Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?

jim thomas

Edmond, US
1322 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
jim thomas Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jan 2003
Fri 02-Mar-12 08:17 PM | edited Fri 02-Mar-12 08:17 PM by jim thomas

I am one of many who have ordered the D800 (hedged with another order for a D800E, and not knowing which to buy at this point). Like others, I am excited about the camera and looking forward to getting it. I am shooting a D200 at this time so the difference in resolution is quite large. However, I wonder how much of that difference we will be able to see in prints that are not upscaled beyond the native resolution. If I calculate correctly the size of a print at the native resolution at 360 ppi is about 20.4 x 13.6 inches. The size of a "native resolution" print from the D200 is about 7.2 x 10.75 inches. So, for example, if one makes two 7 x 10.5 inch prints, one made with the D200 and one made with the D800, will one see the higher resolution of the D800 in the print?


JDT

nikonus

Southern California, US
498 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#1. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 0

nikonus Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 04th Feb 2007
Fri 02-Mar-12 08:59 PM | edited Fri 02-Mar-12 09:03 PM by nikonus

I'm guessing 300 DPI will be the high for most commercial prints . The dynamic range / color tones will be better .The sensor pixel density is higher even at DX sizes .

Some say the glass is the limiting factor , So a non-pro / low-res lens may not have the sharpness to bring out the best in the D800 . The resolution increase of the D800E will be minimal to 99% of users .

Hans K.

My Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery. nikonus@nikonians.org

KnightPhoto

Alberta, CA
4954 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#2. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 0

KnightPhoto Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Dec 2006
Sat 03-Mar-12 08:32 AM | edited Sat 03-Mar-12 08:39 AM by KnightPhoto

I am not a printer, so take this for what it's worth

Isn't the answer that no, at that size you will have a difficult time seeing a difference in resolution? However, this thought experiment assumes the quality of the sensor results is the same from the two cameras and just their resolution is different? But for things like Dynamic Range and Noise and Colour and Tonality and 14-bit vs. 12 and probably some things I am forgetting the D800 will so thoroughly trounce the D200 that those aspects should be evident and obvious in the final print even though the print resolution might be the same?

I am not getting one for a long while but I have been on D800E, off, and now leaning back on 800E again. If moire shows to be infrequent in peoples day to day results that would swing me more firmly in the 800E camp. But no more propensity for video moire is also important to me so I'll be watching folks results for that too.

Enjoy the D800/E!!

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

km6xz

St Petersburg, RU
3559 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#3. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 2

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009
Sat 03-Mar-12 10:20 AM

My guess is that casual viewing with any modern camera-shot images will be good enough to wow a viewer if the subject can wow.
Pixel peeping will definitely show the higher res or when comparing the same shot side by side, minute differences in tone smoothness and detail will be seen. A photo, by itself, with no reference to compare to? No, no difference.

That all assumes low ISO and same size print.
What the real difference between great cameras and good cameras is seen only in extremes of conditions....high ISO, wide DR scenes, high speed subjects that benefit from superior AF tracking, and large scale prints. In this, a D800 will allow good images to be captured that in extreme conditions would not even be attempted with a lesser camera. The D200 might be useless in a dim theater whereas the D800 would deliver publishable images.
The range of available light portraiture for example would be extended greatly with a D800 over that of the D200. Shooting wildlife longer into dusk or before sunrise is a pretty nifty benefit of a D3s/4 or D800. Wedding jobs just got easier if you have been doing them with a D200, with less concern about optimum light, static scenes, etc because you can shoot with the conditions you find, not what you have to create.
Your photography club members will go gaga over it but your Aunt Mable, if shown only 1 photo, shot either by a D200 or D800, will not notice any defect or anything needing attention(of course you photo buddies will not either but give then a computer monitor and 100% crops of both images and they will find one vastly superior)
Super high sharpness and tonal range is for impressing photographers and yourself, not regular viewers of isolated images, who only care about the subject.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ferguson

Cape Coral, US
5701 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#4. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 0

Ferguson Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for the generous sharing of his high level expertise in the spirit of Nikonians Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004
Sat 03-Mar-12 12:08 PM

>So, for example, if one makes two 7 x 10.5
>inch prints, one made with the D200 and one made with the
>D800, will one see the higher resolution of the D800 in the
>print?

In my version of your thought experiment, I used all those pixels to crop out a quarter of the frame for my 7x10.5 print, and when I did the same on the D200, it was very grainy in comparison.


Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

jim thomas

Edmond, US
1322 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#5. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 0

jim thomas Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jan 2003
Sat 03-Mar-12 02:10 PM

Thanks to everyone for your input. You have pretty much confirmed my conclusion that the higher resolution of the D800 will not produce a print that is superior to a print made at the native resolution of a lower resolution camera such as the D200. As some have pointed out, other features of the camera (ISO rating, focus tracking, etc.) may allow one to take a better photograph; however, that is not the point of inquiry.

My understanding is that, despite the really good results one can produce by upsizing in Photoshop (ignoring other software that some say is even better), is it not true that a print made at the native resolution of a camera will be superior to a print made by upsizing? I therefore assume that, using the same comparison of a D200 and a D800, if one made a 16" x 20" print of an image taken with the D800 (requiring downsizing), it would be superior to a print of an image taken with the D200 (requiring upsizing). Implicit in my conclusion is an assumption that the downsizing of the D800 image does not diminish the quality of the print. Do you agree or have any comments?


JDT

DMCdigitalmedia

US
130 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#6. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 5

DMCdigitalmedia Registered since 04th Jan 2007
Sat 03-Mar-12 02:43 PM

A critical piece of the puzzle is missing - Viewing distance.

If you are looking at a 16 x 20 print hanging on your wall while sitting on your couch 10 feet away - you would probably could not tell the difference. View it from 2 feet away and you could absolutely tell the difference. If I compare a 16 x 20 print from my 22mp Sinar back to a Print from my 10 Mp D200 at 2 feet the difference is huge ! Granted the tonality is MUCH better with the Digital Back but I am just talking detail here. Hanging on my wall they look pretty much the same detail wise from the couch.

Also - are you shooting at Base ISO ? D200 gets some noise above ISO 400

www.dcarbophoto.com

"Like" me on facebook

www.facebook.com/dcarbophoto

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

jim thomas

Edmond, US
1322 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#7. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 5

jim thomas Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jan 2003
Sun 04-Mar-12 11:58 PM

Thanks to eveyone for the additional comments. I am trying to understand what we may reasonably expect from the D800. The "native" print size of photos is about 13" x 20". I am an amateur who makes a lot more 8"x10" prints than 13"x20" or larger. To make a print smaller than the native size one can either print at a higher ppi or downres, thereby "throwing away" pixels. I understand that most agree that printing at greater than 360 ppi (or dpi, I guess is the more accurate term for printing) does not produce a print of any greater quality. So, as observed by others, it seems that the higher resolution of the D800 does not in itself produce any greater quality print unless one is printing at or above its native print size.

On the other hand I expect hand holding the D800 to be a real challenge unless one is shooting at very high shutter speeds. Therefore it seems to me that in some situations the huge number of pixels in the D800 may actually make it harder to produce a print that is equal quality to a print made with a "lesser pixel" camera.

Please don't start throwing things at me or putting me on any hate lists. As I mentioned I have ordered a D800 and am looking forward to getting it. However, like any tool, it probably will not do everything better than other cameras and we will have to sort out which photos are best shot with it and which photos are perhaps best shot with a lesser pixel camera. Those of you who shoot with a D3X: What is your experience with shooting with all those pixels? Do you find it challenging? Do you have any advice (other than have a good tripod ready) for those of us who are venturing into this scary unknown land of super megapixels?

JDT

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#8. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 7

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Mon 05-Mar-12 11:33 AM

According to Wikipedia the visual acuity of the human eye is, at best, around 1 minute of arc, or 60 seconds of arc.

The standard depth of field tables assumes a visual acuity of about 3.75 minutes of arc or about 225 seconds of arc.

The hand holding minimum shutter speed rule of thumb of "1/FL" is based on FX film size and about the same if not the identical visual acuity as the standard depth of field tables, or about 225 seconds of arc.

I quote these values because they are easily researched on the web or computed. I've seen many different numbers that range around 180 - 225 seconds of arc.

I find the 1 arc minute number difficult to fathom and I'm an amateur astronomer who has computed all this very carefully, over the course of many years, in order to determine what I can and cannot see, especially in regards to observation of close binaries. And I have matched my abilities with theory and all these numbers.

My "number" is around 180 seconds of arc - on a good day - and that involves a tremendous effort and a lot of eye strain that I would not personally expend looking at a photograph. I think this is a good upper limit number of visual acuity. I've also trained my eye, to some extent, to do that.

I generally wear contacts and have aging eyes so my close focus is not what it was 20 years ago when it started to recede and I ran out of arm's length when reading books . And for anyone over 30-40 this is an important consideration. My comfortable minimum viewing distance, where things are reasonably sharp, is about 17" (by design). I would not use that as a guide for the general public though, especially for younger people. This is just to say that you have to choose your audience and evaluate your own eyesight.

At 100 ppi, and assuming 180 arc seconds of acuity, a print needs to be held at 11.5" or closer in order to see all there is to see.

At 200 ppi that distance would be cut in half, to about 5.75".

At 300 ppi that distance would be just under 4", which I think even at 20 years of age is unrealistically high resolution in terms of what is needed to display a print. I think it assumes optical aid (inspection with a magnifying glass). I'm not sure if I ever had 4" of minimum focus.

Some printers require certain resolutions or certain minimum resolutions in order to be happy, but that should not be confused with what the human can actually see in the final output. While your printer may "demand" 300 or 360 ppi that does not mean you can actually see it.

I've thrown out some numbers to put basic context to this problem, but since our individual acuity, and more importantly, our individual perceptions are different, it needs to be tested and all photographers should test their own acuity and perceptions when viewing prints.

My advice is to make three 8x10 or 8x12 prints from the same image. That image should be shot from a tripod, if possible, or otherwise selected by careful pixel peeping to make sure it delivers all the resolution you think your camera is capable of. Don't crop it except to aspect ratio if you do 8x10's.

The first print should be downsized to 300 ppi or perhaps left alone, the second to 200 ppi and the 3rd to 100 ppi. Make more and split those differences if you want.

The later two prints should then be up-rezed to whatever makes your printer the happiest, just as you would do when printing any print at a rather large size such that the printing resolution is under 300 ppi or so.

Now compare the prints. If you have never done this test I think you will be surprised at how good that 100 ppi print looks. Or maybe not; you be the judge.

But what *I* think doesn't matter, nor what anyone else thinks you "need". Only you and your eyes can make this determination and it is easy and inexpensive to do.

Alternately, rather than downsizing and then up-sizing the lower PPI prints you can slice out equivalent sections. The method I suggested simply makes for exactly comparable images with as little thought and effort as possible. I wouldn't argue the merits of either method; just do what makes you feel most comfortable but make sure whatever you do reflects the real world.

It might also be a good idea to shoot, on a good solid tripod, a calibrated resolution chart at the calibrated distance to see if your lens(es) can actually resolve to the 300 PPI resolution some might suggest you "need". I've done that and I can tell you it isn't easy and it takes a good lens.

You might then try to shoot that chart hand held at real world shutter speeds to see how much resolution you actually get, relative to what your sensor is capable of delivering. You might be very surprised at the results of that test .

You might come to the conclusion that 300 ppi or more is overkill. You might also conclude that it exceeds the resolution of your lens and/or typical shooting technique. You might also come to the conclusion that printing at a native 300 ppi can't hurt. You might also come to the conclusion that it isn't worth the cost of admission . But these are conclusions you need to make yourself from real world tests or controlled tests.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

elec164

US
2575 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#9. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 8

elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009
Mon 05-Mar-12 02:43 PM

>My advice is to make three 8x10 or 8x12 prints from the same
>image. That image should be shot from a tripod, if possible,
>or otherwise selected by careful pixel peeping to make sure it
>delivers all the resolution you think your camera is capable
>of. Don't crop it except to aspect ratio if you do 8x10's.
>

Neil, I sort of did part of your suggested experiment, although I used PPI settings that were evenly divisible into my inkjets DPI (that’s a topic for a whole other lengthy discussion). That was in my inane days of searching for my inkjets native PPI. I am now convinced that output devices really only print dots not pixels, although in some cases the dots can be directly related to pixels (dye-sub and traditional laser based wet processed prints).

And as you, I am age appropriately close focus challenged (limited to no closer than 15 inches with my cheaters on).

As you said, I chose a print with what I determined would be sufficient detail that was shot using a tri-pod and remote release. I made four 8.5x11 prints at 300, 240, 150 and 120PPI. What I found was rather surprising. The lighting conditions greatly affected my impression of fine detail viewable.

I first viewed the prints under a 100 watt incandescent bulb inside a frosted globe that was over my dining room table. Under that condition I reliably picked the 150 PPI print as providing the most detail, with the 300 and 240 PPI print a close second and third. That and other further testing led me to believe that my inkjets native color photographic resolution was around 140PPI. But when I went to scan the prints to see if I could use them as a sample in a discussion in another forum, I was floored to see that 100% crops showed the 300PPI print as containing more detail (which led to further experimentation).

So I then took the prints outside and viewed them in both direct sunlight and open shade. I then with regularity picked the 300 PPI print as the most detailed, with the 150 and 240 PPI prints a close second and third.

No matter what the viewing conditions, I was always reliably able to choose the 120 PPI print as the lowest detailed print. It was then that I stopped worrying about what PPI the print was when sending to my inkjet for printing, and just cropped and printed whatever it came out to. I originally made that test using my D80 images which would peak at 304 PPI at that print size. I want to repeat the test now that I have a D7000 and can provide greater PPI settings, but have not had the time nor desire to do so as of yet.

I know this probably raises more questions than answers, and can cause an ensuing hot debate. But I hope others may find my experiences and opinions helpful.

Pete

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#10. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 9

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Mon 05-Mar-12 03:23 PM

Hi Pete,

My suggested PPIs were just round numbers, with no specific intent. The main thing was just to encourage experimenting with various PPIs so each shooter can decide for himself how relatively important it is to hit that frequently discussed magic number of 300 or thereabouts.

I did pick the 100 ppi knowing that that is roughly the minimum DPI recommended by some commercial services I've used. And in the case where someone is using a commercial service I think it is important to submit a print at that precise minimum, just to see what comes back, verses the higher res images.

The most important point you bring up is that a lot of this is very dependent on the specific output device, which argues further that we can never answer these questions in a general way. It just needs to be tested.

>> But when I went to scan the prints to see if I could use them as a sample in a discussion in another forum, I was floored to see that 100% crops showed the 300PPI print as containing more detail (which led to further experimentation).

That would not be at all unexpected. The scanner is acting like a magnifying glass, and depending on how you viewed the scanner output (100% pixels??) that drastically changes the effective COC. You should have seen the same additional detail with a close inspection with a very good and suitably high powered glass.

I've sent calibrated resolution test charts to commercial printers just to test their work . I had to use a good glass to find what I was looking for. And in that case I was interested in how much had to be spent in order to produce my own calibrated test charts, commercial charts being quite expensive. I was pleased to find that even dirt cheap prints can be pretty good in that regard. It's a work in process.

You also did not mention the distance you viewed the prints in the various lighting, and any optical aids you used? That is all about applying COC in a methodical way to determine how much res you need.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

elec164

US
2575 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#11. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 10

elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009
Tue 06-Mar-12 01:13 PM | edited Tue 06-Mar-12 01:14 PM by elec164

>You also did not mention the distance you viewed the prints in
>the various lighting, and any optical aids you used?

Well Neil, while I did mention my viewing distance, I did not specifically reference it when discussing my print evaluation. I was using my prescription cheaters at the closest viewing distance I could comfortable view the print, which was about 15 inches which is the average viewing distance for that size print. At that distance I believe the average person can discern about 458 PPI. In my further testing I then used a magnifying glass and even under the incandescent, I could then determine the 300 PPI print as having more detail. But that is akin to putting your nose to the print without any aid.

I also agree that there is no one size fits all answer here. For example many dye-sub printers and machines that produce tradition wet processed prints top out at 285 to 314 PPI. So any image resolution above that is wasted. There are higher end units with greater PPI ability (600 PPI for dye-subs, 4000 PPI for image setters). In this case I used PPI instead of DPI for those processes are continuous tone (three printer dots overlaid which produces all the color information for a pixel).

For inkjets it gets quite complicated because of their fixed ink color set and stochastic pattern they use. They have a high DPI if printing monotone, but when printing con-tone they need multiple dots to simulate one pixel. It’s also compounded by the fact that pixels are square, printer dots are round. At higher resolutions the space between dots allows for a smoother transition and the pixels become co-merged and no longer recognizable as square. But at lower resolution enough dots can be used that the pixel becomes obviously square, which then takes on that stair-stepped look to specific detail. It was my determination that this occurred at about 100 to 120 PPI with my HP printer.

Then there can be a disparity between hardware and software resolution. For example Rags Gardner in his article states that when studying the documentation for the Fuji Lightjet, he discovered the laser could achieve 317.5 PPI, but the RIP was working at 300 PPI. In that case there was no optimum PPI to use due to the disparity between hardware and software.

In the end, I agree with your insistence that everyone research and test this out for themselves, for there are just too many variables involved to give a generalized answer.

Pete

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#12. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 11

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Tue 06-Mar-12 09:33 PM

Yea, I missed the 15" in my reply. But I don't believe the average person can resolve 458 ppi from that distance either .

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

elec164

US
2575 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#13. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 12

elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009
Tue 06-Mar-12 09:53 PM | edited Tue 06-Mar-12 09:57 PM by elec164

>But I don't believe the average person can resolve 458 ppi from that distance
>either .
>
>

Well I most likely sure can't anymore!!

I calculated that using a formula that can be found in this article that is about print sizes and viewing distances.

Perhaps I misunderstood what was stated, and might need to reread that article again.

Pete

Edited to add:

Yup I miss remembered it. The author states those numbers can easily be halved for average viewing conditions.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#14. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 13

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Tue 06-Mar-12 10:51 PM | edited Tue 06-Mar-12 10:54 PM by nrothschild

I thought that was a typo .

Try this...

Get a ruler marked with single millimeter increments. Tape it to a wall and stand 11.3 feet away. See if you can clearly resolve the millimeter lines.

If you don't have a millimeter ruler, get a ruler or tape measure with 1/8" increments. One eight inch is just about 3mm (close enough for this test I think). Tape that to a wall and stand 34 feet away. See if you can clearly resolve the 1/8" increments on the ruler.

If you can't then slowly walk closer until you can, and report back your distance.

Or draw a set of lines in Photoshop or some drawing app, 1/2mm wide with each line separated by one half millimeter, print it to that scale and tape it to the wall. In other words, the black line should be half a millimeter wide and the intervening white space a half millimeter wide. That forms a line pair (one black and one white) a total of one millimeter wide. You should get 25 black lines per inch on your printed output. You should be able to resolve that from 11.3 feet. If your referenced links are correct .

(Edit: I believe this most accurately reproduces a standard resolution test done with lines. Better than an inch ruler, which does not well represent it. A millimeter ruler might, depending on the line thickness.


_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

elec164

US
2575 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#15. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 14

elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009
Wed 07-Mar-12 01:55 PM

>Try this...
>
>Get a ruler marked with single millimeter increments. Tape it
>to a wall and stand 11.3 feet away. See if you can clearly
>resolve the millimeter lines.

That would be a bit of an ambitious task, but I don’t know if it’s worth it for me to do it.

In my younger days I was just myopic, but now in my advanced years I am both myopic and hyperopic. Top that off with the onset of cataracts, and I question what such a test and resulting information would do for me.

Having said that, I decided to dig out those test prints and see if how the change in my sight might affect the results. Well, it didn’t. Under the incandescent lighting I picked the 150 PPI print as the better, with the 240 and 300 a close second and third with the 120 PPI dead last. Under direct sunlight I picked the 300 PPI print as the better, with the 150 and 240 print a close second and third with the poor 120 PPI dead last once again.I even tried the test under a three-way compact fluorescent topping out at 100 watt equivalent luminance, and the results were the same as the incandescent (didn’t have one during the original testing).

On a side note, each of those prints viewed on their own looked great. It was only via a side by side close inspection that I was able to place them in an order of quality.

But this exchange does once again peak my curiosity about inkjet resolution (I know this is a hotly debated and contested topic). And now that I can best 400 PPI at my maximum print size (8.5x11 inch) with my D7000 images, I just might be inclined to expend the energy to see if greater than 300 PPI will result in a better print under direct sunlight viewing.

There are those of the opinion that one can see appreciable difference in 600 PPI images. One such vocal proponent is Dr. Clarke with his ’Experiments with Pixels Per Inch (PPI) on Printed Image Sharpness’ article .

But bottom line for the original question, I agree with the viewpoint that with the average viewing conditions, unless you are making very large prints and viewing them closer than expected normal distance, you will most likely not see an appreciable increase in image resolution from D800 files over say D700 files.

Pete

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#16. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 15

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Thu 08-Mar-12 11:56 AM | edited Thu 08-Mar-12 12:01 PM by nrothschild

Hi Pete,

All interesting information. The ruler test is not a very "ambitious" project. We all have a ruler, a roll of masking tape, and a suitable wall. I suspect that for many people that test is not so much "ambitious" as the results are "embarrassing" and I note that this thread is not exactly overwhelmed with additional reports from other members (which I would be VERY curious to see).

The main reason I think it might be an embarrassing test is that most people's real world resolution is nowhere close to the 60' resolution suggested by the Snellen chart. No offence to Snellen but as I alluded to previously, in the one endeavor I am familiar with where these things are computed with great precision (astronomical double star observation) very, very few people claim anywhere near that capability.

As an example for those inclined to research the point, the double-double binary Epsilon Lyra is nearly ideal for the purpose; it is bright and high in the sky all summer for Northern Hemisphere observers and a truly spectacular sight. Because of that there are many, many user reports to be found on the net. It is almost everyone's favorite binary (me included!). One of the major pastimes of double star observers is to see how little magnification they need to cleanly split any given pair.

They are measuring not only the quality of their optics but even more so their eyesight since most of these observers are using the highest quality optics and there aren't that many choices in that regard. These observers have generally spent many years training their eyes to separate these two dots

The two E Lyra pairs are separated by about 2.3 and 2.6" (arc-seconds). The simple math of magnification is such that if you use 100x of magnification the resulting visual separation of those tiny dots is then about 230-260 arc-seconds, which is very consistent with the COC used in standard depth of field tables (~225") and not consistent with the Snellen chart at 60".

Under ideal conditions and known diffraction limited optics most visual observers of E Lyra need about 100X.

I know that at 160x (384") I can unambiguously split it, and I am pretty sure I can do the same at 100x (230-260"). At 80x (184") it may be real or it may be imagined (and that is the nature of this work since we know exactly what we are trying to see!). That puts me in the 200-225" range and that is as close as I'll try to nail it here, especially since I haven't done this under even near ideal conditions since last summer.

I've seen reports as low as 45x (equivalent to about 112" or just under 2 minutes or half the Snellen 20/20 number). These are rare individuals and there is simply no way to positively confirm this; we just have to take their word for it.

I don't ever recall anyone suggesting they could split it at 30x (just about the Snellen 20/20 limit), but neither have I tried to track down every posted observation claim.

I'm just trying to objectively analyze the reference you linked to which suggests you "need" over 400PPI to achieve the Snellen number, as if that is "typical" of your targeted audience. Let's see if anyone here can resolve a millimeter ruler at 11.3 feet. My number is more like 3-4 feet than 11.3 feet, and very consistent with my double star observations.

What I'm saying is that if 400 PPI were readily at hand, I would overkill it and use it just like I try to overkill other things, in order not to think too hard about it . But would I spend $3K on a camera just because 1 person in 10 or 20 (who is not me!) *might* perceive a difference? This is the context of my thoughts.

Your print test results are basically in agreement with what I just said. I'm just putting some numbers behind it to suggest your results are not necesarily atypical.

I do have one question about the sample images you prepared. Were the stated PPI image resolutions the actual image file resolutions as sent to the printer or were they the native resolutions subsequently interpolated up to some greater resolution to make the printer happy?

There is a huge difference. For example, the "stair stepping" you described is often called "pixelation" and that is the basis for determining a minimum acceptable image file resolution for a given printer. But, for a somewhat extreme example, an image at a native resolution of 50PPI, which would likely pixelate badly if printed as is, would simply be somewhat soft (but not pixelated!) if up-sized to "make the printer happy". And of course we can then play with post up-sizing sharpening and the interpolation method to try to change that perception . And we can do this for free with any image processing software. We don't need a $3K camera to do that

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#17. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 16

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Thu 08-Mar-12 12:08 PM

>...this thread is not exactly overwhelmed with additional reports
>from other members (which I would be VERY curious to see).

As one data point, I tried this "millimetre ruler" experiment, and in good light I could make out the markings at a distance of around 6-7 feet using my normal varifocals.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#18. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 17

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Thu 08-Mar-12 03:26 PM

Thanks Brian!

I just dug up a resolution chart that I have available at the moment. Using that chart, the 24 LPPI bars were resolvable by me at about 70" or 6 feet. Very similar to your experience and I did not know the measurement until I marked my feet on the floor.

Last night I used an inch ruler and came up with about 117", with the same result today with the ruler and that chart side by side in the same light. Doing a more precise than necessary conversion of 3.175:1 for millimeters to 1/8" marks, that converts to about 36".

I previously mentioned that because the 1/8" marks on a typical inch ruler are thinner than the intervening spaces that that may not be the ideal test. My experience is consistent with that and now I would suggest not using an inch ruler.

For anyone interested in a similar chart, rather than relying on rulers...

I uploaded a snippet of the resolution chart I used here. If you right click the image and download it you should get an image with an image size of precisely 75mm x 75mm (or very close to 3" on each side) at 600 DPI. This is the total image size, as reported in PhotoShop, including the white borders around the target. If not, re-size it.

The 24 LPPI bars are circled in red (excuse my sloppiness) just to be clear which bars you are resolving. Technically the bars should be spaced at 25.4 LPPI but 24 is more than close enough.

One of the problems with this test is that there is no clear point when the bars no longer resolve. Anyone familiar with the math and conceptual idea behind MTF understands that resolution is not a black/white idea. If a lens were resolving this chart at increasingly long distances, then at some point the white space between black bars starts "turning grey", indicating a declining MTF, and finally becomes monotone.

This is just to say that people with equal eyesight will arrive at slightly different numbers but my experience is that at the limits of resolution the difference between clearly resolving the lines and severe doubt is only about a foot at the 6 foot range. I assume others would have similar results.

A 6 foot distance on the millimeter test is better than the double star numbers I suggested above but they are different tests with different problems associated with, in particular, the double star test. At 6', the millimeter test is equivalent to 113 arc-seconds (just under 2 arc-minutes) or about twice the resolution of the COC used in standard DOF tables.

It is likely easier, for example, to resolve long lines, which are large integrations of "binary stars". It is not clear to me which better models us resolving a print to the limits. I could argue that both ways . This is the reason that it is very difficult to model or test resolution as it applies to optimum print viewing.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#19. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 16

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Thu 08-Mar-12 07:41 PM | edited Fri 09-Mar-12 04:00 PM by nrothschild

I am quite certain that I have thousands of Nikonians rivited to the edge of their seats reading this resolution stuff . As such, I have one more contribution, and I promise it is the last . But I think the most important in order to try to understand print resolution.

In reply #28 I discussed the seeming discrepency between my results with the resolution line chart and my experiences observing Epsilon Lyra, and double stars in general.

Here is a scale model of what you would see through a telescope while observing E Lyra on a very steady night:

(edit: see reply 31 for an updated model)

Click on image to view larger version


If you download this image it should be 500 x 500 pixels at 100 PPI. However, as you will see, if you care to expend the black ink and print it you should change it to 90 ppi.

It would be better to do this test directly from your monitor and if you want to fully simulate the conditions of an astronomical observation you would do this in a dark room after allowing at least 10 minutes for your eyes to adapt to the darkness, and preferably a half hour. Astronomy is not a fast paced hobby and requires some patience .

I included a summary directly on the image, which you may want to erase from your displayed test copy if you find it distracting.

My monitor (Dell 2209WA) has a resolution of 90 PPI. If your monitor is different than you need to adjust the distance math accordingly. The dots are so small (10 pixel diameter) you may have trouble trying to re-size it.

The two dots represent either of the two binary pairs of E Lyra, both having separations within 10% or so of each other. That's within the range of uncertainty I have as to the exact width of the airy disks in my catadioptric scopes, which varies a bit from theory based on refractive lenses.

The outer circles are the first diffraction rings, which are quite obvious in a cat scope and only slightly less so in a refractor. On a very steady night with very dark skies the 2nd (outer) diffraction rings are probably visible but they are not important to the view (in my opinion) so I left them off. It would be somewhat difficult to estimate the correct luminosity without being able to consider it in real time, Lyra being a very early morning object now.

The figure 8 or peanut shape of the diffraction rings is a critical part of the fascination many have with these binary pairs. Thus I had to throw in one set . They won't affect your test; they will mostly disappear at the limits of resolution.

At 100% you get a good idea of what the view looks like at high powers.

For the purposes of the test you will want to zoom out to 50%. On a 90 PPI monitor, at 50%, the two stars are separated by 0.11 inches. At 100% the stars have a diameter of 10 pixels, with 10 pixels separation between the airy disks (the central stellar disk). At 50% they are 5 pixels diameter with 5 pixels separation.

(This is as precisely to scale as I can calculate for my 89mm diffraction limited catadioptric Questar scope. The scale will vary depending on lens aperture according to the well known formulas of diffraction, which is a function of lens clear aperture. As aperture increases the separation remains constant for a given magnification but the size of the airy disk shrinks proportionately, resulting in relatively wider separation verses airy disk diameter. I actually prefer the view of E Lyra through my smaller aperture 89mm scope)

With your monitor at 50%, the equivalent resolution at several critical distances are noted on the image. You want to slowly back up until you bump into a wall, trip backwards over that couch, or, ideally, you can no longer see any indication of black space separating the two airy disks. Your distance number is that furthest distance allowing you to see some clear indication of some black space ("a clean split").

If you run out of distance, cut the zoom to 25% and then cut the indicated distances in half. It is all perfectly linear. The longer the distance the less trouble you may have with close vision problems, as I have. That's why the test should not be scaled down to normal desktop viewing distances.

When I did this test immediately after making the image I got 100" and 102" on two different attempts done an hour apart. That equals 3.75 arc-minutes or 225 arc-seconds of visual resolution/acuity.

My results are exactly equal to the standard COC of 225 arc-seconds and also exactly consistent with what I said earlier (before I built this model) about my estimated acuity when observing E Lyra and double stars in general. I've done this before (in real life) and for 15 years I've known "my number" with fair precision. Simply to say that this model appears to very accurately reflect "real life" behind the eyepiece of a scope on a very steady night.

Earlier I stated that most experienced amateur double star observers need about 100x magnification to cleanly split these pairs. That is equal to exactly 230 arc-seconds for the slightly tighter of the two E Lyra pairs (with separations of 2.3 and 2.6 arc-seconds). My results here are very typical.

In reply #28 I said I could argue the merits of the line chart verses this "dot test" either way. The argument in favor of this test is that typically images do not predominantly include straight parallel lines. The exceptions, of course, could be architecture and the classic picket fence. But in general, images are irregular or chaotic at the pixel level.

This "binary star test" well models what you see when you are viewing any two "visual pixels" on an image as defined by the COC at the distance you view it.

The argument for the line test would mainly be that it is regular geometric shapes that most define our perceptions of sharpness and the relatively few geometric shapes in an image are what defines our impression of the image as a whole. Take your choice.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

KnightPhoto

Alberta, CA
4954 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#20. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 19

KnightPhoto Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Dec 2006
Fri 09-Mar-12 11:30 AM

I may not have done it right I felt I could resolve the pair standing a maximum of 120 inches from the monitor at 50%. I saved your jpg. Opened up ViewNX2 and moved the slider to x0.5%.

A couple questions for you:

- can we broaden this same topic to include monitors or start a separate thread? I am not often a "printer" kind of guy but I do have a 27 inch iMac. According to Wikipedia this is a 109PPI 2560 x 1440 monitor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density

- when I download the full-sized jpegs from the Nikon D800E samples on the Nikon website (especially the last two high detail frosty landscapes).
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm
using my monitor, I am gobsmacked by the level of detail. Should I be? Or could proper technique and a D2X have similarly impressed me. The images are listed by ViewNX2 as being projected at 28.1% on my monitor.

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#21. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 20

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Fri 09-Mar-12 03:59 PM

Hi Steve,

Before I forget, earlier in this or another thread you asked me about the definition of "angular diameter" and I missed it at the time, only seeing it yesterday reviewing the thread. If you are not yet clear on that let me know - especially since it is critical to this discussion.

>> I may not have done it right I felt I could resolve the pair standing a maximum of 120 inches from the monitor at 50%.

I can only tell you the way I look at it, and I am not necessarily right.

At 100" I can drive a truck between the two stars. There is no argument. As I slowly walk back to about 135" I increasingly enter in an increasingly hot argument with myself, and fortunately there is no one else here at the moment to hear it .

At some point in the 110-135 area it is unclear to me if they are "touching" or cleanly split and the problem is that that tiny sliver of black is beyond the basic resolution of the two stars (a smaller subject in itself). Also, it is cleaner when I first look, and then my eyes start to water a bit. That is a big problem I have with observing sessions and it may be exacerbated by wearing contact lenses.

Your 120 number is equivalent to 157 on my 90 DPI monitor. I could not call that cleanly split no matter how hard I tried. You got me . The most I could possibly argue is about 140 or so.

In the real world, this is a moving subject . Even on the stillest of nights there is some jiggling and dancing around. And for that reason my instinct is to be on the conservative side, even with this very stationary subject.

Of course, everyone looks at this differently and that is why I previously said two people with identical visual acuity could come to honest but different conclusions. And for that reason I do take "out of the norm" observing reports with some grains of salt.

Interestingly, a real astronomical binary pair so close that they are not fully split at any magnification but "notched" or just elongated typically look like live (bacterial) Bacillus. Just like the videos where they wiggle around while going about their business. I think it is quite strange .

>> - can we broaden this same topic to include monitors or start a separate thread?

Pythagoras agrees with Apple's spec . Your 109 DPI number should be correct.

I just physically measure the horizontal width of my monitors and divide into the reported horizontal pixel dimension. I assume you did the same. Does that cover it?

Here is a revised formula to more directly account for differing monitor resolution:

Resolution @50% zoom = 206265*10/{monitor DPI}/Distance

>> - when I download the full-sized jpegs from the Nikon D800E samples .... I am gobsmacked...

I guess Nikon marketing did their job . It would be nice if they shot standard scenes that crossed camera bodies. I don't know how to answer your question. If I had the camera in hand I would shoot the same scene with it and my other favored bodies to compare.

I added two more objects to the image and re-posted it below. That image also includes my revised resolution computation using DPI.

The lowest object now is a single star. When doing real world binary observations it is not uncommon to have other stars in the field although they are rarely the same magnitude (brightness). But it does help to get a sanity check.

The middle object is more interesting. You can see, by zooming in, that the two airy disks are merged. Binary observers call this "notched" or "peanut-ed".

The middle object was my best attempt (limited to a 10 pixel star size) at illustrating a binary pair at the Rayleigh or Dawes limit of resolution. Both definitions are close to each other although Dawes number is a little tighter (by about 15%) and represents a "lower MTF" so to speak.

Dawes did the work first, sometime in the mid-19th century. His work was purely empirical, testing himself and other observers with various telescopes.

Rayleigh developed the physics and crunched the numbers, maybe 20-30 years later (not sure of the publication dates). The fact that they agree so closely, in retrospect, illustrates that reality reflects the theory, and also that around the 1850's or so Dawes had access to optics that were every bit as good as anything made today.

The Rayleigh definition is "Two point sources are regarded as just resolved when the principal diffraction maximum of one image coincides with the first minimum of the other."

Translated, the Rayleigh limit is simply the radius (half the diameter) of the entire central airy disk.

I personally have trouble applying the Rayleigh formula to double star observing for two reasons. First, while the extent of the Airy disk in theoretical and computer generated models is quite fuzzy, my perception, the real world, with a small scope, is that it is quite distinct. I suspect that what I perceive to be the full extent of the Airy disk is smaller than what we might think it is looking at computer generated plots (See Wikipedia.

The sharp delineation I perceive is reflected in my E Lyra model posted here. Right, wrong or indifferent .

Second, the recent periastron (closest approach) of the famous Gamma Virginis pair took them well outside the reach of almost all amateur scopes (way too tight to resolve) and then slowly worked their way out to separations resolved by increasingly smaller scopes.

I cleanly split G Virginis, at about 1.5" separation, with my smaller Questar, which has a theoretical notched Rayleigh limit of 1.3" and that should correlate to a minimum of 2.6". For that matter, I should not be able to cleanly split E Lyra, yet I can and I do it year in and year out. For that reason things can get confused when I talk about theory and practice at the same time .

I also watched a lot of Bacillus, going about their business, in the nasty March/April air, over many nights, while trying to do that split . As I recall, I used magnifications up to 600x or so... nasty stuff.

My confusion may not be applicable to photographic resolution in general but it may help to explain why some things I've said here could possibly be nit-picked by a good editor .

I do think it is extremely helpful to understand diffraction from the perspective of binary star observation and that is why I went into some detail here and prepared the model. This is the only time in nature that we humans can observe an Airy disk. The theory of diffraction and resolution was developed by astronomers, for astronomers, mainly just so they could understand what they were seeing and measuring.

My upper figure is E Lyra as I see it in my scope. If I prepared a set of aperture masks for that scope, simulating the aperture diaphragms in our lenses, each successively smaller mask would result in smaller f/ratios. And the diameter of the Airy disks would steadily increase, to the point they are touching, and then more and more heavily notched.

At some point it would look like the middle figure, where the central points of the Airy disks are separated by the radius of one disk. That is the point where "no further resolution is possible" despite increased magnification.

A similar concept occurs as we stop down our lenses, as it relates to the pixel density. However, the analogy becomes quite strained because, as you can see here, the Airy disk has structure. When our pixels hit the wall, the Airy disk is the size of a single pixel, which does not well represent a circle. The effect is quite clear, though, when photographing a line chart. The black and white bars become increasingly grayer to the point where they can not be distinguished at all.

Just thought I would start to connect that final dot. However, in terms of the COC we need to resolve our images at a certain size and distance, our eyes suffer the same problem (or worse aberrations) as we see here in the E Lyra model and there we do not have that problem of pixel binning.

While you are pondering the upper E Lyra model, compare to the single star at the bottom. Also compare to the middle model of two point sources at the very limits of diffraction. At what distance and resolution is the middle notched model no different than the single star?

Click on image to view larger version

Attachment#1 (jpg file)

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

elec164

US
2575 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#22. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 16

elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009
Fri 09-Mar-12 05:57 PM

>Hi Pete,
>
>All interesting information. The ruler test is not a very
>"ambitious" project.

My ambitious comment was with creating a chart in PS, not using a ruler.

But printing your chart was a breeze.

My results using my corrective glasses were about 7.45 feet outside in direct sunlight and about 6.9 feet in my computer room with fluorescent lighting.

Pete

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#23. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 22

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Fri 09-Mar-12 06:33 PM

Thanks, Pete! I thought supplying the chart would help .

Your numbers are about 103" resolution indoors and 96" outside.

Theoretically you should do better indoors, when your iris is opened up more, and therefore having a larger aperture. Both are good numbers,though, I think.

Have you tried my star test? It would be interesting to get comparative results (from everyone who tries any of this).

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#24. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 0

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Sat 03-Mar-12 03:41 PM

Lots of good advice here. I agree the answer for a 10x7" print: For image detail, no significant difference. For high dynamic range scenes D800 should win easily. At base ISO no difference but at higher ISO the D800 will kill the D200 easily, given the much cleaner starting point and the amount of downsampling.

Change the thought experiment to D700 vs. D800 on a 10x7" print and now I think the difference is not so clear, but close enough that we'd need to know more about D800 to hazard a guess. I raise this last issue just to point out that if you're printing small (let's define that as up to 13x19") then the D800 is not the ideal camera. There are other cameras that won't tax your storage capacity and processing power, and will leave significant money on the table for better glass, lighting, or other things that are more likely to increase your image quality in ways very visible in small to medium-size prints.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Gromit44

UK
730 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#25. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 24

Gromit44 Registered since 04th Jan 2012
Sat 03-Mar-12 04:00 PM | edited Sat 03-Mar-12 04:03 PM by Gromit44

The D200 can't get to 13 x 19 inches without upsizing by quite a large amount - for instance, at 300 ppi the native print size is 8.64 x 12.91 inches. The D800 on the other hand will go to 16.37 x 24.53 inches without upsizing - very nearly twice as big in both directions.

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#26. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 25

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Sat 03-Mar-12 04:18 PM

>The D200 can't get to 13x19 inches without upsizing by quite
>a large amount - for instance, at 300 ppi the native print
>size is 8.64 x 12.91 inches. The D800 on the other hand will
>go to 16.37 x 24.53 inches without upsizing - very nearly
>twice as big in both directions.

When I start talking about things like storage capacity, processing power, glass and lighting, I'm moving away from the thought experiment and taking the example into the real world. Really by limiting this to 13" wide I've been extremely conservative in what I've stated above.

The truth of the matter is, your eye can't resolve 300 dpi at a typical print viewing distance, many subjects don't contain this level of detail anyway, and moderate amounts of upsampling and sharpening will provide detail plenty adequate for printing this size.

My experience tells me that with quality pixels from capture to print, it's almost impossible to differentiate between 6MP and 12MP in a 13x19" print, despite the apparent lack of resolution of 6MP. I'd say it's safe to extrapolate from this, issues of noise and dynamic range aside, that 36MP won't yield a significant improvement either. This is why I mention D700, which will do a better job leveling the noise/DR playing field than D200.

I stand by my summary above. Your D800 either comes with a really big printer, or you're not going to realize any benefits over cheaper cameras already available today.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

DMCdigitalmedia

US
130 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#27. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 26

DMCdigitalmedia Registered since 04th Jan 2007
Sat 03-Mar-12 05:35 PM

It all depends on viewing distance of the print - I agree at any normal viewing distance of a couple of feet even a 6mp file at 13 x 19 would look close to the same. VIew the print from 6" or in a 100% crop and you will obviously notice more detail especially with a 36mp file ....That's not real world though , every day viewing on a 13 x 19 ..I bet few would notice the difference.. You could do a BIlboard with a D70 if you had to, all depends on how far it will be viewed at - I think that matters as much as MP's

www.dcarbophoto.com

"Like" me on facebook

www.facebook.com/dcarbophoto

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#28. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 27

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Sat 03-Mar-12 05:44 PM

I have no idea what it means to "view a print ... in a 100% crop" but I don't believe it has anything to do with my example above of printing 13x19" from 6MP compared to 12MP.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

DMCdigitalmedia

US
130 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#29. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 28

DMCdigitalmedia Registered since 04th Jan 2007
Sat 03-Mar-12 08:22 PM

I mean if you are looking at a 13 X 19 print from 6MP vs 12MP from 6" away then you will see a difference between the two ....probably not from a more realistic distance as if it was hanging on a wall. So It has everything to do with your example. Some people are anal and will put thier face right up to the print and scrutinize it. All I meant by !00% crop was if you were to view each in thier native resolution on a computer at 100% then you would see quite a difference in detail captured. Perhaphs I drifted off topic a bit or should have clarified.

www.dcarbophoto.com

"Like" me on facebook

www.facebook.com/dcarbophoto

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#30. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 29

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Sat 03-Mar-12 08:43 PM

>I mean if you are looking at a 13 X 19 print from 6MP vs 12MP
>from 6" away then you will see a difference between the
>two ....probably not from a more realistic distance as if it
>was hanging on a wall. So It has everything to do with your
>example. Some people are anal and will put thier face right up
>to the print and scrutinize it. All I meant by !00% crop was
>if you were to view each in thier native resolution on a
>computer at 100% then you would see quite a difference in
>detail captured. Perhaphs I drifted off topic a bit or should
>have clarified.

Well, viewing at 100% crop on a computer has absolutely nothing to do with anything anyone was talking about in this thread.

And I'll still disagree on the 13x19" print. I've got then scattered all over the walls in my house and several more in storage between shows. I'd be willing to lay down some odds you wouldn't be able to walk through and tell the 6's from the 12's.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

DMCdigitalmedia

US
130 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#31. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 30

DMCdigitalmedia Registered since 04th Jan 2007
Sat 03-Mar-12 09:09 PM

Lets keep it friendly moto..., as I said I may have gotten a little off topic - and for that matter the OP wasn't talking about 13 x 19 prints . I am actually agreeing with you on the 6 mp vs 12 mp example as I have both as well.....unless you have your face right upto a print they look pretty much the same at that size. I guess if we look at the original poster thought on native resolution ie: downsize the D800 to the same size as a d200 native resolution will the print look any better from the D800. ..... So back to the original question ....not sure how much of a difference you would see...love to see some samples though.

P.s I looked at your site moto ....great work ...I am close to the housatonic river, fished there many times !

www.dcarbophoto.com

"Like" me on facebook

www.facebook.com/dcarbophoto

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#32. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 31

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Sun 04-Mar-12 04:01 PM

>P.s I looked at your site moto ....great work ...I am close
>to the housatonic river, fished there many times !

Same to you - It may be a little crude to say, but when I come across someone on a camera forum I've always checked out their pictures to determine if they're someone I'd take camera advice from. Your stuff is gorgeous and I'd definitely put you in the category of someone worth listening to.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

TomCurious

Bay Area, US
2352 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#33. "RE: Will Higher Resolution of D800 Be Visible in "Native" Resolution Prints?" | In response to Reply # 0

TomCurious Registered since 03rd Jan 2007
Sat 03-Mar-12 09:30 PM

At smaller print sizes, the difference from the larger file will certainly not be big. The larger file, while being downsized to make a larger print, will need less sharpening, thus having more realistic detail and edges and less post processing artifacts. As was pointed out in this thread already, such differences will be visible only at close inspection of the print.

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian


http://www.tkphoto.me/

G