 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2005Optical illusion?
Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? It's got to be some kind of optical illusion because lenses (I believe) are optimized for infinity imaging. But, case in point; When a friend was looking for a digital, I showed him two shots from mine, one a landscape, the other a macro. The landscape didn't impress him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced him to get the camera. -Rich Air is the difference. The light has to pass through more air, dust and particulates that effect the resultant picture. There are other optical aberrations that come into effect on long distance shots such as heat rising and temperature inversions.  SignatureDave | Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't | ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | him to get the camera. | -Rich >Air is the difference. The light has to pass through more air, dust and particulates that >effect the resultant picture. There are other optical aberrations that come into effect on >long distance shots such as heat rising and temperature inversions. I should have also said, objects no more than 30 feet away don't look as good as close-up shots in terms of subjective sharpness either. At 30ft, there should be no heat-wave problems and definitely no atmospheric extinction or "blue scattering" caused by oxygen molecules. I think possibly another reason for this is dynamic range of CCDs. With macro shots, you can control the lighting to maximize it, but you generally can't with long distance shots so you end up with blocky highlights (still!) residual chromatic aberration, etc, and both serve to kill details. What people generally don't understand about chromatic aberration is that it isn't just an "light-dark" edge problem; The defocussed blue and red light is suffused over the entire image, supressing contrast. -Rich > Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't > ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > him to get the camera. > -Rich Interesting observation... I just decided to play around with panorama stich on my 20D. I also took the same shots with a GWS Fuji 120 roll film, pano camera. I don't think I'll be converting from film to digital for Panos just yet! It seems taht the further away you get, the less detail is recorded. Doug >> Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't >> ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? SNIP > Interesting observation... > I just decided to play around with panorama stich on my 20D. > I also took the same shots with a GWS Fuji 120 roll film, pano > camera. I don't think I'll be converting from film to digital for > Panos just yet! It seems taht the further away you get, the less > detail is recorded. That has to do with the absolute resolution limit a sensor poses on fine detail. The sensor cannot reliably resolve projected detail that's smaller than 2 pixels. Landscapes, or any subject at a distance for that matter, will result in a very small magnification factor and thus collide with the limitations of regularly sampled imaging. The only solution (within the scope of this forum) is a higher resolution sensor that still looks sharp at the intended output magnification (or one can output at a smaller size). Stitching panoramas will effectively simulate a larger sensor, thus requiring less output magnification, but it has other limitations. Bart > Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't > ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced > him to get the camera. Besides the atmospheric obscurants inherent in any image taken over long distances the simple fact remains that digital cameras still have a long way to go with regards to sensor and image resolution. Objects that are small in an image are represented my just a few pixels and you cannot get a lot of sharp detail when you have so few pixels to work with. A fascinating project that is being worked on to produce Giga-Pixel images can be found at the link below. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article4901.html >> Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't >> ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article4901.html But it's using a conventional film camera, big plates and it's converted to digital via a scanner. I thought it was something like this: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/HawaiianStarlight/ A true, 338 megapixel camera set-up. Taking advantage of the rapid evolution of optical electronic detectors (CCDs) over the past two decades, CFHT is now able to cover most of its useful field of view with a detector 40 times more sensitive than the photographic plates! The MegaPrime imager which includes the MegaCam camera, a mosaic of forty individual CCD detectors, is the largest close-packed array in use in the world today (~18,400 x 18,400 pixels). >>> Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't >>> ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >A true, 338 megapixel camera set-up. There are several Gigipixel image projects being discussed at various places on the 'net. One can be found at http://tawbaware.com ; another one is being done at a University in, IIRC, Copenhagen. >>>> Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't >>>> ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > at a University > in, IIRC, Copenhagen. Delft, too. >>>> Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't >>>> ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >One can be found at http://tawbaware.com ; another one is being done at a University >in, IIRC, Copenhagen. That shot of his would make a great wall mural. -Rich RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:4aeet05jd6513188ughs19m85dasufpfpm@ 4ax.com: > That shot of his would make a great wall mural. As a matter of fact - a normal wall in a room in your home is around 1 Gigapixel large if you print at 250 PPI. 2.5 meters times 5 meters is with this resolution 2 Gigapixel. So - 1-2 Gigapixels is an optimal resolution if you want a high resolution picture covering a wall. As a matter of more fact - exactly that was one of my dreams when I was younger. Long before digital photography. It was never really possible. Now it is! If you only can find someone that can print the beast. /Roland >RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:4aeet05jd6513188ughs19m85dasufpfpm@ >4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >was never really possible. Now it is! If you only can find >someone that can print the beast. FedEx/Kinkos will charge you around $10 per square foot. You'll have to print it in strips, of course; think of it as ending up with rolls of rather special wallpaper. > FedEx/Kinkos will charge you around $10 per square foot. > You'll have to print it in strips, of course; think of it > as ending up with rolls of rather special wallpaper. Thats a thought. Now ... hhmmm ... a square foot, that is approx 0.1 square meter I think. Now $10, that is approx. SEK 75 I think. and 5x2.5 meters is 12.5 square meters. 12.5 x (75 / 0.1) ~ SEK 10000 Hmmm ... a rather expensive wallpaper. The same amount of money as a DSLR. /Roland > As a matter of more fact - exactly that was one of my dreams > when I was younger. Long before digital photography. It > was never really possible. Now it is! If you only can find > someone that can print the beast. > > /Roland I can print it Roland... Give it back to you in rolls of wallpaper, 600 mm wide! Doug > I can print it Roland... Give it back to you in rolls of wallpaper, > 600 mm wide! Tempting :) Can you give a better price than the $10 per sq foot? /Roland > > I can print it Roland... Give it back to you in rolls of wallpaper, > > 600 mm wide! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > /Roland Maybe... Is that US dollars you are talking or another currency? Do you want water soluble coated back or will you size it? Do you want vynal face or plain? If you intend to put it on the wall as opposed to mount it on a massive sheet of board, the paper I use is different. Let me know some specifics and I'll happily quote a price. The largest I've done to date is in 8 foot lengths of 2 foot wide. The paper has to be trimmed to remove the 8mm wide strip where nothing is printed. This is where most people get into trouble because it has to be neat for the length of the paper to butt up against the next drop. Take it off line too, eh? Doug > Maybe... Is that US dollars you are talking or another currency? > Do you want water soluble coated back or will you size it? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of the paper to butt up against the next drop. Take it off line too, > eh? As I said - Tempting. It is not all that probable that I will do it now though. The Bryce picture is fantastic - but my plan was to do one myself - and I don't have any :) Your information would be very appreciated though. I'll mail you and ask. /Roland > Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't > ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced > him to get the camera. Macro shots in particular show fine detail to a degree that we don't commonly see, so when we do see it, it is a fresh and often amazing experience. As a macro shot (typicaly 1:1) is of detail of an object the size of the image sensor, it is much finer than our daily experience. So the shot is perceived to be highly detailed. On a 'distant shot' there is less specific detail to look at so we don't 'see' the sharpnees in it. Atmospherics (convection, particulates) also soften the image a little to a lot, conditions depending. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't > ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > him to get the camera. > -Rich Which is why landscapes are still taken with large format cameras. Compared to a smaller format, it has what we instinctively regard as a "presence', because the detail we can see selectively when we view the scene is available in the photograph. Smaller format simply cannot do that sort of job. Having said that, however, the factors that favor the larger format are: 1) Resolution capability of the recording medium. 2) Resolution capability of the optical train. These are also addressed by smaller formats with varying success. Large format lenses are almost always very simple optical designs that can be manufactured to much higher resolution capabilities than the more complex designs used in smaller format cameras. Even so, they only have to do < 50 lp/mm to exceed what is possible with most smaller format recording medium. Put a very fine grain film in a Leica (mount Leica on tip of huge granite monolith; watch nearby earthquake monitor and wait for absolute flat line; use radio controlled remote to trigger Leica at fast shutter speed to reduce atmospherics; etc), and see the difference in landscapes done with Leica optics. Noticeable! Do the same with Nikonax/Canolta with very expensive optics. Noticeable! Well, to be fair, observe above parantheticals with your own rig, and see the difference ;) Compare above to medium format and note differences. Does format win? Not always, but usually. Obtain Canon 1Ds(MkII), fit with choice "L" lens (mount as above). Compare to medium format and note differences. Does format win? Well, sometimes. Some pros are switching to above rig in place of generic medium format gear. Probably the (MkII) even more so. These bodies *demand* the very best glass to perform to spec, though; they're notorious for showing up flaws in anything less, including "L" glass. EF100-400 L zoom comes to mind... Bottom line: You want to do landscapes? Go to larger format cameras. Will D. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.