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 Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 16 Apr 2015 (Thursday) 02:52
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Go with the 5Ds or simply rely on Upscaling Software?

 
Canonised
Goldmember
Avatar
1,319 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 2567
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Singapore
     
Apr 16, 2015 02:52 |  #1

The new 5Ds large mega pixel sensor (50mb) seems to be excessive considering that its mainly used for large print purposes. As there are a few good upscaling software available, why would any professional choose a large sensor over - say 5D3 22mp sensor?

Is there other advantages apart from large print size? Afterall, the actual connected cost of needing bigger storage, faster computers etc. all build up...


CANONISED (aka Horolographer)
GEAR LIST
INSTAGRAM - http://instagram.com/h​arrytanphotography (external link)
Horolography blog - http://watchinghorolog​y.com (external link)
Photography blog - http://harrytanphotogr​aphy.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Radtech1
Everlasting Gobstopper
Avatar
6,455 posts
Likes: 30
Joined Jun 2003
Location: Trantor
     
Apr 16, 2015 09:13 |  #2

I have not looked too deeply into the 5Ds. Does it have the anti-aliasing filter removed (usually reserved for MF, but with a pixel count that high, it's possible).

If there is no aa filter, then it will deliver intrinsically sharper images than other full frame cameras. (But at the cost of possible aliasing and moire.)

Take a look into that.

Rad


.
.

Be humble, for you are made of the earth. Be noble, for you are made of the stars.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Apr 16, 2015 10:53 |  #3

The more clean data you have to work with from the get go, the more you can do with it.

For example: stitching images together, while taking longer due to more processing time, can be more reliable if you are starting with higher resolution images. So even if you're down-sampling the final product to a standard 1080P resolution wallpaper, you may be able to get better results with less effort when starting at something with a far larger resolution.

Pixels are data points, NOT little coloured squares. If you have time I suggest digging up a copy of the paper "A pixel is not a little square" and giving that a read. Makes more sense if you have a bit of a math/data processing background, but covers enough that non-technical people should be able to get a bit of an idea of what's actually going on.

You can always discard data after the fact, but it is very hard to fill in gaps that you never collected in the first place. So you need to sort out what you actually want to do and figure out how much data is actually useful to collect. (This is why I prefer crop sensors if I'm doing telephoto work. If I know I'm going to be tossing out everything but the middle anyway, then I don't really see a point in recording it in the first place.)


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,917 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2385
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Apr 17, 2015 08:50 |  #4

that software can enhance detail that is already there, but it can't create detail that was missed when the shutter was released.

and it might gain you a couple of MP, but it isn't going to gain you 28 MP.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Apr 18, 2015 21:16 |  #5

How about for billboards or prints so large that even images from the 5Ds will need to be upscaled?

I don't think storage cost is really even an issue anymore. At least not for those who would buy a 5ds. What about those professionals who make use of 50 and 60 mp medium format cameras?


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Apr 18, 2015 21:43 as a reply to  @ MattPharmD's post |  #6
bannedPermanent ban

If you don't print large, then you don't need the 5ds...if you do print large, then the extra pixels will be a big benefit.

I guess I can ask you why 24mpix is needed if we can shoot with 8mpix and just use software to uprez. The same logic applies to the 5ds versus 5d3.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"That's what I do."
Avatar
15,813 posts
Gallery: 173 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5911
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
Apr 19, 2015 01:01 |  #7

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17521028 (external link)
that software . . . . can't create detail that was missed when the shutter was released.

Bingo! That's the answer.

The upscaling software will not be able to replicate all of the fine detail that was in the actual scene that you photographed. This may not matter for many types of photography, but if you are trying to produce fine-art images of scenes that have an enormous amount of very fine detail, then the greater number of pixels will be a distinct advantage.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
69,628 posts
Likes: 226
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
     
Apr 19, 2015 10:43 |  #8

I think the 5Ds/5Dr vs. upscaling really comes down to how often you'll need the higher-resolution (or more tightly-cropped) images that would require the better detail from extra pixels on target. I wouldn't rush out to buy a 5Ds unless I expected to need the extra detail on a regular basis of weekly even more frequently (assuming the higher resolution couldn't be met by use of a backup 7D/7D2 or other "cropped" body).


Jon
----------
Cocker Spaniels
Maryland and Virginia activities
Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ
Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.
PAYPAL GIFT NO LONGER ALLOWED HERE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RMH
Goldmember
Avatar
1,000 posts
Likes: 36
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canterbury
Post edited over 5 years ago by RMH. (6 edits in all)
     
Apr 20, 2015 08:14 |  #9

^this

for me, everything I take is generally for web-sized use, up to about a 12"x18" print, which I actually have down scale to, even at 300dpi, so for me the 5DS/r would just be bigger files, slower workflow, more storage cost, with zero benefit. Bear in mind that even at the closest focusing distance of your eye you can't see more than 300dpi, and I doubt there are many printers with will pint it either (do not confuse ink-drops per inch on a consumer ink-jet with real pixels per inch!), so for me you have to be making large prints of a fairly regular basis to make it worthwhile and I just don't see myself doing that any time soon



All the stuff I've owned at one time or another

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,917 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4723
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Apr 20, 2015 08:25 |  #10

I saw some stunning prints from a large format inkjet this weekend at a printing seminar from Stephen Johnson and it made me wonder why anyone would need more pixels than a 5D3 produces. I know I don't.


Getting better at this - Fuji X-t3 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 16 1.4 - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"That's what I do."
Avatar
15,813 posts
Gallery: 173 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5911
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
Apr 20, 2015 10:11 |  #11

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17524822 (external link)
I saw some stunning prints from a large format inkjet this weekend at a printing seminar from Stephen Johnson and it made me wonder why anyone would need more pixels than a 5D3 produces. I know I don't.

I was at the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge visitor's center last moth. There is a photo of Greater White Fronted Geese in flight - a whole flock of them - and it covers a 12' long by 8' high wall. The way the room is laid out, you really can't get a clear view of the photo until you are standing about 4 feet from it. The photo could be really cool looking, as it features a head-on, close-up view of about 20 or 30 geese flying right at the camera. But it looks like crap because there is no well-resolved feather detail in the geese ...... just soft areas of varying color where there should be intricate feather patterns on the breasts and distinct primaries and secondaries along the wings.

This type of shot could never be stitched, as the geese are in flight and it takes a shutter speed of about 1/1250th of a second to get the wings sharp - if you took a multi-frame burst there is simply no way that the wings would be in the same position for each of the frames. So the only way to capture this is with a single frame, which then must be blown up to 8 foot by 12 foot dimensions.

Uprezzing wouldn't be a good solution, because the software will fill in what detail it thinks should be there (via interpolation), rather than what really was there. If I am looking at a photo of geese, I want to see the feathers and feather segments that were really there on the goose's plumage - I do not want to see feather detail that was created by a software program that was trying to guess what the feathers looked like.

I don't know about you, Ted, but if I were shooting that photo for that application I would surely want more pixels than the 5D3 has.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,917 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4723
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
Post edited over 5 years ago by FarmerTed1971.
     
Apr 20, 2015 11:01 |  #12

Good example... but, was it meant to be viewed that close? I guess there was no choice.


Getting better at this - Fuji X-t3 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 16 1.4 - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,917 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2385
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Apr 20, 2015 12:17 |  #13

here is a post of mine quoted by Tom R. from a thread about the 7DII's higher resolution.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17512994

while not directly about upscaling software i think it give some good insight into why a lot of people need higher resolution straight from the camera. And fwiw, i've used some of that up scaling software in the past and wasn't impressed.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Apr 20, 2015 12:28 |  #14

Some people also just really enjoy very large prints which are loaded with lots of detail.

One of the few gallery views I've seen that truly impressed me where black and white landscape prints, that were enlargements from custom film in a home built camera. The photo started life on film that was already something like 4 feet by 8 feet, and they were then enlarged 'just a little' to take up entire walls. You could actually sit there with a loupe and find more details and things that you wouldn't have noticed in a normal photo, such as being able to barely make out a small song bird on a branch far in the background. (A single pixel on my 7D would have covered the whole bird.)


So the short version on resolution: Know what your output goals are, and record the data needed to produce your target work.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
3six2four
Mostly Lurking
16 posts
Joined Apr 2015
     
Apr 30, 2015 04:46 |  #15

In most users' contexts, for cropping and reasonably detailed editing, around 20 MP is more than good enough. Print size in relation to sensible viewing distances tends to undermine arguments for huge megapixel images.

There's no real basis for insisting 30+ MP are better than 16 for billboards and vehicle advertising, etc.

Here's an interesting article on how many MP we may actually need:

https://photographylif​e.com …xels-when-i-could-have-50 (external link)


Random Thoughts On Photography:
http://theimageplane.w​ordpress.com (external link)

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

3,819 views & 0 likes for this thread
Go with the 5Ds or simply rely on Upscaling Software?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
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 lindahaynesss
758 guests, 231 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.