On the sharpness and detail in thin. photographs

Pages: 1 2 3 4

16.02.2009 17:27:00
 

16.02.2009 18:02:00

From the article:
Firstly, we see that in the context of employment in artistic photography is no longer any need for electronic monstruoziyah a la Apple Macintosh with 16-32 GB of onboard memory and 8 CPU cores.

not see the point of evidence that such "monstruozii" are not necessary. For no one talks about the need for such "monstruozy" in the context of a class of artistic photography.

16.02.2009 18:04:00

Why, Saturn surely says) He his giga-pan just on these sticks together, not only Macs, and PC. Panoramas (landscapes) - is art photography?

16.02.2009 18:21:00

Panoramas (landscapes) - is art photography?
indisputable. What?

16.02.2009 18:31:00
I empirically the impression that the 10 megapixel enough for 60x90, But! Depth Kropanov me ph sometimes reaches the transition ref. 10-12 M to 2 megapixels. . So I think not only 12, but 24 megapixel enough for me in general.

16.02.2009 18:36:00
Sorry for offtopic, but the images from which is 20% of the area look like tsifromylo

16.02.2009 18:36:00

24 megapixel enough for me in general
Especially fun rabbis with 24 megapixel such matrices to convert in the field on a laptop, when several hundred photos per day. . .
to me would be better matrix was 6 megapixels and think that the head is removed.

16.02.2009 18:38:00

Watching how to receive them. If you shoot in RAW and not carried the fight against noise, not peresharplivali, you look like a strong increase from 35 mm film.

16.02.2009 18:47:00

Watching how to receive them. If you shoot in RAW and not carried the fight against noise, not peresharplivali, you look like a strong increase from 35 mm film.
What about is the "look like tsifromylo."

to me would be better matrix was 6 megapixels and think that the head is removed.
Duc sorts 10D, D100 and D7D readily available, why was it the case?

16.02.2009 18:55:00

Panoramas (landscapes) - is art photography?
It's just a picture. And about the "art" of panoramas not judge.
We call these panoramas "highly specialized task." Exceptions to the excesses of "monstrosity."

16.02.2009 19:01:00

do not agree with you. "Tsifromylo" or "large tsifromylo" - a jagged outlines of objects surrounded by failures of detail (worked denoising) in addition to the artifacts jpg:)

16.02.2009 19:30:00
quote:
turns out that efficiently and comfortably handle images (even with the slide 9x12) can ordinary dual-core computer with 2 GB of RAM.
wonder where it came from? It looks like a spherical horse in a vacuum. I somehow do not see the calculation of resource consumption for different operations. Already on the computer with the above configuration response to some of the operations of a second. Neither of which the comfort of not talking. I'm not talking about what would be good to have the opportunity at this time to keep open other programs.

16.02.2009 20:22:00
Athlon x2 3800 + \\ 3GB operatives - for Photoshop and laytruma basically missing. With a slide of course powerful something we ought to, but my 12MP Rava handles quite smartly. Another thing is that the performance of watch: regular optimization and defragmentation, check viral (+ small acceleration till2, 4 GHz) - all this ensures proper operation. How many times have worked on more powerful but not optimized configuration - much brake.

16.02.2009 20:36:00
And who would not want a computer more powerful, and ph abruptly. . . . I have nothing against eight nuclear Mac Pro works great. And the guys from gigapixel the number of gigapixel not complain. Another thing is how much it costs, and the general theme of arts endless. . . .
Conclusions author in the 21st century look extremely naive. . .
can, of course, and flea shoe on the knee. . . .

16.02.2009 21:30:00
Very interesting article. Thank U. Only reason she has the outline of the development of the material in the style of "started for the health, finished for the dead." In a sense, the logic of the presentation suffers.

16.02.2009 22:03:00

It's all very scientific, that's just do the simple experience. Remove a good zoom 2x or more highly detailed scene at the wide end, and then on a long 4 frames and glue panorama. Printed on the same format obtained from your theory for a single frame and hang on the wall. Oddly enough the difference is visible where a long distance than 1. 5 diagonal.

16.02.2009 22:23:00
I have here is always another question tormented as I in 2000 is different from medium format scans from 35mm at the then Internet's pictures 800x600. After all, in theory
given to such a size images should not have been different

16.02.2009 22:28:00
Interesting article. Several technical comments.

1. To grads (there is a unit of measurement of the angle) is not to be confused with degrees, not degrees should be reduced to "hail". If used actually grads (probably in the article it is not), then it should negotiate separately, because of their low applicability in Russia.
2. The results of calculations, including the interim, it is better to be tabulated, and not lead to smooth text. The tables are better perceived, and easier to compare the results with each other.
3. You should not result in the calculation results more significant figures than they have in the original data. Impresses neprofesionalizma. (See. Krylov).

And one more remark. In principle.

Too many calculations, in my opinion unnecessary. All pathetic article, if I understand correctly it is based on the idea of ​​the spatial resolution of the human eye to 1. 5 arc minutes. Further can be summarized in one paragraph. About this.

To ensure full "visual diet" this is the eye, it is necessary to have an angular resolution images better than 0. 75 arc minute. According to the rules of the author, the image is forbidden to approach closer to 1. 5 diagonal. In other words, the closer 2. 7 short side (height) of the image if it has an aspect ratio of 2: 3. Consequently, the angle at which the image height is visible to the eye is 2 * arctg (0. 5/2. 7) = 21 degrees . Hence the required resolution is 21 * 60/0. 75 = 1700 dots per picture height. Consequently, any film can be scanned with a resolution of better than 2000 points on the height of the frame.

course, if you disable the viewer to come closer. And sometimes I want. . .

16.02.2009 22:28:00


Halftone, volume, well, stupid format.

17.02.2009 0:39:00

course, if you disable the viewer to come closer. And sometimes I want. . .
Remember Bladerunner? When the room replicant Leon policeman Deckard found a photograph, apparently holographic, with almost infinite detail! Here is a camera would. . .

17.02.2009 5:09:00

Thanks for the article. I would like to clarify something.
In accordance with your conclusions we have 2 numbers: from 2000 dpi to 4000 dpi
I watched tests permission to dpreview. com
It turns out that for APS-C cameras from 10 MP performed the optimal condition of adequacy in 2000 dpi
If you look up to, then the Sony A900 with full-sized sensor and 24 megapixel still resolution does not hold out a bit?
And on lenses? Well, for example looked Sony 50/1. 4 - all very sharply, but less than 2500 dpi (as I understand chart MTF).
In this case, if we consider the version with distance 0, 87 long side of the print, the waste of money still is infinite?
turns out that the article only shows the pointlessness of scanning 135 film with a resolution of 4000 dpi. And for a bunch of DSLR + lens these findings so far with relevant qualifications?

17.02.2009 11:10:00

Yes please. Right now, about what you describe (though not holographic: -):
http: // gigapan. org / index. php

And for viewing on paper - print it that way width of 1. 6 meters on the Epson 11880, and come close, to examine the details. Move away - to see the whole.

17.02.2009 12:04:00
Lord, I can not discuss here. If you wish to discuss, please here: http: // club. foto. ru / forum / view_topic. php? topic_id = 39 ...; page = 1 # listStart

17.02.2009 13:29:00
will be discussed when the article is completed by the phrase "ten printed so-and-so, scanned with such a resolution, and ten other people, viewing photos, come to such a view."
But, and this is not the point, because, being a man carefully considered not only photographs but also paintings and sculptures and stonework and TP (hello 'desire to compare photographic opportunities ").

Therefore, even the subject matter remains.

17.02.2009 14:01:00
quote:
:
will be discussed when the article is completed by the phrase "ten printed so-and-so, scanned with such a resolution, and ten other people, viewing photos, come to such a view."
But, and this is not the point, because, being a man carefully considered not only photographs but also paintings and sculptures and stonework and TP (hello 'desire to compare photographic opportunities ").

Therefore, even the subject matter remains.

Alas, we are again faced with the problem: http: // forum. neuroscience. ru / showthread. php? t = 2469

17.02.2009 14:13:00

Alas, we are again faced with the problem: http: // forum. neuroscience. ru / showthread. php? t = 2469
likely.
Maybe I should like to repeat my thought at least three times, but, due to the insignificance of threads do not become.
 

17.02.2009 14:14:00


quote:
we are again faced with the problem of
And we, your readers are confronted with the same problem. The trouble is simple.

are two quotes, one from the beginning of the article, the other from the end.
quote:
Therefore, in this article we will try to answer the question: "To what extent parse parts of artistic photographs should seek the photographer? »
quote:
So, if we make an effort, got out of his beloved tehnopesochnitsy and, at least for a period of reflection on this article, it will take a psychophysiological approach to the problem, then we arrive at a very, very interesting conclusions.

Firstly, we see that in the context of employment in artistic photography is no longer any need for electronic monstruoziyah a la Apple Macintosh with 16-32 GB of onboard memory and 8 CPU cores. It turns out that efficiently and comfortably handle images (even with the slide 9x12) can ordinary dual-core computer with 2 GB of RAM. Savings at the same time it makes sense spent on something more worthwhile, for example, good optics with a beautiful pattern, or a hundred or so films (yet they still produce).

In the last quote even paragraphs have no common sense.


17.02.2009 14:17:00

Alas, we are again faced with the problem: http: // forum. neuroscience. ru / showthread. php? t = 2469
e. all dissenters by definition simply can not read? Conveniently, do not say anything.

Lord, I can not discuss here. If you wish to discuss, please here: http: // club. foto. ru / forum / view_topic. php? topic_id = 39 ...; page = 1 # listStart
Well there is no way. Not the occasion to climb in the trash.

17.02.2009 15:35:00

similar, but not that! It is impossible to look around the corner!

17.02.2009 16:00:00
The author, unfortunately, very difficult language of presentation, to the same problem with terminalogii. . .
As a result, the article gets it virtually useless For most users because they can not properly absorb and understand.
This is not the first article, which is simply impossible to read: - \\

One name that stands

About sharpness and detail in the Hood. photos
Continue on just do not feel like it. . .

[. . . ]

17.02.2009 16:00:00

as being a man carefully considered not only photographs but also paintings and sculptures and stonework and TP
I can only guess that it is written in "B. Eremeeva, T. Hrizman, boys and girls. Two different worlds, St. Petersburg, 1994. "given in the reference list, but probably something like" man loves his eyes, a woman - ears. " Most likely it evolyuchionnoe achievement -Search food at one and care for the offspring of others. During the existence of the evolution of photography is not very far removed

17.02.2009 16:16:00

Toyko I guess that is written in the "In. Eremeeva, T. Hrizman, boys and girls. Two different worlds, St. Petersburg, 1994." given in the reference list, but probably something like "man loves his eyes, and a woman - ears. "
Whatever was written, this does not exclude that such attentive examination is the basis of personal artistic photos vopriyatiya individual. I repeat - the basis of personal perception of the artistic component.
In other words, the detail can serve just one of the parameters, the effect of which in conjunction with other (color, tone, etc.) and creates the overall impression of the subject matter, forming, including, and appreciated by the artistry.

Uff. repeated three times. the norm.

17.02.2009 17:06:00
quote:
:
The author, unfortunately, very difficult language of presentation, to the same problem with terminalogii. . .
& lt; . . . & Gt;
One name that stands

About sharpness and detail in the Hood. photos
Continue on just do not feel like it. . .
"Terminology" is derived from the word "term" and not "terminal". So who's the problem? terminology which I operate - the internationally accepted vocabulary, spelled out in the International Lighting dictionary: http: // shadrin. rudtp. ru / Personal / Shadrin_CIEVOC. htm Her ignorance you are not a sign of my problem.

The difficulties of language: if you are able to rewrite this article everyday language, without losing a single thought, I will publish it in place of my own. Go for it.
quote:
author, would do well to improve our knowledge of related areas, from the same TV for example.
Hunt The book "Color reproduction" 250 pages of text devoted to color television - a huge section. Due to the fact that I translated this book had to best deal with the issue (although it is not my profile). When will the translation (hopefully in the near future - depends pradva, the editor and proofreader), you can get acquainted with the material.

17.02.2009 17:18:00
What is the difference to your vzglya, in terms of sharpness, detail, resolution?

17.02.2009 17:30:00
quote:
:
What is the difference to your vzglya, in terms of sharpness, detail, resolution? Only
detail: gigi:
my view does not exist. There is a science. Scientific approach to your question is contained in the chapter "The structure of the photographic image", which you can find in the near future.

17.02.2009 17:47:00
Doubfull: So, my offer still stands: you rewrite the material in a language accessible to housewives. If you do not lose a single thought, but the text but not uvilichivaetsya ten times, I publish it instead of her. By
hands (or even find fault else's easy, but as themselves portray something - so in the bushes). More
stay here there is no possibility. If foto. ru believe garbage, then we can discuss here: http: // forum. rudtp. ru / showthread. php? t = 38260

17.02.2009 18:14:00
If foto. ru believe garbage, then we can discuss here
As you stuck, and where I like wrote in this thread?
I really appreciate your work, but I do not like you it poses.
work on it and the masses to reach for you.

There are also writers like afanasa, so they cite, because that is stated in plain language.

17.02.2009 18:19:00
Article Afanas not only easy to read, but also valuable their practicality.
other words - of them have a specific use.
People need the information contained in these articles.

three? the norm.

17.02.2009 19:24:00
Something there is nothing to discuss. . . Well, like to shoot someone all cellular and review at EGA monitor, it suits many, it is a normal view of some authors, but this recipe is not for everyone and for all occasions. . . .

quote:
:
my view does not exist. There is a science. Scientific approach to your question is contained in the chapter "The structure of the photographic image"
This reissue of old textbooks or will be added something about CMOS and CCD?
A photographer is interested in your views. The technique can be exactly the same, and the results are different. . .

17.02.2009 20:03:00
Take on arms trigraphs.
thought I would develop three times.
What size article that will rise aa! ?

18.02.2009 23:56:00
quote:
:

It's all very scientific, that's just do the simple experience. Remove a good zoom 2x or more highly detailed scene at the wide end, and then on a long 4 frames and glue panorama. Printed on the same format obtained from your theory for a single frame and hang on the wall. Oddly enough the difference is visible where a long distance than 1. 5 diagonal. Undertake verified the
that if a single image detail already exceeds the capacity of resolution, other things being equal, the pictures can be distinguished only by circumstantial evidence, such as different geometric distortions and different depth of field at different focus.
I hope we are not talking about the image size of the meter and a half at 640x480 pixels? Then 1280x960 four frames are really much better.

19.02.2009 1:31:00
quote:
So, if you create an image we finally begin to move exclusively figurative motifs and a desire to reach out to the hearts of the audience, to bring him joy of contemplation harmonious if we overcome mediocre vanity and our unconscious (and sometimes conscious) desire to prove to himself and others that we have not wasted a lot of money that we are steeper and all that "life is good" - we were surprised to find how to become more austere than in the choice of technological parameters of the photographic process.
Um, where we have already heard similar conclusions. . . removes not the camera, and the man mega dupe
quote:
Third, we see that modern digital cameras have long reached the necessary level of spatial resolution sensors
If we are talking about the original data is never superfluous detail, it is necessary leave room for maneuver (post-processing).

Language of presentation, on the contrary is clear, contains no ambiguity, and thoughts between the lines. That for me personally, simplifies the process of perception.
And even despite this, the practical value of the article has not. Everything that is written after the word "Conclusions" or trite, or true only in the particular case, and not true in general. This fact
way very funny in the light of this impressively well-laid paper.
All IMHO.

19.02.2009 15:25:00
Undertake verified the
that if a single image detail already exceeds the capacity of resolution, other things being equal, the pictures can be distinguished only by circumstantial evidence, such as different geometric distortions and different depth of field at different focus.
two shots from one point to one and the same time, camera Nikon D700 (12 mp) and Canan 5Dm2 (21 MP), A3 printing, look at holding hands. So, even I with my vision was able to tell them apart, though in many respects they are similar. We just know where to look or just take an interest in certain details, "What's that? "

19.02.2009 15:31:00
Undertake verified the
that if a single image detail already exceeds the capacity of resolution, other things being equal, the pictures can be distinguished only by circumstantial evidence. . .
And you try, very surprised.

PS. "There is a science," it certainly is subtly noticed, but the conclusions of the theories in the same science that have , decided to check the experiment.

19.02.2009 15:38:00
What nafig sharpness in art photography? There sharpness is not the most important condition.

19.02.2009 16:02:00

What nafig sharpness in art photography?
sorry about Adams did not know it

19.02.2009 16:18:00

Damn, put it correctly. . . Well, I'll try a little differently to ask whether the sharpness of the important characteristics for the artistic image?

19.02.2009 16:46:00

whether the sharpness of the important characteristics for the artistic image?
no nayvazhneyshih not at all. Take for example the "Black Square", there is no field, no colors, no prospects, no plastics, no lightness, no. . . . But some http: // photovision. ua / post-46. aspx shoot differently and they have some reason:
"When I do increase with these frames to the size of 5x8 feet (about 1. 6m x 6m 2), you can see them in the holes on the blades of grass that gnawed insects . This is really excites the brain! "
Strange people, is not it?

19.02.2009 16:50:00
quote:
:

Undertake verified the, that, if a single image detail already exceeds the capacity of resolution, other things being equal, the pictures can be distinguished only by circumstantial evidence, such as different geometric distortions and different depth of field at different focal .
two shots from one point to one and the same time, camera Nikon D700 (12 mp) and Canan 5Dm2 (21 MP), A3 printing, look at holding hands. So, even I with my vision was able to tell them apart, though in many respects they are similar. We just know where to look or just take an interest in certain details, "What's that? "
skolzsky This issue requiring clarification every time, what was the resolution optics in both cases, some converters (hopefully not in jpeg" e filmed??) Are given if the pictures on the BB and all color shades to more and This is not to get confused in the comparison.
And most importantly, if these extra details really is - is whether the author's purpose, that was part of a large detailing ideas, because you can see under the microscope, there is clearly one of the images will be more finely detailed, but if it is not a scientific survey on resolution limit, there is always a limit above which is meaningless to increase the resolution simply because the eye can not see this.
In your case, time difference is - it means at least one of the image resolution is not beyond the capacity of your eyes (unless, of course, the experience delivered flawlessly). I think it is logically obvious (proof to the contrary would require exactly the same conditions, and certainly the same optics that, in the case of Canan - Nikon, very difficult, to put it mildly) and therefore does not require confirmation.
 

19.02.2009 16:55:00

"When I do increase with these frames to the size of 5x8 feet (about 1. 6m x 6m 2), you can see them in the holes on the blades of grass that gnawed by insects. This is really excites the brain!"
Strange people, is not it?


So what? It is an axiom?
Pages: 1 2 3 4

On the sharpness and detail in thin. photographs

info@www.about-digital-photo.com