Sony A7x lounge

xpfloyd wrote in post #18052463
OK really need a help here. Resolution query again!! Sorry

I edited this photo so that the jpeg was 2048 and uploaded to flickr. I then posted the 1024 version here (biggest allowable size on POTN as flickr doesnt have a 1280 option). The IQ is still being affected as the 1024 version posted is being stretched.

Look at the screen shot below - POTN version on the left and 2048 file on the right from PS. Look at the detail difference in the background

What am I doing wrong??

Hosted photo: posted by Eddie in
./showthread.php?p=180​52463&i=i2301633
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

EDIT - Its much more pronounced on my screen. The tree above the water is sharp as a tack on the 2048 version but mushy on the POTN version. Also when I check flickr and view the 2048 version its fine

The image embedded at 1024 here looks fine on my monitor Eddie. Here's a screenshot of it for you to compare. My screen is 2560 x 1440 on a 27" Dell monitor. I also kept the quality at 12 when saving to minimize any compression artifacts on the saved screenshot.

Here's the link to the screenshot which has only been cropped slightly on the bottom to remove my taskbar from the image.

2560 x 1401

http://www.ussoriskany​.us/images/misc/full.j​pg

Hmmm. Thanks for posting gene but I'm still not getting it. I understand that if the image is 1024 and the browser recognises a high def display it simply displays the image at 2048 to compensate. This can lead to pixelation as the image is being viewed at 200%.

So I edited the image to 2048 to avoid this but then had to post the 1024 version here which is now being stretched to 200% in my browser and looks pixelated.

The thing I can't get my head around is that all your images look fine on my browser. But my own 1024 image when viewed in the browser looks like I've applied a gausian blur when compared to the exact same file opened in Photoshop and viewed at 100% (2048)

xpfloyd wrote in post #18052505
Hmmm. Thanks for posting gene but I'm still not getting it. I understand that if the image is 1024 and the browser recognises a high def display it simply displays the image at 2048 to compensate. This can lead to pixelation as the image is being viewed at 200%.

So I edited the image to 2048 to avoid this but then had to post the 1024 version here which is now being stretched to 200% in my browser and looks pixelated.

The thing I can't get my head around is that all your images look fine on my browser. But my own 1024 image when viewed in the browser looks like I've applied a gausian blur when compared to the exact same file opened in Photoshop and viewed at 100% (2048)

Just doing a bit of research on this and it appears the issue is with the Retina display since it has double the resolution. I don't see a clear way around it other than to use higher resolution images.

digital_AM wrote in post #18052534
Just doing a bit of research on this and it appears the issue is with the Retina display since it has double the resolution. I don't see a clear way around it other than to use higher resolution images.

Which I can't do as POTN max is 1280. It's weird how everyone elses images look ok on my Retina display and my own don't when viewed through a browser . It must be the same for non retina high def monitors too though?

It seems like a browser issue as the same file looks fine in Photoshop on the Retina display (although that's the true 2048 and not the 200% 1024)

xpfloyd wrote in post #18052538
Which I can't do as POTN max is 1280. It's weird how everyone elses images look ok on my Retina display and my own don't when viewed through a browser . It must be the same for non retina high def monitors too though?

It seems like a browser issue as the same file looks fine in Photoshop on the Retina display (although that's the true 2048 and not the 200% 1024)

retina's, 4K's, and some other super HD's do scaling, where stuff below that resolution usually display as native. It sounds like you have scaling issues...

I cant help with mac but ran into scaling issues with windows....

Charlie wrote in post #18052550
retina's, 4K's, and some other super HD's do scaling, where stuff below that resolution usually display as native. It sounds like you have scaling issues...

I cant help with mac but ran into scaling issues with windows....

exactly, if you got a tiny macbook with retina display, that screens resolution is much higher then whats needed, not always more = better.
if you where to run stuff "nativity" at 4k, you would need magnifying glass to read your monitor.

play with DPI/scalling

http://www.eizoglobal.​com …caling_settings​_mac_os_x/

Charlie wrote in post #18052550
retina's, 4K's, and some other super HD's do scaling, where stuff below that resolution usually display as native. It sounds like you have scaling issues...

I cant help with mac but ran into scaling issues with windows....

Its doing my head in. In photoshop if I view the 2048 pixel image at 100% it takes up half the screen. If I go to flickr and click "view all sizes" and then click 2048 pixels the image that displays is twice the size. I need to zoom my photoshop version to 200% for it to match.

I really dont understand why the above is happening. My understanding of photoshop 100% view was that one pixel = one pixel on the screen. So how is my 2048 image only taking half the space when my screen is 2880 wide?

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #18052552
exactly, if you got a tiny macbook with retina display, that screens resolution is much higher then whats needed, not always more = better.
if you where to run stuff "nativity" at 4k, you would need magnifying glass to read your monitor.

play with DPI/scalling

http://www.eizoglobal.​com …caling_settings​_mac_os_x/

I have a 15 inch MBPR. I checked my setting. I had my scaling set to "more space". Ive now changed it to "default" and the image is bigger in photoshop (looks to be the correct pixel count) and POTN doesnt fit as much on the screen etc but my 100% photoshop view is still half the size of viewing the 2048 version in flickr. It seems regardless of the scaling setting the web browser still increases the images to 200% regardless of the original pixel count (my 2048 is viewing as 4096)

Ill just try and ignore the fact my images look like crap on web browsers

Sorry for cluttering up the thread with all of this but I have got to the bottom of it I think. It's to do with the retinas hidpi mode.

This extract of the net explains it "A 15” MacBook Pro with Retina Display features a native resolution of 2880-by-1800. With the display set as default, the available real estate ends up being half that, at 1440-by-900. As you can see, that’s quite a bit less than the 1920-by-1080 provided by a 4K monitor, although it is possible to set the MacBook’s display to 1920-by-1200 using the More Space option in System Preferences → Displays"

So since I use "more space setting" my view is equivalent to 1920x1200 so my 2048 image is bigger than the screen.

i still don't fully understand how photoshop 100% view is smaller though

I'll stop banging on about this now

not sure what browser your using but some browsers are separate "scaling" settings, sometimes they call it zoom.

on 15 inch screen, 1080/1440p should be max.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18052564
I have a 15 inch MBPR. I checked my setting. I had my scaling set to "more space". Ive now changed it to "default" and the image is bigger in photoshop (looks to be the correct pixel count) and POTN doesnt fit as much on the screen etc but my 100% photoshop view is still half the size of viewing the 2048 version in flickr. It seems regardless of the scaling setting the web browser still increases the images to 200% regardless of the original pixel count (my 2048 is viewing as 4096)

Ill just try and ignore the fact my images look like crap on web browsers

your browser may have it's own scaling, I know chrome does, check that out.

I still have not had anything good to shoot with this CV10 lens yet other than some fun work stuff. I am starting to really like it though .... cant wait for a profile in adobe

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JyvQ​Zo

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/HFpg​hu

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Jywn​ub

xpfloyd wrote in post #18052556
Its doing my head in. In photoshop if I view the 2048 pixel image at 100% it takes up half the screen. If I go to flickr and click "view all sizes" and then click 2048 pixels the image that displays is twice the size. I need to zoom my photoshop version to 200% for it to match.

I really dont understand why the above is happening. My understanding of photoshop 100% view was that one pixel = one pixel on the screen. So how is my 2048 image only taking half the space when my screen is 2880 wide?

Did you know that your browser can be configured to display a page at 100%, 200% or 50%? Maybe that is the issue you are seeing. I don't know what browser you use but check to see that you're viewing at 100%.

Anybody who's ever met my dad agrees that not only does he resemble Jeff Bridges (not so much in this shot), he pretty much just is "The Dude" (The Big Labowski), so my brother got him this painting for Fathers Day

FE 55mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JwZN​E9

Curious to see post trip which you used more, liked more.
Kinda in that focal range I've decided to add a Tam 15-30mm
and the Wonderpana system for it...I have no good reason as
to why since I'm mostly 300mm and up.