Mikehit said:
But that isn't what you do, is it?
The aim of any photographer is to deliver the best image he or she could for a given *output* resolution and size. That often implies to understand the characteristics of a given *input* resolution, ISO and exposure, to decide how to process the image to deliver that best *output*.
Some authors believe *some* characteristics like noise are best evaluated at 1:1 because an image pixels maps to a screen pixel without any processing between. It doesn't tell anything of the quality of the final output image, which depends on many other factors.
It's just a way to ensure you really see what you're looking for - a single characteristic -, and nothing hides or modifies it. I think it's a reasonable approach. But of course no one is forced to use it (and really see no reason why use an offensive tone to say it).
I use to evaluate noise and sharpening at 1:1, especially for critical areas (and depending on output, an A3+ requires may require more care than an A6), then change it to a lower magnification which could give a better understanding of how it would look at the final output - which will show you other characteristics you can't see at 1:1 - and then print a proof, of course. I found I need less printed proofs following this process.
Is the IV *input* more "grainy" of the III, or is it just a a psychological effect of the higher resolution? And is that "grain" noise, and not the effect of looking at smaller details now resolved? I do not know. But it's something that can be quantitatively and objectively measured (for what is worth....), if needed - just IMHO all other parameters must be equal, or the comparison is skewed.
Then I'm quite sure a sensor with more pixel can deliver a better image than one with less for a given size and resolution - the image will be downsampled more, or less upsampled (if ever needed). It's just like large format cameras deliver less "grainy images" because they didn't need to be enlarged much, using the same emulsion.
But if you want to compare two emulsion to evaluate their grain (not the image they produce), you would look at the film (maybe with a microscope), not get a 35mm and a 6x7 one and print them at the same size - the latter would win anyway unless really worse. And yes, these kind of comparisons are often very little useful, especially if the differences are small enough and visible only in corner cases, what matters is the final image you're able to deliver.
Even without Dilbert. Seriously though, each thread always provides some tidbits of useful information (if you're willing to wade through the not so useful).
