A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 28th 09, 01:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture

Brad Sanborne wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:40:50 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Brad Sanborne wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:44:31 -0500, Brad Sanborne
wrote:


Do the math on how much magnification you are
seeing by viewing a 3648 pixel-width image from a 10-megapixel camera on an
average 96-dpi LCD monitor at 1:1 resolution. That's like looking at a
negative with a 38x-power dissecting microscope.


Correction.


Let's for the sake of argument take a 10-megapixel P&S camera at 3648
pixels wide and a sensor width of 5.75mm. That's 634.5 pixels per mm.
That's 16,116 pixels per inch. On a 96-dpi monitor viewed at 1:1 that's
like looking at a negative with a 168x microscope.


Let's for the sake of the argument not forget that the standard
size one looks at through the loupe is not a 4.31x5.75mm,
but a 24x36mm frame (for common compact P&S cameras), if not
larger (for less P&Ssy cameras). So it's 101.3 pixels per mm
equivalent and thus 2574 pixels per inch equivalent. On a
96-ppi monitor: 27x equivalent.


Or how about a 15.1 megapixel dSLR at 4752 pixels wide and a sensor width
of 22.3mm. That's 213 pixels per mm. That's 5,410 pixels per inch. On a
96-dpi monitor viewed at 1:1 that's like looking at a negative with a 56x
microscope.


Nope: 132 p/mm = 3.353 p/in = 35x --- assuming a 35mm would
have held 15MPix of data and little enough grain for a matching
enlargement.



Now why on earth did you do all that math over when the same calculations
were already done in the last paragraph?


Because your's were wrong.
29x != 27x (actually 26.8111...x) and 36x != 35x (actually 34.952x).

Only you did them in error.


I did? Really?

The width of a 35mm film frame is 36mm.


That must be the reason why I wrote "24x36mm frame".
That must be the reason why I calculated
3648 p / 36 mm ~= 101.3 p/mm
^^^^^
4752 p / 36 mm = 132 p/mm
.. ^^^^^

Oh, did you think "assuming a 35mm [negative] would have held
15MPix of data [...]" had to be "assuming a 35mm [width] would
have held 15MPix [...]".
Why on earth would one think a one-dimensional *length* could
hold 15MPix?
Why on earth didn't even check the math?
How on earth did you come up with the wrong answers --- and
differently wrong answers for each calculation?

Do you always like making a fool of yourself so publicly?


Yes, I love doing that, especially as it turns out you're
wrong and I am right.

Maybe you just have an OCD involving mathematical masturbation.


Maybe you just don't grasp math.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:13:32 -0500, Brad Sanborne wrote:


Even if we take a 36mm width as a standard 35mm-film frame for a virtual
equivalent negative-size for both, then the P&S image is being viewed with
a 29x magnifier and the dSLR image is being viewed with a 36x magnifier
when viewed at 1:1 on a 96-dpi monitor.


Yep, wrong as it comes.

-Wolfgang
  #2  
Old September 2nd 09, 09:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Brad Sanborne wrote:


Now why on earth did you do all that math over when the same calculations
were already done in the last paragraph?


Because your's were wrong.
29x != 27x (actually 26.8111...x) and 36x != 35x (actually 34.952x).



So does this in anyway change his point? In fact IMHO you make it for
him! :-)

Stephanie


  #3  
Old September 2nd 09, 03:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture

wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Brad Sanborne wrote:


Now why on earth did you do all that math over when the same calculations
were already done in the last paragraph?


Because your's were wrong.
29x != 27x (actually 26.8111...x) and 36x != 35x (actually 34.952x).


So does this in anyway change his point?


- *Oh* *My* *Goddess*, *A* *168x* *Microscope* (and, doesn't apply,
but you could come up with 29x)
versus
- at best 27x

and

- *Oh* *My* *Goddess*, *A* *56x* *Microscope* (and, doesn't apply,
but you could come up with 36x)
versus
- By *your* numbers it's 35x, but it's really 21x.


(and that's still assuming 96dpi is correct, which it isn't:
more and more monitors have denser pixels --- mine for example
is currently running at 117dpi (but could do 122dpi --- yes,
it's a big CRT) giving 22x and 27x-or-really-17x)


Maybe you should read what I wrote, not the
partial (and misleadingly snipped) account from Braddy Boy,
where he accuses *me* because *he* can't do his math.

In fact IMHO you make it for him! :-)


What? His point is "Oh My Goddess, They Are All 168x Plus Factor
Extreme Pixel Peepers Snapshooters" wheras mine is "The loupes have
increased by a factor of 2 for equivalent measures, and that's
it --- we just demand more from our lenses these days".

If you really can't differenciate between me and someone who
throws around terms like "dissecting microscope", "pixel-peeper
beginner photographer who wants to pretend they are an instant
pro", "Insta-Pro Snapshooters", "desperately look for something
that might be worthwhile in their snapshots at a pixel level",
"They have totally missed the big picture .... and probably always
will." and claims (completely unsupported) that "sensor-noise and
resolution" is now "the determining factor in quality photography"
.... well, in that case you can be excused.

It's quite obvious that Braddy boy not only fluked at math but
is also a pretend-photographer (he tries to make us think he is
one by cleverly "remembering" film days and smearing vaseline
on filters and excessive use of the word "we" and ranting how
unphotographic he, ah, I meant, everyone _else_ is).

-Wolfgang
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture Brad Sanborne Digital SLR Cameras 61 September 20th 09 08:07 PM
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 0 August 28th 09 01:48 PM
missing cache of stolen photos - gone missing! Alienjones[_3_] 35mm Photo Equipment 8 April 11th 08 03:09 AM
missing cache of stolen photos - gone missing! Alienjones[_3_] Digital SLR Cameras 8 April 11th 08 03:09 AM
Nikon D70 Mem Card Anomalies? pipex Digital Photography 30 September 5th 04 08:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.