Why do some people shy away from high megapixel cameras/sensors

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19216755
You don’t have to live near someone. Most of the remote meetings tools today allow a person to remotely work on your Mac for you while you watch and talk with the person.

Zoom is just one of these.

Yes! I had this done when I bought a new Mac Mini M1. It was awesome but it was a low end Mac and I decided I wanted to wait for a higher end version with more RAM. So after playing with it for a few days I wanted to do a clean installation of the OS and landed in a world of trouble. Now I’ve been on Macs since forever, late 80’s, and I can do a clean install in my dreams. But this one wouldn’t work, no matter all the tricks I pulled (turned out to be a bug which they fixed in a quick update). So I called them up and they were stumped too. The first guy couldn’t solve it, but the second said: I’ve been in computers for 20 years. This is a software bug and no software bug is going to beat me. He had to jump through a lot of hoops but he did solve the problem.

Anyway, as the Mac Mini was stuck at first and inaccessible, he first looked at the screen via my iPhone, that I had to hold up to the screen. Later, as we had control back over the Mac, we switched to direct remote control. He didn’t do anything himself, although he could have. Instead he pointed to where I needed to go. It was a weird sensation to suddenly not be alone on my computer! And all the while we were on the phone, talking. It worked miraculously well.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19216762
For the last year, our 29 employees and contractors have worked from home, and collaborated daily, sharing screenshots, files, and remote accessing when needed, while maintaining two week scrum sprints, and delivering software to production at the same time. No issues and more efficient than being in the office, IMO.

LOL. My wife is a scrum master for a major corporation, and for the last year she's been sitting at her desk beside mine in our home office talking about "two-week scrum sprints" and "delivering software to production."

Think one of the major issues with High Resolution Sensors is the extra motion blur you get, this often requires higher ISO to account for it. Reducing the quality.

Sharp is Sharp so most people won't need to print over the top sizes, I regularly print upto 36' x 24' with minimal sharpening from a 20.2mp sensor.. A Good lens is your friend if you want to print large

SebCo wrote in post #19216894
Think one of the major issues with High Resolution Sensors is the extra motion blur you get, this often requires higher ISO to account for it. Reducing the quality.

Sharp is Sharp so most people won't need to print over the top sizes, I regularly print upto 36' x 24' with minimal sharpening from a 20.2mp sensor.. A Good lens is your friend if you want to print large

There is no more blur from the results of a 45Mpx sensor than there is from a 20Mpx sensor. The only effect you see is from your own desire to drill deeper into the digital content of the one file vs the other.

If you zoom deeper, the blur becomes more pronounced as would be expected, but this isn’t a disadvantage of a high resolution sensor.

Said another way, a wingtip moving across the frame has the same blur on two FF sensors with the same settings, regardless of resolution. You are the reason the higher resolution sensor looks to have more blur because you are zooming further into the image with the higher resolution.

RayinAlaska wrote in post #19216806
This is what I do with my photos in the iMac...

You have your camera images and your final images well protected. Are you backing-up/protecting your image editing strokes?

chuckmiller wrote in post #19216956
You have your camera images and your final images well protected. Are you backing-up/protecting your image editing strokes?

Not the image image-editing strokes. The backups are just for everything on the computer (apps, files, and so on), just in case that the hard drive fails. On the Mac you can use Time Machine, but I also use Carbon Copy Cloner (CCC). Should the hard drive crash and I have to replace it, I can restore the new one from the one of the backups. Also, with CCC I can create a "clone" of the internal hard drive, so when I restore the new hard drive and then start the computer, the desktop and everything else is exactly as it was before the crash.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19216906
.
There is no more blur from the results of a 45Mpx sensor than there is from a 20Mpx sensor. The only effect you see is from your own desire to drill deeper into the digital content of the one file vs the other.

If you zoom deeper, the blur becomes more pronounced as would be expected, but this isn’t a disadvantage of a high resolution sensor.

Said another way, a wingtip moving across the frame has the same blur on two FF sensors with the same settings, regardless of resolution. You are the reason the higher resolution sensor looks to have more blur because you are zooming further into the image with the higher resolution.
.

.
Exactly right.

Another way to explain this would be, "you are getting exactly the same motion blur, but your sensor is dividing that blur up into more pixels."


.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19216906
There is no more blur from the results of a 45Mpx sensor than there is from a 20Mpx sensor. The only effect you see is from your own desire to drill deeper into the digital content of the one file vs the other.

If you zoom deeper, the blur becomes more pronounced as would be expected, but this isn’t a disadvantage of a high resolution sensor.

Said another way, a wingtip moving across the frame has the same blur on two FF sensors with the same settings, regardless of resolution. You are the reason the higher resolution sensor looks to have more blur because you are zooming further into the image with the higher resolution.

Totally true. The distance the object travelled across the frame within the space of the shutter speed is exactly the same absolute distance in either instance.

If you keep your "viewing geometry" the same, you won't see any difference.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19214161
.

.
True that it requires "pressing a button" ..... well kind of. . It's actually swiping from left to right, but I suppose that's close enough to "pushing" that we can use the terms synonymously for the purposes of this discussion.

Pushing a button is easy. . Figuring out what button to push, and how to get that button to come up on my phone's screen was quite an endeavor.

Turns out there is a section in the menu of my phone called "WIFI settings". . I'd always heard about WIFI, but never used it before, because when I want the internet on my phone I just use the cell service - never had to access the WIFI settings for that.

Once a friend showed me how to find the WIFI thing via my phone's menu, then it was easy to switch the WIFI from on to off, or to select the speaker, or whatever it was that we did to get the phone and the speaker to talk to each other. . But before he showed me that WIFI settings thing I was totally stumped.

.

I am pleased to know there is some one else around like me. I get too embarrassed to ask.

Back to Mac Photos for a sec... yes it works the way everyone says but there is a Preferences option for "Copy items to the Photos library" and if this is not checked then certain files will be referenced from their existing location. I don't know exactly what happens but I think if you get a "delete items after import?" checkbox then they are moved (this always happens from my phone, for instance) and if you don't (happens when I drop photos from a folder onto the Photos icon) then they aren't. And when they aren't, you can get warnings about not being able to find the original file when browsing photos, if something has moved. And even if it hasn't moved... I put images into a subfolder in my "Pictures" folder and then imported them into Photos. When I went to use the image in Photos, it told me it couldn't find the original and could I please show it where it was. I did so. I clicked on the very next image (same location) and got the same warning. So Photos be pretty stupid about tracking where things are if you don't import have "Copy items to the Photos library" checked in Preferences. I didn't realize it was unchecked and I have now checked it.

RDKirk wrote in post #19217314
Totally true. The distance the object travelled across the frame within the space of the shutter speed is exactly the same absolute distance in either instance.

You do, however, have better deconvolution opportunities with such a blur with a higher pixel density, as the blur is less confused than it would be with larger pixels, and would be more precisely corrected.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19368767
You do, however, have better deconvolution opportunities with such a blur with a higher pixel density, as the blur is less confused than it would be with larger pixels, and would be more precisely corrected.

Between 45 and 20 pixels, the incidents in which it would make a noticeable difference in real-world utility would be few, if any.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19368767
You do, however, have better deconvolution opportunities with such a blur with a higher pixel density, as the blur is less confused than it would be with larger pixels, and would be more precisely corrected.

How many people actually do deconvolution? I haven't seen it done outside of the sciences. Certainly I haven't seen it done in any posts here. It isn't an advantage if people don't do deconvolution.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19368959
How many people actually do deconvolution? I haven't seen it done outside of the sciences. Certainly I haven't seen it done in any posts here. It isn't an advantage if people don't do deconvolution.

Most folks do not have the mathematics in their knowledge base to consciously DO any deconvolution, even if it did improve their image! They might unknowingly use it if it were buried within a button selection in an application program.

"In optics and imaging, the term "deconvolution" is specifically used to refer to the process of reversing the optical distortion that takes place in an optical microscope, electron microscope, telescope, or other imaging instrument, thus creating clearer images. It is usually done in the digital domain by a software algorithm, as part of a suite of microscope image processing techniques. Deconvolution is also practical to sharpen images that suffer from fast motion or jiggles during capturing. Early Hubble Space Telescope images were distorted by a flawed mirror and were sharpened by deconvolution."

It is about the same as me telling folks that they need to personally perform surgery on their spouse to reduce the spouse's back pain.

Very simply, I want more resolution so that I can better remove noise while keeping detail, crop for composition and then finally resample for my final output size. I use tools like DPP and whatever it brings to the table for raw processing, then Photoshop and other 3rd party filters for final editing and effects. The more resolution, the better the results. None of these other things mentioned mean anything to me at all, I don't even use the lens optimizer function that Canon offers in camera and in DPP. Others might use that more than me, but again, the more resolution, the better the final results in many cases.