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

 
K ­ Soze
Goldmember
Avatar
1,616 posts
Gallery: 75 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2908
Joined Dec 2011
     
Oct 22, 2014 07:09 |  #46

AJSJones wrote in post #17226288 (external link)
That was true in Ansel Adams's time, but not today. Today, a display or a camera with more pixels has more resolution (whether you like it or not:D there are now two separate definitions of the word: - 1) how many distinct details can be perceived and 2) how small are the details that can be perceived)

I was not aware Mr. Adams shot digital, I thought he felt with film grain and that is very, very different form pixel structure.

Resolution comes from the source and is never even to the pixel structure of a sensor. Same goes for the monitor. Between the MTF and Kell Factor the resolution never equals the pixel structure when going from an analog capture to a digital medium and back again.


I try to make art by pushing buttons

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Shake ­ N ­ Vac
Senior Member
520 posts
Likes: 92
Joined Sep 2012
Location: UK
     
Oct 22, 2014 07:30 |  #47

Looks rather nice but I wish they would do it without a glossy screen, I just can't work on them. I'm sure it's just personal preference but I much prefer a screen that isn't glossy.


Canon 6D / Canon 70-200 IS ii / Sigma 100 Macro f2.8 / 50mm f1.8
www.sm-wedding-photography.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 90
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Oct 22, 2014 13:22 |  #48

K Soze wrote in post #17226804 (external link)
I was not aware Mr. Adams shot digital, I thought he felt with film grain and that is very, very different form pixel structure.

Well, that was rather the point, so to speak. Resolution used to mean something else

Ansel Adams, "The negative", 1981 (p. 20) wrote
Resolution refers to the ability of the film to render distinguishably fine detail, measured by photographing a test chart made up of closely spaced lines.

The idea that a 4x5 piece of Kodak Plus X would have more resolution than a 35mm FF piece would have seemed ludicrous to him:D


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
"What a Tool I am"
Avatar
8,866 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Nov 2002
     
Nov 03, 2014 18:46 |  #49

CyberManiaK wrote in post #17220884 (external link)
Well it's not a pretty much standard one, it's one meant for laptops it is the m290x gpu. here is an interesting analysis http://www.extremetech​.com …-5k-out-of-a-last-gen-gpu (external link)

That site is wrong. It's been since proven by users and reviewers that the new iMacs do run at 60hz at 5K. Extremetech AssUMed too much, but it did get them a lot of page hits. LOL

I do agree though Apple went with the wrong GPUs, and the Nvidia 9xxM options would have been a far more powerful/energy efficient choice (price might have been a reason though, don't know).

Doesn't Retina have display options allowing everything to remain the same size as a 1440p screen screeen, it just doubles the pixels for a smoother look? That would be perfect for most people but when editing a photo in PS I would like the other option. I wonder if you can choose "per program"


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K ­ Soze
Goldmember
Avatar
1,616 posts
Gallery: 75 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2908
Joined Dec 2011
     
Nov 03, 2014 19:29 as a reply to  @ AJSJones's post |  #50

double post


I try to make art by pushing buttons

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K ­ Soze
Goldmember
Avatar
1,616 posts
Gallery: 75 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2908
Joined Dec 2011
     
Nov 03, 2014 19:29 |  #51

AJSJones wrote in post #17227447 (external link)
Well, that was rather the point, so to speak. Resolution used to mean something else


The idea that a 4x5 piece of Kodak Plus X would have more resolution than a 35mm FF piece would have seemed ludicrous to him:D

Resolution is resolution


I try to make art by pushing buttons

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 90
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Nov 03, 2014 20:50 |  #52

K Soze wrote in post #17250510 (external link)
Resolution is resolution

A post is a post.
Doesn't really help much to say X is X, does it?:D
If you were to say what you mean by X it might be a post.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
"What a Tool I am"
Avatar
8,866 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Nov 2002
     
Nov 04, 2014 00:13 |  #53

http://arstechnica.com …at-60hz-at-5k-resolution/ (external link)


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bonbridge
Goldmember
Avatar
1,263 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 411
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Netherlands
     
Nov 05, 2014 15:49 |  #54

I think I am going to buy one.

Not the standard one but probably with two upgrades.

- 4.0-GHZ quad-core intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4,4 GHz (upgrade)
- 8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4 GB
- 512 GB flash (upgrade)
- AMD Radeon R9 M290X 2GB GDDR5

+ Magic mouse and wireless keyboard

I am going to use it for internet and photo edit (Lightroom). Is this the right choice or am I missing and/or overupgrading something?


5DII + 6D | 16-35/4.0L IS | Σ35/1.4A | 40/2.8 | Σ85/1.4A | 85/1.2L II | 70-200/2.8L IS II
iMac Retina 5k | i7 | 24Gb RAM | 512GB Flash | 4GB M295X

Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,278 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 421
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
     
Nov 05, 2014 17:29 |  #55

Bonbridge wrote in post #17254309 (external link)
I think I am going to buy one.

Not the standard one but probably with two upgrades.

- 4.0-GHZ quad-core intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4,4 GHz (upgrade)
- 8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4 GB
- 512 GB flash (upgrade)
- AMD Radeon R9 M290X 2GB GDDR5

+ Magic mouse and wireless keyboard

I am going to use it for internet and photo edit (Lightroom). Is this the right choice or am I missing and/or overupgrading something?

For PC (Microsoft windows) it might be enough ...
For Mac (OSX) you don't need all that power ...


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
drisley
"What a Tool I am"
Avatar
8,866 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Nov 2002
     
Nov 05, 2014 22:06 |  #56

^^ Curious guys, do you think 512 GB SSD is enough for a primary drive? I plan on using externals to store my pictures, and have gone back and forth on Fusion or SSD. Fusion gets great reviews from people who have used both and have said that even after exceeding the SSD limit, they don't really notice much difference in their real world usage compared to SSD machines they might have (beit another iMac, Macbook, or Mini).

Even by keeping pics on externals, apps and game installs are getting bigger and bigger (especially since a lot of developers only offer suite options). I wonder if 3 years down the road if that 512GB would be too wee? :)


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,278 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 421
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
     
Nov 06, 2014 00:38 |  #57

drisley wrote in post #17255026 (external link)
^^ Curious guys, do you think 512 GB SSD is enough for a primary drive? I plan on using externals to store my pictures, and have gone back and forth on Fusion or SSD. Fusion gets great reviews from people who have used both and have said that even after exceeding the SSD limit, they don't really notice much difference in their real world usage compared to SSD machines they might have (beit another iMac, Macbook, or Mini).

Even by keeping pics on externals, apps and game installs are getting bigger and bigger (especially since a lot of developers only offer suite options). I wonder if 3 years down the road if that 512GB would be too wee? :)

Do it ! it's years now i store all pictures only on external drive, i "lightroom" them on external drive, LR Catalog also on external drive, it work very well, no more thinking about space on my internal HDD, over all it's a mind free and it's very practical (plug in different computer, whatever, you are free)
And now the external drive are very, very cheap ;)


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
Mark0159
I say stupid things all the time
Avatar
12,773 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 193
Joined Mar 2003
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
     
Nov 06, 2014 02:10 |  #58

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 :)

it's just not the internet. Apps within Windows has caught up to the higher res screesns. Even native apps within Windows sometimes doesn't scale up that well. And that's with Win8.1. Perhaps if they fix this issue with Win10 then that might force a lot of people to upgrade.

moving right a long, perhaps this will force the likes of Canon to have bigger than 20mpx cameras. Once everyone has gone to 4K or 5K or 6K or what ever comes next then the current size mpx of cameras isn't going to cut it.

But perhaps the next best thing isn't so much just a 16:9 format or even 16:10 format monitor but 21:9 ratio monitor.

http://petapixel.com …itor-great-happens-curve/ (external link)


Mark
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/52782633@N04 (external link)
Canon EOS 6D | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM | Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD | Canon Speedlite 550EX -|- Film | Canon EOS 3 | Olympus OM2 | Zuiko 35mm f2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lance60031x
ISO composure
264 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2013
Location: Chicago area, IL USA
     
Nov 06, 2014 06:42 |  #59

OT - This is not really about camera pixels and screens - but I must say I picked up a "basic" imac retina and was having second thoughts until I got it up and running and some of my photos into LR. OMG - it is like comparing SD TV channels to a true HD channel. I am glad I moved from my old 5 yr old imac.


7d mii, 5d miii, 70-200 f2.8 ii, 17-40 f4, 24-70 f2.8 ii, 24-105 f4, 100 macro L, 300 f4 canon 50 1.4, canon 85 1.8, siggy 35 f1.4 siggy 50 1.4 A

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,443 posts
Likes: 349
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Nov 06, 2014 07:47 |  #60

Resolution is one thing...but how accurate are the colours and how easily are these new monitors to calibrate. For fine print work, colour accuracy is more important than resolution.

Anyone have experience with these new 4k / 5k monitors when it comes to colour accuracy and calibration?




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

11,547 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 brotherbear86
795 guests, 367 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.