Actual Pixels or not

On Apr 19, 8:16 pm, "John Smith" <shotb....DeleteThis@sneiorglobe.com> wrote:
> Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
> Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other
> than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"
>
> DP

If the system is really bad, it may show up the fact at less than
100%
 >> Stay informed about: Actual Pixels or not 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Actual Pixels or not 

"ray" <ray DeleteThis @zianet.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.20.03.23.55.847310@zianet.com...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote:
>
>> Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
>> Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything
>> other
>> than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"
>>
>> DP
>
> I should think 400% would be even better.

I agree, but I'm under the impression that at anything other than 100
percent or actual pixels, you're actually looking at how the software is
interpreting the image rather than what the sensor/lens is putting out.

is that incorrect?

DP
 >> Stay informed about: Actual Pixels or not 

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:10:41 -0400, John Smith wrote:

>
> "ray" <ray RemoveThis @zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.04.20.03.23.55.847310@zianet.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
>>> Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything
>>> other
>>> than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"
>>>
>>> DP
>>
>> I should think 400% would be even better.
>
> I agree, but I'm under the impression that at anything other than 100
> percent or actual pixels, you're actually looking at how the software is
> interpreting the image rather than what the sensor/lens is putting out.
>
> is that incorrect?
>
> DP

I would agree in the case of less than 100% - at 200 or 400 you should
actually be able to SEE the pixels - you can't hardly see one pixel on
your screen. At 200% each pixel should be a 2x2 square.
 >> Stay informed about: Actual Pixels or not 

"ray" <ray DeleteThis @zianet.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.21.01.36.38.727740@zianet.com...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:10:41 -0400, John Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> "ray" <ray DeleteThis @zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.04.20.03.23.55.847310@zianet.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
>>>> Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything
>>>> other
>>>> than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"
>>>>
>>>> DP
>>>
>>> I should think 400% would be even better.
>>
>> I agree, but I'm under the impression that at anything other than 100
>> percent or actual pixels, you're actually looking at how the software is
>> interpreting the image rather than what the sensor/lens is putting out.
>>
>> is that incorrect?
>>
>> DP
>
> I would agree in the case of less than 100% - at 200 or 400 you should
> actually be able to SEE the pixels - you can't hardly see one pixel on
> your screen. At 200% each pixel should be a 2x2 square.
>

I'm not so much concerned with seeing the actual pixel. I just want to be
sure that what I'm looking at is the actual output from the camera and not
resampling or resizing by whatever viewing program I'm using.

DP
 >> Stay informed about: Actual Pixels or not 

On Apr 20, 9:48 am, Jim Townsend <n....DeleteThis@real.address> wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
> > Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
> > Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other
> > than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"
>
> Looking at an 8MP image zoomed to 100% on your monitor is the same as
> printing a 35mm film frame at about 41 inches by 27 inches.
>
> That's like looking at a poster ~ 3.4 feet by 2.25 feet.
>
> I think that would be enough enlargement to determine lens sharpness.


But it still may be limited by the resolution of the monitor rather
than the inherent image itself. Now, I think Mac world may be
different, but in the Windows world, not only can the monitor itself
have differing resolution, but there is a graphics setting in the
options of the operating system, so that the monitor is not even
displaying the number of pixels the monitor is capable of.

For instance, one setting is 1024 by 780. This is less than a
megapixel! There are higher resolution monitors and settings, but
you'd have to have an awfully good one to have a monitor with 8 mp.
 >> Stay informed about: Actual Pixels or not 

On Apr 20, 9:48 am, Jim Townsend <n....TakeThisOut@real.address> wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
> > Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
> > Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other
> > than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"
>
> Looking at an 8MP image zoomed to 100% on your monitor is the same as
> printing a 35mm film frame at about 41 inches by 27 inches.
>
> That's like looking at a poster ~ 3.4 feet by 2.25 feet.
>
> I think that would be enough enlargement to determine lens sharpness.


But it still may be limited by the resolution of the monitor rather
than the inherent image itself. Now, I think Mac world may be
different, but in the Windows world, not only can the monitor itself
have differing resolution, but there is a graphics setting in the
options of the operating system, so that the monitor is not even
displaying the number of pixels the monitor is capable of.

For instance, one setting is 1024 by 780. This is less than a
megapixel! There are higher resolution monitors and settings, but
you'd have to have an awfully good one to have a monitor with 8 mp.
 >> Stay informed about: Actual Pixels or not 

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
[]
> For instance, one setting is 1024 by 780. This is less than a
> megapixel! There are higher resolution monitors and settings, but
> you'd have to have an awfully good one to have a monitor with 8 mp.

1024 x 768, perhaps? Very sharp pixels from an LCD monitor compared to
those in a CRT or a print.....

David
 >> Stay informed about: Actual Pixels or not