WTF is happening in this image?

Been trying out my new Sony a9 and thought I would take advantage of the 1/32000 shutter speed. But then I zoom in and wtf?! What is happening here? Noise? Banding? CA? All the above? It looks so blocky and pixely. I did a bunch of 100% crops earlier and they were all very clear. Not the case here.

I guess POTN isn't used to seeing 1/32000 SS, so the metadata said it was only 1/16000.

All I see is the noise that one would expect for ISO4000, and the CA that one would expect for that sort of subject matter (high-contrast edges between blown-highlight white areas and shadows areas)

I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

hmmm....good to know lol. It just looks very pixelated to me in the water. Especially near the sprinkler.

Do you realize that when you view a 6000x4000 pixel image at 100%, if you were viewing that filling the screen it would be like viewing a 49X view, or 46" x 69" print from about 18" away!

At 49X each pixel is displayed at about 0.3mm in size.

.
Nothing about this image looks "blocky" or pixelated at all. . Heck, I don't even know what "blocky" means.

Wilt wrote in post #18366782
Do you realize that when you view a 6000x4000 pixel image at 100%, if you were viewing that filling the screen it would be like viewing a 49X view, or 46" x 69" print from about 18" away!

At 49X each pixel is displayed at about 0.3mm in size.

Isn't that all dependent on monitor size and screen resolution? . I don't see how you can make an accurate guesstimate at such a thing unless you know the size and resolution of the OP's monitor.

.

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #18366776
hmmm....good to know lol. It just looks very pixelated to me in the water. Especially near the sprinkler.

That looks like specular highlights on the water to me. At that shutter speed, you're seeing ripples & patterns on the water that would not normally be visible and the specular highlights are reflecting off those irregular surfaces.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18366881
.
Nothing about this image looks "blocky" or pixelated at all. . Heck, I don't even know what "blocky" means.

Isn't that all dependent on monitor size and screen resolution? . I don't see how you can make an accurate guesstimate at such a thing unless you know the size and resolution of the OP's monitor.

.

haha blocky means it's looks like minecraft. I think my mind is just playing tricks on me with all the water droplets and the CA that's happening due to the sun reflecting off the water. My monitor is 1440P and 32" btw.

Tixeon wrote in post #18366884
That looks like specular highlights on the water to me. At that shutter speed, you're seeing ripples & patterns on the water that would not normally be visible and the specular highlights are reflecting off those irregular surfaces.

Thanks. I think it's also mixed with some CA from the sun's reflection being harsh.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18366881
.
Nothing about this image looks "blocky" or pixelated at all. . Heck, I don't even know what "blocky" means.

Isn't that all dependent on monitor size and screen resolution? . I don't see how you can make an accurate guesstimate at such a thing unless you know the size and resolution of the OP's monitor.

.

You are correct that the EXACT number is dependent upon monitor size and resolution. The POINT is that 100% view is simply 'dAmn huge'

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #18366894
My monitor is 1440P and 32" btw.

So you have a 2560 x 1440 monitor, which means that if it has a 32" diagonal.
At 100% it displays 2560 pixels on a 28" horizontal...about 91 pixels per inch horizontally.
So if your image is 6000 pixels across, it takes about a 65" horizontal area (print width) to see the entire image.
So looking at a 100% view on your monitor, that is equivalent to viewing a 65" x 43" print from about 18-24" away, which is a 45X enlargement.

Exact enough, Tom? As I said, 'dAmn huge'

Wilt wrote in post #18367080
So you have a 2560 x 1440 monitor, which means that if it has a 32" diagonal.
At 100% it displays 2560 pixels on a 28" horizontal...about 91 pixels per inch horizontally.
So if your image is 6000 pixels across, it takes about a 65" horizontal area (print width) to see the entire image.
So looking at a 100% view on your monitor, that is equivalent to viewing a 65" x 43" print from about 18-24" away, which is a 45X enlargement.

Too much science for me. I'm just glad nothing is wrong with my camera sensor

Dudes, this response was too good and too quick.

It's better to let a guy sweat and fret for a while when he is pixel peeping.

Good service like this, while impressive, just encourages more pixel peeping. Just because we have an incredible and capable community does not mean we need to bring it to bear every time.

Keep this up and reprimands will be handed out!

Wilt wrote in post #18367075
You are correct that the EXACT number is dependent upon monitor size and resolution. The POINT is that 100% view is simply 'dAmn huge'

My everyday monitor is 27" and has a resolution of 5120 by 2880.......100% views are not "huge" at all for me. . In fact, just the basic view that I get when using "Photos", I am usually right around 100%, without even zooming in......

.......besides, whenever I have anything printed, I do so at sizes that are FAR bigger than I ever view at on my monitor, so bigger than 100% views are actually a good way to see what an image will look like when it is printed. . This would be the case for anyone printing at respectable sizes, even if they aren't using a particularly high resolution monitor. . "Pixel peeping", as some call it, is actually quite useful for those who print at sizes like 36" and 48" across, or for those who print deep crops. . In fact, I suspect that those who discourage pixel peeping at 100% rarely, if ever, print at anything over 30" across.

I guess what I am trying to point out is that viewing at 100% is actually a very relevant way to test a camera body and/or a lens, as it comes rather close to simulating what we will see when/if we get our images printed.

.