewing distances. There would be some utility in pushing to 4K (as we inevitably will) but going past that is truly pointless. The main problem with computer display isn't the resolution but the limited color space provided by being restricted to 8 bits per color channel. </p>

<p>Cameras are designed to provide a high resolution because I might crop or I might make a really large print (3+ feet) that I expect my viewers to stand relatively close to. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Puppy Face, If you're replying to me, I started with:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>With my bird images, comparing the output of my 7D with my 40D (using exactly the same lens) I can see clear and worthwhile differences in microcontrast and fine detail at screen sizes</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't print much, just enough to stay in the loop - my stuff is primarily viewed on electronic media, and I can see a clear difference between 10 mp and 18 mp there too.</p>