www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - On the resolution and sharpness of digital images...
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
On the resolution and sharpness of digital images...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Epidic



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 137
Location: Maine

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Rik. I have trouble following threads too sometimes. The text communication on forums always seems disjointed to me. If you aren't sharing the same point, the view can seem strange. This topic which we are trying to figure out is a very complex one, as I mentioned before. I guess we may not be just "tuning in" to each other. I am thinking "x" and you "y."
_________________
Will
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19184
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep, this stuff is hard to figure out and communicate even you're sitting in front of the same computer, pushing buttons on the same camera, and sketching on the same whiteboard. In some sense it's a miracle that it works at all over the internet. On the other hand, there's probably no more than one other person within 10 miles of me who cares about this stuff, and I have no idea who that individual might be, if in fact they exist! So we make do. Very Happy

I'm glad we got that confusion settled down. I'll be offline for the next couple of days -- it'll be interesting to see what's come up when I get back.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19184
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
Max Lyons reports that when confronted with a 300 dpi wall-sized print of his giga-pixel Bryce Canyon

Epidic wrote:
The GigaPixel project is not really about making good images, just really detailed ones to WOW the audience.

BTW, just to be fair to Max, his interests are in generating beautiful images that also happen to be highly detailed. Check out his web site for examples. As far as I know, Max has no association with the Gigapxl project, which I'll agree has goals that sound very much like what you describe.

On the bright side, though, the Gigapxl project has done some incredible work in lens design and implementation. Each of their lenses is unique by intention. They design to the glass specifications, then measure the actual glass properties for their particular melt, reoptimize, grind the lenses, measure what they ground, reoptimize, and make a custom barrel to hold those particular elements exactly the right distance apart to be optimal for them. The process and performance is really quite impressive; see http://www.gigapxl.org/technology-realized.htm for a description.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Danny
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 725
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting thread and comments.

I guess once I took a K25 slide and placed it under a low powered microscope to view a car number plate taken from a good mile away, I've never even worried about the resolution of digital, why can remain a digital shooters problem Very Happy Wink and also why I've never entered into whats best, film or digital. Personally I'll have slow film any day and yet I shoot digital now and probably always will. Full sized sensor would be nice in a smaller camera though Very Happy

All the best.

Danny.
_________________
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19184
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nzmacro wrote:
Personally I'll have slow film any day and yet I shoot digital now and probably always will.

It's been quite a while since I shot slow film. ISO 200 was my old standby. Turns out that there's not a big difference between my 6.3M pixels DSLR and ISO 200 film. As I wrote here (just this weekend):
Quote:
Overall, this 6.3M pixels DSLR is approximately equal to the tested film, when imaging the same subject area. The DSLR has less resolution than film for high contrast features of the subject, but it captures more low-contrast features.

The difference is due to the gradation. Now if I was just feeling rich enough to shell out for 12 Mpixels instead of making do with 6... Very Happy

--Rik

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 945
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just came across this topic, here is my interpretation . . .

a B/W pair line pattern can be thought as square wave form, say of frequency f. To adequately sample it, by Nyquist-Shannon theorem, you need to have a sample frequency of 2f, and therefore, if you are using DSLR to sample it, you need four samples, ie, four pixels. and resulting four pixels, BB and WW.

Quote:
So, to figure out how many pixels-per-line-pair yield acceptable contrast, we might want to worry not only about best case, but also average case, and maybe even worst case!

What the illustration shows, to my eyes, is that 2.05 pixels-per-line-pair clearly doesn't cut it. That's no surprise, since the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem says that 2.00 would be the absolute limit.


I am not sure what it means by above statement, for me, 2.05 pixes-per-line-pair is only sampling at same frequency (or maybe a bit more due to that 0.05) as signal, far below the theorem limit.
_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group