you are on the new server domainname will switch later
If you can not login please clear cookies
chevron_left
chevron_right
The-Photo forum
  • Home
  • Forums
    • theatersImage Discussions arrow_forward
      • chat_bubbleChallenges arrow_forward
        • camera Edit me an Image
        • camera Photo of the Week
      • chat_bubbleHave your photos Critiqued arrow_forward
        • camera Wednesday C&C
      • Showcase your Photos
      • chat_bubbleWeekly & Topic Image Threads arrow_forward
        • camera Abstract/Experimental
        • camera B&W Threads
        • camera Sunday Cats!
        • camera Weekly Collegial forum
        • camera Daily Outing
        • camera This week through your eyes
        • camera Landscape
        • camera Street Photography
    • theatersMiscellaneous forums arrow_forward
      • Photo Hardware Discussions
      • Industry News
    • theatersOther Photography Talk arrow_forward
      • General Articles
      • Photo History Trivia
      • Open discussions
      • Technical Discussions
    • theatersSite Discussions arrow_forward
      • Governance and organisation
      • Updates & Bugs
    • theatersWelcome arrow_forward
      • chat_bubbleForum Guidelines arrow_forward
        • camera Misplaced Posts
      • Introduce yourself
  • Threads
  • Users
  • Web Site
  • message
  • group
  • chevron_right Threads
  • label Other Other Photography Talk
  • label Open Open discussions

Are smaller pixels/sensors better for macro.

DonaldB
June 30, 2023
chat_bubble_outline 92
arrow_downward first_page chevron_left
  • link
    JimKasson
    Members 1738 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:25 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:25 p.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:
    @JimKasson has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    thats where you have no idea. detail is at pixel level not sensor size.

    Looking at well made same size prints, the observer won't see any of the capture-level pixels.

    but we are looking at images made from microscope objectives with extremely fine detail.

    Why the "but"? The point is maximizing the detail captured. Finer pitch is a win here, until diffraction is the long pole in the tent.

  • link
    JimKasson
    Members 1738 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:27 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:27 p.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:

    bigger pixels produce cleaner images.

    Uh, I beg to differ.

    blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/noise-reduction-with-nonlinear-tools-and-downsampling/

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2414 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:31 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:31 p.m.
    link

    left large pixels right smaller pixels.

    fly test detail.jpg

    fly test detail.jpg

    JPG, 2.6 MB, uploaded by DonaldB on July 2, 2023.

    Deleted likes this.

    favorite 1

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2414 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:32 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:32 p.m.
    link
    @JimKasson has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    bigger pixels produce cleaner images.

    Uh, I beg to differ.

    blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/noise-reduction-with-nonlinear-tools-and-downsampling/

    on a stacked 100 shot image detail is much cleaner.

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2414 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:33 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:33 p.m.
    link
    @IliahBorg has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    bigger pixels produce cleaner images

    Magic.

    less pixel bleeding

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2414 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:35 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:35 p.m.
    link
    @JimKasson has written:
    @DonaldB has written:
    @JimKasson has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    thats where you have no idea. detail is at pixel level not sensor size.

    Looking at well made same size prints, the observer won't see any of the capture-level pixels.

    but we are looking at images made from microscope objectives with extremely fine detail.

    Why the "but"? The point is maximizing the detail captured. Finer pitch is a win here, until diffraction is the long pole in the tent.

    which is what we are discussing Diffraction limited also pixel bleeding, noise control. larger pixels win on all 3 . stack those 3 items 100 times and you get a less cleaner less detailed image from smaller pixels.

  • link
    IliahBorg
    Members 976 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:36 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:36 p.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:

    less pixel bleeding

    Please define what you mean.

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2414 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:41 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:41 p.m.
    link
    @JimKasson has written:
    @DonaldB has written:
    @JimKasson has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    thats where you have no idea. detail is at pixel level not sensor size.

    Looking at well made same size prints, the observer won't see any of the capture-level pixels.

    but we are looking at images made from microscope objectives with extremely fine detail.

    Why the "but"? The point is maximizing the detail captured. Finer pitch is a win here, until diffraction is the long pole in the tent.

    www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=45894

    Screenshot 2023-07-03 074016.jpg

    Screenshot 2023-07-03 074016.jpg

    JPG, 474.3 KB, uploaded by DonaldB on July 2, 2023.

  • link
    JimKasson
    Members 1738 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:45 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:45 p.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:

    bigger pixels produce cleaner images.

    Then I've got a camera for you:

    blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sloof-lirpa-announces-high-dynamic-range-camera/

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2414 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:47 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:47 p.m.
    link
    @IliahBorg has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    less pixel bleeding

    Please define what you mean.

    classic case see the flys eyes are good but there is even finer detail that the m43 sensor cant resolve.

    Screenshot 2023-07-03 074608.jpg

    Screenshot 2023-07-03 074608.jpg

    JPG, 2.1 MB, uploaded by DonaldB on July 2, 2023.

  • link
    IliahBorg
    Members 976 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:48 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:48 p.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:
    @IliahBorg has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    less pixel bleeding

    Please define what you mean.

    classic case see the flys eyes are good but there is even finer detail that the m43 sensor cant resolve.

    Why do you call it pixel bleeding period?

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2414 posts
    July 2, 2023, 9:52 p.m. July 2, 2023, 9:52 p.m.
    link
    @JimKasson has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    bigger pixels produce cleaner images.

    Then I've got a camera for you:

    blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sloof-lirpa-announces-high-dynamic-range-camera/

    sounds like computational photography. i have no problem with DR. do i spent $1500 on a new microscope objective or keep what i have is my delemma atm 😁

  • link
    JACS
    Members 878 posts
    July 2, 2023, 10:04 p.m. July 2, 2023, 10:04 p.m.
    link

    [deleted]

    IliahBorg and JimKasson like this.

    favorite 2

  • link
    JimKasson
    Members 1738 posts
    July 2, 2023, 10:07 p.m. July 2, 2023, 10:07 p.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:
    @JimKasson has written:

    Then I've got a camera for you:

    blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sloof-lirpa-announces-high-dynamic-range-camera/

    sounds like computational photography.

    Did you notice the date of the post?

  • link
    JimKasson
    Members 1738 posts
    July 2, 2023, 10:08 p.m. July 2, 2023, 10:08 p.m.
    link
    @JACS has written:

    This corresponds to sampling theory very well. Theoretically, Q=2 is all that you need. But then you need to use the sinc interpolation, which is not very practical. Some degree of oversampling makes the interpolation much easier, and largely independent of the interpolant.

    Good point.

  • link
    IliahBorg
    Members 976 posts
    July 2, 2023, 11:08 p.m. July 2, 2023, 11:08 p.m.
    link
    @JACS has written:
    @IliahBorg has written:
    @JACS has written:

    It is about the factor 2 here:

    Q = 2 * Fcsensor / Fclens

    At some point Zeiss were showing that with a microscope "Q" up to 3 were showing visible improvements, but above 3 (they went to 5 for the critics to be sure) no visible improvement happened. That was with a monochrome sensor.

    This corresponds to sampling theory very well. Theoretically, Q=2 is all that you need. But then you need to use the sinc interpolation, which is not very practical. Some degree of oversampling makes the interpolation much easier, and largely independent of the interpolant.

    "That was with a monochrome sensor." ;)

    JimKasson likes this.

    favorite 1

  • link
    JACS
    Members 878 posts
    July 2, 2023, 11:46 p.m. July 2, 2023, 11:46 p.m.
    link

    [deleted]

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2414 posts
    July 3, 2023, 1:11 a.m. July 3, 2023, 1:11 a.m.
    link

    well did my final test 4x amscope microscope objective 20meg em12 fly head eye detail , sony a74 apsc mode 14 meg image. the sony absolutly destroyed the smaller sensor pixels on detail sharpness and contrast even magnifying it to suit the 20 meg file. then used the 10 x olympus objective pulled back to (6x aprox )the same framing as the 20 meg olympus image. the sony just didnt just destroy it, it abliterate the smaller pixels. its on another planet.

  • link
    JACS
    Members 878 posts
    July 3, 2023, 2:42 a.m. July 3, 2023, 2:42 a.m.
    link

    [deleted]

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2414 posts
    July 3, 2023, 2:50 a.m. July 3, 2023, 2:50 a.m.
    link

    Ok whos in for the bomb shell ! what can produce the sharpest most detailed shot at 4x of the fly head identical objective and lighting

    a6300 24 meg

    a7iv crop mode 14 meg sensor

    place your bets and then i will shoot the same with an olympus 10 x objective 😎😁

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2414 posts
    July 3, 2023, 6:14 a.m. July 3, 2023, 6:14 a.m.
    link

    and the winner is .......................................................................... me of cause 😁😜

    a74 crop mode 14 meg Vers a6300 24 meg 10x olympus microscope objective same dead fly 😒 he was alive but i acidently squashed him transfering him to the studio. at least he was still 🤨🙄 identical lighting and processing. and 100 images each stack. electronic shutter remote shutter control so no vibration at all.
    the a74 is just an amazing camera 10 frames per second no blackout unlimited buffer took a fraction of the time to shoot the image compared to the a6300.

    100 % a74 6300 15x.jpg

    100 % a74 6300 15x.jpg

    JPG, 2.3 MB, uploaded by DonaldB on July 3, 2023.

arrow_upward first_page chevron_left

There are no more posts in this thread.

  • DPRevived.com & the-photo.org are owned and operated by The Photographer's Foundation Limited, registered in England, company number 14795583. Contact us here https://the-photo.org/contact.html
powered by misago