Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 17 Oct 2014 (Friday) 00:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

iMac Retina and resolution of current cameras

 
StayFrosty
Senior Member
Avatar
407 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2012
Location: UK
     
Oct 17, 2014 22:37 |  #16

I remember years ago when I upgraded my graphics card so I could move from 640x480 to 800x600 and thinking how awesome it was, that's barely a thumbnail preview now. It's strange to think that our current camera's images in 10-20 years will be like looking back on VHS tapes in the current era of HD!

The higher resolution the better when it comes to displaying images and video and our cameras need to keep up. As it stands a full res image from my 70d would only just fill these new 5K monitors. My preference would always be to have more pixels in the image so I can scale it down or so I can crop and still be able to display it at 1:1 so I would hope that camera megapixel numbers keep rising!


flickr (external link) Vimeo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,279 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 435
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
     
Oct 18, 2014 00:17 |  #17

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17218212 (external link)
1920 x 1080 is FullHD, 1080p for example, that is not 2K.

It's 2k !!
you are counting the pixels verticaly (horizontal lines) ! and make a mix with p (progressive) > it's another way to say full HD
As 720p is HD (ready) which is 1280x720 which in "K" language ( :lol: ) is 1K

so when you speak in a "K" language > 1920 is the number of horizontal pixels (vertical line) = it's a 2k !


150 Free online photos editing application (external link) / 100 Free Desktop Photo Editor Software (external link) / Free Photography eBooks (external link) / My photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Oct 18, 2014 02:36 |  #18

It's really 2880p, not 5K....


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K ­ Soze
Goldmember
Avatar
1,711 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3290
Joined Dec 2011
     
Oct 18, 2014 04:07 |  #19

To be proper, 2K is for movie projectors, 2048X1080. 1920X1080 is Referred to as 1080 or Full HD not 2K.


I try to make art by pushing buttons

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,279 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 435
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
     
Oct 18, 2014 08:57 |  #20

K Soze wrote in post #17219266 (external link)
To be proper, 2K is for movie projectors, 2048X1080. 1920X1080 is Referred to as 1080 or Full HD not 2K.

Yes i agree, but over all is same BS as 4k

"4K has become the common name for ultra high definition television (external link) (UHDTV), although its resolution is only 3840 x 2160 (at a 16:9, or 1.78:1 aspect ratio), which is lower than the 4K industry standard of 4096 x 2160 (at a 19:10 or 1.9:1 aspect ratio)." From wikipedia (external link)

So 3840 x 2160 is not 4k because it didn't reach the 4000 pixels wide mark ;)
and yes ok a 1920 with it's huge difference of 80 pixels it's not 2k.


150 Free online photos editing application (external link) / 100 Free Desktop Photo Editor Software (external link) / Free Photography eBooks (external link) / My photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Oct 18, 2014 14:05 |  #21

tkbslc wrote in post #17219213 (external link)
It's really 2880p, not 5K....

But at least it has >5k horizontal pixels, even if it is a measly 16x9 aspect ratio:D


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chris ­ panas
Senior Member
Avatar
737 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 1131
Joined Apr 2011
Location: London UK
     
Oct 18, 2014 15:39 |  #22

Unfortunately most of the internet still hasn't adjust itself to the current retina displays, so I think it's gonna take some time before everything will look equally good on new iMac's screen. For now and at least for a year or two - there will be a a lot of websites not ready for a retina display with this resolution, which means most of the photos on the websites will look bad, that includes these forums here. I hated looking at photo threads on my retina macbook pro, all the photos were pixelated and scaled up. Not even gonna mention watching movies that are not in good enough quality :)


Portfolio (external link)|Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Oct 18, 2014 15:44 |  #23

chris panas wrote in post #17220095 (external link)
Unfortunately most of the internet still hasn't adjust itself to the current retina displays, so I think it's gonna take some time before everything will look equally good on new iMac's screen. For now and at least for a year or two - there will be a a lot of websites not ready for a retina display with this resolution, which means most of the photos on the websites will look bad, that includes these forums here. I hated looking at photo threads on my retina macbook pro, all the photos were pixelated and scaled up. Not even gonna mention watching movies that are not in good enough quality :)

I wondered about text and web pages when the pixel density is so great - I've yet to see a retina Macbook display . I assume there is a scaling to make fonts bigger and legible and that it isn't great for photos - is there a preference to leave images unscaled to preserve them, or do they just need a better upscaler for browsing with?.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chris ­ panas
Senior Member
Avatar
737 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 1131
Joined Apr 2011
Location: London UK
     
Oct 18, 2014 15:54 |  #24

I don't know what's the solution for forums but for sure you would have to upload big images. Just check any of the photo threads here on any retina display at Apple store - impossible to enjoy.


Portfolio (external link)|Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Oct 18, 2014 16:03 |  #25

I would have expected the images simply to be smaller - same number of pixels, fewer inches... I'll check them out next time I'm near the store.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
koala ­ yummies
Senior Member
736 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 202
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
     
Oct 18, 2014 18:26 |  #26

chris panas wrote in post #17220120 (external link)
I don't know what's the solution for forums but for sure you would have to upload big images. Just check any of the photo threads here on any retina display at Apple store - impossible to enjoy.

I agree completely, many things are just not caught up. When I first got my retina macbook I noticed the same thing, viewing photos just wasn't as good online as it was in PS or on a standard display. Apple's own website is scaled properly and looks fantastic but outside of that not much else is.

When viewing photos on this forum I noticed that some member's photos looked good and retained sharpness on the retina display, while the majority shared the lack of sharpness problem. I saw that the photos from members that looked good were uploading larger files than normal and linking them from flickr but linking a smaller size (using the "BB Code" link method). It was scaling them down from the larger native file but retaining the sharpness on the retina display. Flickr seems to have changed something though because shortly after I started doing the same thing, but now the images don't look as good as they did previously doing it this way (uploading large, linking to a smaller size). This goes for every image now, even the ones that previously looked sharped doing it this way.

I have a standard mac display and a retina macbook and viewed them side by side to confirm this. It was working, for a little while, to upload about double the size I would normally upload and then BB-code link a to a smaller size. Now you have to click the linked-image (opens in flickr) to get it to look sharp.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony_Stark
Shellhead
Avatar
4,287 posts
Likes: 344
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Oct 18, 2014 18:47 |  #27

AJSJones wrote in post #17220105 (external link)
I wondered about text and web pages when the pixel density is so great - I've yet to see a retina Macbook display . I assume there is a scaling to make fonts bigger and legible and that it isn't great for photos - is there a preference to leave images unscaled to preserve them, or do they just need a better upscaler for browsing with?.

With such a high density screen, I am always zooming in my browser just to read. It scales up nicely. Using LR and PS is a dream on a 4K screen, only issue is the text is so damn small and takes a while to get used to :lol:


Nikon D810 | 24-70/2.8G | 58/1.4G
EOS M | 22 f/2 STM

Website (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tyler285
Member
70 posts
Joined Jul 2013
     
Oct 18, 2014 20:04 |  #28

I love the retina display on my Macbook Pro




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
N2bnfunn
Senior Member
Avatar
690 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 52
Joined Dec 2010
     
Oct 19, 2014 00:08 |  #29

tkbslc wrote in post #17219213 (external link)
It's really 2880p, not 5K....



That is NOT RIGHT, it is 5120 X 2880 and that make the 5K, just like a 1980 X1080


Canon 1DX Canon EOS R EF 70-200 L 2.8 EF 50mm 1.2 L 24-105 4.0 L 24-70 2.8L II Canon Pixma PRO-1 3 Canon 600EX-RT Speedlites

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,279 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 435
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
     
Oct 19, 2014 00:34 |  #30

N2bnfunn wrote in post #17220806 (external link)
That is NOT RIGHT, it is 5120 X 2880 and that make the 5K, just like a 1980 X1080

Yes.
It look like some people misunderstood the counting in vertical lines with the horizontal lines ;)


150 Free online photos editing application (external link) / 100 Free Desktop Photo Editor Software (external link) / Free Photography eBooks (external link) / My photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

12,462 views & 0 likes for this thread
iMac Retina and resolution of current cameras
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Bas.T
858 guests, 301 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.