Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera

[Lee Jay]

For me, 'everyday shooting/viewing' doesn't comprise tripod mounted static subjects cropped to 100%. If that's your usual method/subject, then bravo – your results have validity as far as comparing teleconverters vs. pixel interpolation for increased resolution, which is certainly not the topic at hand.

You don't need a tripod and static subjects to get little or no relevant movement during an exposure. Good technique, fast shutter speeds, and IS can all combine to get pixel-level performance equal to the best you can get in the lab, and I do it regularly. I shoot a lot of airplanes and often have final images that are 1:1 pixel crops from a crop camera with a 2x teleconverter mounted.

You are so wrong there. Granted you may; or may not. For the bayer pattern of pixels to describe everything accurately any microscopic movement and your four three colour arrays will receive confused information. Frequently the data from a hand held shot can looked clogged up - if you're going to be really picky about it, and that is infantisimal movement. IS does not produce the same data as a genuinely stable shooting platform, and remember just because it's on a tripod doesn't mean it's totally stable.

So when you say "good technique, fast shutter + IS = as good as in the lab" ( by the 'lab' I presume you mean rock steady platform etc etc.) then that statement is both misleading and wrong.

I agree.

Well, then you're both wrong.

What a tripod buys you is reliability. But I often shoot shots for photogrammetry that are handheld out of necessity and they are pixel-sharp. Shooting at 200mm and 1/3200th is one way to do that. The other way is to shoot many shots using IS and good technique along with modest shutter speeds around 1/f and some will be near-perfect and some will be soft due to motion blur.

As I said, I regularly produce 1:1 pixel crops for final images and it's fairly common for me not to have enough pixels left over. That's why I want a higher pixel density camera for when I'm focal length limited.

 

[Loswr]

For me, 'everyday shooting/viewing' doesn't comprise tripod mounted static subjects cropped to 100%. If that's your usual method/subject, then bravo – your results have validity as far as comparing teleconverters vs. pixel interpolation for increased resolution, which is certainly not the topic at hand.

You don't need a tripod and static subjects to get little or no relevant movement during an exposure. Good technique, fast shutter speeds, and IS can all combine to get pixel-level performance equal to the best you can get in the lab, and I do it regularly. I shoot a lot of airplanes and often have final images that are 1:1 pixel crops from a crop camera with a 2x teleconverter mounted.

You are so wrong there. Granted you may; or may not. For the bayer pattern of pixels to describe everything accurately any microscopic movement and your four three colour arrays will receive confused information. Frequently the data from a hand held shot can looked clogged up - if you're going to be really picky about it, and that is infantisimal movement. IS does not produce the same data as a genuinely stable shooting platform, and remember just because it's on a tripod doesn't mean it's totally stable.

So when you say "good technique, fast shutter + IS = as good as in the lab" ( by the 'lab' I presume you mean rock steady platform etc etc.) then that statement is both misleading and wrong.

I agree.

Well, then you're both wrong.

What a tripod buys you is reliability. But I often shoot shots for photogrammetry that are handheld out of necessity and they are pixel-sharp. Shooting at 200mm and 1/3200th is one way to do that. The other way is to shoot many shots using IS and good technique along with modest shutter speeds around 1/f and some will be near-perfect and some will be soft due to motion blur.

As I said, I regularly produce 1:1 pixel crops for final images and it's fairly common for me not to have enough pixels left over. That's why I want a higher pixel density camera for when I'm focal length limited.

Or perhaps all three of you are right, but two of you have more stringent standards for pixel-level sharpness than the third.

 

[Lee Jay]

Or perhaps all three of you are right, but two of you have more stringent standards for pixel-level sharpness than the third.

I don't see a lot of motion blur in this shot.

 

[BeenThere]

Or perhaps all three of you are right, but two of you have more stringent standards for pixel-level sharpness than the third.

I don't see a lot of motion blur in this shot.

Looks sharp except for the prop. I like the prop blurred.

 

[scyrene]

Or perhaps all three of you are right, but two of you have more stringent standards for pixel-level sharpness than the third.

I don't see a lot of motion blur in this shot.

What do you put the lack of sharpness even at web resolutions down to then? The model has a diffuse edge for anti radar detection or the forum algorithms messed with it. Because it is far from critically sharp to me. And you have the benefit of very good light and high contrast helping you make that mediocre sharp shot.

I thought Neuro was being pithy with his comment (no offense) but I think he might be right.

That picture is too small to judge much, but I think we must all accept "critically sharp" is a subjective term. Indeed, even for a single person, it depends on how a photo is to be used/viewed. I'll accept lower sharpness for an image I won't be cropping (much), because it's going to end up downsampled for online viewing or printed - and it's rare I print big.

 

[Lee Jay]

That picture is too small to judge much,

It's a near 1:1 pixel crop.

 

[Lee Jay]

Or perhaps all three of you are right, but two of you have more stringent standards for pixel-level sharpness than the third.

I don't see a lot of motion blur in this shot.

What do you put the lack of sharpness even at web resolutions down to then?

I don't like my pictures over-sharpened and this was taken with a 2x teleconverter.

 

[scyrene]

That picture is too small to judge much,

It's a near 1:1 pixel crop.

In that case it's sharp enough to me - judging by the fine wires. But as I say, it's down to personal taste.

 

[scyrene]

Or perhaps all three of you are right, but two of you have more stringent standards for pixel-level sharpness than the third.

I don't see a lot of motion blur in this shot.

What do you put the lack of sharpness even at web resolutions down to then?

I don't like my pictures over-sharpened and this was taken with a 2x teleconverter.

So what? It is not critically sharp, Neuro was right, our ideas of critically sharp are completely different.

As a hopefully impartial observer, could I ask you post a shot you deem critically sharp? So we have an idea what you mean. I'm intrigued how people differ on this

 

[Lee Jay]

So what? It is not critically sharp, Neuro was right, our ideas of critically sharp are completely different.

Anything sharper than that is crunchy, and ugly.

Any motion blur in that shot is much less than half a pixel.

 

[Lee Jay]

Here's another one. This plane is going about 200mph and is around a quarter of a mile away. This is also a near 1:1 pixel crop.

 

[Lee Jay]

No problem.

Do you realize that hair, fur and feathers are naturally going to be perceived as higher in detail than something like Monokote, which is iron-on heat-shrink plastic?

That shot is no sharper than the ones I posted, and it's of a stationary subject that appears to be quite close.

Maybe you just aren't familiar with how to judge sharpness of subjects that are furry. Here's a 100% crop that's far, far easier to get than the previous ones I posted.

 

[Sporgon]

As a hopefully impartial observer, could I ask you post a shot you deem critically sharp? So we have an idea what you mean. I'm intrigued how people differ on this

This is a single frame from a new pano, shot on 5DII + 40mm pancake, 1/20. f7.1, ISO 100, two second timer, mirror lock, 16 pound Manfrotto 058.

The whole picture is reduced for this website, the crop is full size. There will be some air diffusion as I was beside a river and the temperature was falling rapidly from about +5c to below freezing. However I am close enough to the subject for it not to make much difference.

The only sharpening applied to cancel out the AA is 100% of 0.3 pixel, threshold level 1. Obviously you could sharpen this as much as you wanted.

 

[Lee Jay]

Okay, here's a branch in your shot versus a flying wire in my shot, both at 400%. Both are the same width (1-2 pixels). The feathers in the bird shot are 1-3 pixels wide.

 

[Lee Jay]

Okay, here's a branch in your shot versus a flying wire in my shot, both at 400%. Both are the same width (1-2 pixels). The feathers in the bird shot are 1-3 pixels wide.

And that illustrates what a complete liar you are, your shot shows sharpening artifacts and mine looks exactly like you'd expect a 400% crop of a thin angled portion to look.

I believe you once called me an idiot in the forum, well rather an idiot always trying to learn than a liar trying to bully.

Those are largely JPEG artifacts, and now we know for sure that you can't judge an image. Both images has the same width of minimum feature size, yet you claimed one isn't sharp and one is, in the context of using a tripod which is for removing motion blur. If my shot had motion blur, it's minimum feature size wouldn't be 1-2 pixels as that would be impossible.

 

[Lee Jay]

Here's another not critically sharp shot for you.

 

[jrista]

Heh, this thread is absolutely hilarious. The debate about immeasurable differences in "critical sharpness" is beyond inane. All of these photos are critically sharp, ppl!! Your making mountains out of grains of sand. The mole hills are off to the left...why not at least make a mountain out of a mole hill, if you must make a mountain out of something pointless.


???

 

[privatebydesign]

Heh, this thread is absolutely hilarious. The debate about immeasurable differences in "critical sharpness" is beyond inane. All of these photos are critically sharp, ppl!! Your making mountains out of grains of sand. The mole hills are off to the left...why not at least make a mountain out of a mole hill, if you must make a mountain out of something pointless.


???

And you, my dear friend, have never tried to make a molehill into a mountain? Go look for some unmistakable Exmor shadow smoothness.

 

[privatebydesign]

Okay, here's a branch in your shot versus a flying wire in my shot, both at 400%. Both are the same width (1-2 pixels). The feathers in the bird shot are 1-3 pixels wide.

And that illustrates what a complete liar you are, your shot shows sharpening artifacts and mine looks exactly like you'd expect a 400% crop of a thin angled portion to look.

I believe you once called me an idiot in the forum, well rather an idiot always trying to learn than a liar trying to bully.

Those are largely JPEG artifacts, and now we know for sure that you can't judge an image. Both images has the same width of minimum feature size, yet you claimed one isn't sharp and one is, in the context of using a tripod which is for removing motion blur. If my shot had motion blur, it's minimum feature size wouldn't be 1-2 pixels as that would be impossible.

And you are questioning my abilities when you can't even make a 312 px under 5mb jpeg without artifacts when you have the original file?

Utterly amazing.

 

[TeT]

ONLY!

....that cracked me up

Sincerely,
Easily Amused