Professional Web Applications Themes

A camera designed for optimum image quality ON THE MONITOR - Photography

Personally I prefer to view images on the monitor, and I wonder what a camera would look like if it were designed for this use only. Even on my crummy 17" Hyundai I clearly see the absence of noise in DSLR images. But I suppose that other aspects of high-end cameras may be more or less wasted if we only view images on the monitor. As for pixel count, some will say that 1.3 MP suffice, but this is clearly wrong, since downsized images from 2 and 3 MP cameras look much better. What is the maximum pixel count that ...

  1. #1

    Default A camera designed for optimum image quality ON THE MONITOR

    Personally I prefer to view images on the monitor, and I wonder what a
    camera would look like if it were designed for this use only.

    Even on my crummy 17" Hyundai I clearly see the absence of noise in DSLR
    images. But I suppose that other aspects of high-end cameras may be
    more or less wasted if we only view images on the monitor.

    As for pixel count, some will say that 1.3 MP suffice, but this is
    clearly wrong, since downsized images from 2 and 3 MP cameras look much
    better. What is the maximum pixel count that would make sense?

    The main idea, of course, is that megapixels could be traded for less
    noise and better dynamic range. I suppose something like 2 MP on a
    1/1.8" sensor would make sense in a $500 camera. Are there other
    tradeoffs that are possible if we disregard the need for prints?

    Needless to say, we are not going to get such a camera, but I wonder
    what is the nearest approximation. Currently (or in a few months) the
    most likely candidate seems to be the Fuji F700. Grateful for other
    suggestions.
    --
    Tore


    Tore Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: A camera designed for optimum image quality ON THE MONITOR

    Tore Lund <online.no> wrote:
     

    Tore,

    I would (and do) like some more pixels than the monitor or the
    projector has, because I'd like to be able to zoom in a bit.

    I think it's OK to have 2 Megapixels or even 3.

    If a downscaled picture looks better than a direct one, then the
    camera making the direct one is bad. It doesn't have to be like
    that.

    Hans-Georg

    --
    No mail, please.
    Hans-Georg Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: A camera designed for optimum image quality ON THE MONITOR

    Hans-Georg Michna <com> wrote in
    news:com:
     

    Nope.

    There are three reasons why a downscaled picture almost
    always is better at the pixel level.

    1. Bayer-filters. There are not RGB-sensors at each
    pixel. There is only R, G or B. To get a full color
    picture you must interpolate and make some smoothing.
    This smoothing is removed by downscaling.

    2. The sensor and lens are optimized for each other. No
    need to add a very expensive lens that resolves more
    than the sensor can handle. So the lens starts to get
    some loss of contrast at pixel level. This loss of contrast
    is removed by scaling down.,

    3. Aliasing. If your camera has an anti alias filter,
    the picture is somewhat unsharp at pixel level. Scaling
    down makes the picture sharper. If your camera do not have
    any anti alias filter you will remove some aliasing artefacts
    by scaling down.

    So - I recommend that you at least have 4 times more pixels
    in your camera than you use on the web.


    Roland
    Roland Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: A camera designed for optimum image quality ON THE MONITOR

    Roland,

    thanks for your interesting points! I didn't think of these at
    first and have to agree with you.

    One of the points may become moot with the advent of x3 sensors
    that have full color information in each pixel, but I haven't
    seen any yet.

    Hans-Georg

    --
    No mail, please.
    Hans-Georg Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: A camera designed for optimum image quality ON THE MONITOR

    Hans-Georg Michna <com> wrote in
    news:com:
     

    Look here

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd9/

    This is the only camera with X3 technology. There are mixed
    feelings regarding the camera. Some swear that it is the
    best thing next to sliced bread and some thinks that the quality
    is by far overrated. It does not sell so good though, even when it
    is now down at $1000 or so.

    Make a search at www.google.com "sigma sd9 review" and read on.



    Roland
    Roland Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: A camera designed for optimum image quality ON THE MONITOR

    John Navas <com> wrote in news:3cXRa.2981$dk4.140837
    typhoon.sonic.net:
     
    from 

    The effects I listed was

    1. Bayer
    2. Glass quality
    3. Anti alias filter

    2 is exactly what you propose - stating that the D-600 might
    have better glass than the sensor can resolve. There is not
    any conflict with your experiment.

    The D-600 does not have a anti alias filter - so 3 is not
    valid in your case unless you can see aliasing artefacts.
    And this you only can easily see in certain pictures.

    1 is left then. And - it is impossible to get 100% sharp
    pictures with Bayer filters. At least if the pictures not
    are mostly monochrome. This can easily be seen with
    Foveon pictures - how much we claim that it is noisier
    and might have worse colors - it is sharper! Look
    her http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home and you will find
    some really sharp pictures.

    Can you please show us your experiment.
     
    >
    > I doubt that anything over 2x would have any real effect.
    >[/ref]

    You might be right there.


    Roland
    Roland Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: A camera designed for optimum image quality ON THE MONITOR

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <133.1.4> on 18 Jul 2003 19:06:50
    GMT, Roland Karlsson <com> wrote:
     
    >
    >The effects I listed was
    >
    >1. Bayer
    >2. Glass quality
    >3. Anti alias filter
    >
    >2 is exactly what you propose - stating that the D-600 might
    >have better glass than the sensor can resolve. There is not
    >any conflict with your experiment.[/ref]

    Not quite -- read what I wrote more carefully.
     

    Sorry, but I've long since tossed the images.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Guest

Similar Threads

  1. high quality camera publish
    By h.risley in forum Macromedia Flash Flashcom
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 11th, 02:08 PM
  2. camera image
    By mygraneboy in forum Macromedia Director 3D
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 8th, 07:22 PM
  3. camera.image? or how do I projection map?
    By MultiDisciple webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Director 3D
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 11th, 01:01 PM
  4. monitor color and printed image not the same, what to do?
    By Rick Radford in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 1st, 07:56 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139