 |
 | 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 / March 2006Camera Resolution vs Monitor Resolution
As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region of 1MP, what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my Canon 5D can produce on screen? > As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region of 1MP, > what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my Canon > 5D can produce on screen? Get a monitor that can run at 4368 x 2912? Greg >> As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region of > 1MP, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Greg I've never seen any monitors that go much beyond 2MP though - that's why I'm interested in finding out if it's possible >> Get a monitor that can run at 4368 x 2912? >> >> Greg > > I've never seen any monitors that go much beyond 2MP though - that's why > I'm interested in finding out if it's possible There are larger monitors, but they are extremely explensive, I have only seen them for very specialistic design stations. (Designing money that was). If you want to look to the picture as a whole, you will not get the maximum resolution from the picture. But you can enlarge parts of the picture to see parts of the picture bigger or judge the sharpnes of the picture. You won't be able to get more than about 1 to 2 Mp on most monitor screens. Most Monitors are only capable of displaying about 100 dpi and not above. If you look only at complete pictures on your monitor, you not need the number of Mp your camera can produce. ben >>>what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my >>>Canon 5D can produce on screen? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've never seen any monitors that go much beyond 2MP though - that's why I'm > interested in finding out if it's possible Apple sells a 30 inch display with a native resolution of 2560 x 1600 or 4096000 pixels. I've heard of 9.2 MP monitors but nothing with favorable reviews. I have the Apple monitor and it is quite nice for photo and video editing. >>>>what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my >>>>Canon 5D can produce on screen? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reviews. I have the Apple monitor and it is quite nice for photo and > video editing. I've got a 32" LCD TV that my PC is attached to - the Apple 30 inch looked great at the time but was just too expensive. I've also got a 19" CRT that does about 2MP - I might have a look at that. >>>>>what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my >>>>>Canon 5D can produce on screen? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I've got a 32" LCD TV that my PC is attached to Only 1366 x 768 though: <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=SALNR328WA&is=REG&Q =&O=productlist&sku=375300> > - the Apple 30 inch looked > great at the time but was just too expensive. Those big apple monitors are gorgeous, I saw one at work at a graphic designer's office. Hmm $2,500 though and a $1,000 CRT will get almost the same resolution. > I've also got a 19" CRT that does about 2MP - I might have a look at that.  SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com Today Edward Holt commented courteously on the subject at hand > I've got a 32" LCD TV that my PC is attached to - the Apple > 30 inch looked great at the time but was just too > expensive. > > I've also got a 19" CRT that does about 2MP - I might have > a look at that. I just bought a 26" LCD HDTV/monitor for my wife. The TV picture, on HDTV or DVD, is awesome, but PC performance sucks. It only goes to 1386 x 768, so even though I have it set to 1280 x 960, graphics quality sucks and text is hard to read even with Cleartype turned on. But, I bought it from a store with return rights for 3 weeks, and my wife seems satisfied for her "mousing" needs (that's what she calls web surfing and E-mail). She looks at pictures she gets from me and on a screen saver, but I concentrated on determining if the lousy text is OK; apparently it is. Can you tell us more about your 32" specs? SignatureATM, aka Jerry "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford > Today Edward Holt commented courteously on the subject at > hand [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > x 960, graphics quality sucks and text is hard to read even with > Cleartype turned on. You need to run at the LCD native resolution to get a good picture. Cleartype will look particularly nasty if it is scaled. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com Today Måns Rullgård commented courteously on the subject at hand >> Today Edward Holt commented courteously on the subject at >> hand [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > picture. Cleartype will look particularly nasty if it is > scaled. I know. "Native" on my wife's new TV/monitor is 1024x768. Cleartype helps but doesn't fix the problem. The issue is just plain not enough pixels for text on a screen that is over 13" tall vertically. She isn't into graphics at all, except to look at scenery, animal pictures, and family pictures, so the graphics part that sucks to me looks just fine to her. Again, for the text, it is certainly not great, but good enough. SignatureATM, aka Jerry "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford > Today Måns Rullgård commented courteously on the subject at > hand [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I know. "Native" on my wife's new TV/monitor is 1024x768. Didn't you say it was 1386x768? I suspect I typo there, and the real size is 1366x768 since that's a very common size. > Cleartype helps but doesn't fix the problem. The issue is just > plain not enough pixels for text on a screen that is over 13" > tall vertically. That's why for desktop work I use a 21" monitor with a lot more pixels (1680x1050) than the 26" TV (1366x768). SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com Today Måns Rullgård commented courteously on the subject at hand > Didn't you say it was 1386x768? I suspect I typo there, > and the real size is 1366x768 since that's a very common [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's why for desktop work I use a 21" monitor with a lot > more pixels (1680x1050) than the 26" TV (1366x768). You may have missed the point of my comments - it is for my /wife/ who wants /one/ big display which doubles as an HDTV and a PC monitor. There is no way below about $10K to accomplish that with the PC looking any damn good. Let it drop. I know what I'm doing, OK? SignatureATM, aka Jerry "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford > Today Edward Holt commented courteously on the subject at > hand [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Can you tell us more about your 32" specs? The 32" LCD is running at 1360 x 768. I original had it running at 1366 x 768 - the change to the native mode (by 6 pixels) is marked. Today Edward Holt commented courteously on the subject at hand >> Can you tell us more about your 32" specs? >> > The 32" LCD is running at 1360 x 768. > I original had it running at 1366 x 768 - the change to the > native mode (by 6 pixels) is marked. Goodness, Edward! That's a really big screen for so little pixels, but I guess I'm not surprised. /Every/ TV/monitor I looked at is the same PD resolution as yours, I think the real number is 1366 x 768. My 26" Polaroid is running today at 1280 x 960. I tried 1024 x 768 and didn't like it, so I upped the number. The HDTV side doesn't apply when the thing is in PC monitor mode. You are the only judge of quality that really counts, but I would think that looking at only 768 vertical pixels on a display 15" tall would look pretty blurry, which I why I commented earlier that I turned Cleartype on for my wife's monitor. I do /not/ have Cleartype on for my Samsung 21" LCD because it is a 1600 x 1200 true monitor and text looks just fine. SignatureATM, aka Jerry "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford >> Today Edward Holt commented courteously on the subject at >> hand [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >I original had it running at 1366 x 768 - the change to the native mode (by >6 pixels) is marked. How can you view images with that level of resolution and be satisfied? Sounds more like image size is more important to you, much as it was to people who used to buy those horrible back projected NTSC tv sets years ago. -Rich Today Edward Holt commented courteously on the subject at hand >>> As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in >>> the region of 1MP, what's the best way to view the much [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've never seen any monitors that go much beyond 2MP though > - that's why I'm interested in finding out if it's possible I know of no monitors under a bazillion dollars that'll go much beyond 2 MP, as you indicate your research shows. These days, with the proper video card, people are buying "HDTV" wide-screen PC monitors to take advantage of emerging graphics standards, view camera images at their native aspect ratio, and other reasons, such as viewing HDTV DVDs, gaming, etc. But, from a practical standpoint, you really don't need an 12 MP monitor to be able to visualize an 12 MP image. With your camera, I'd guess you're shooting RAW and I don't know how to see that on an 8-bit Windoze screen (yet, I'm still trying to understand RAW for my Canon Rebel XT). 'Tis true that if you could buy a 12 MP monitor, it'd be better. But, the trade- offs, besides cost, are simply outrageous. e.g.: Web pages will display as postage stamps, Windoze icons, even at their max sizes, will be too small to see, ditto for screen fonts. The big advantage might be for you fav graphics editor - PS CS? - would have a lot more "real estate". But, to get there, you'd need a 32-36" monitor and sit well-back. I have a Samsung 213T 21" LCD which is truly outstanding for my needs/wants. I run at 1280 x 960 but it can do to 1600 x 1200. I would've liked to have a 24" or even bigger, but the knee of the size-price curve is at 21" right now for LCDs (at least it was last June! <grin>). In my particularly case, I literally do not have the desk space for a huge CRT, even though I know it is superior to an LCD. I looked at dozens of monitors in computer stores locally. For cost competive reasons, these places don't stock the high-end units, especially the better Sonys. I'm hazy as to what I actually investigated last spring, but I paid $800 (less $100 rebate) for my 21" Samsung, and I vaguely recall that their 24" was in the $1,400-1600 range, more than what I wanted to pay. Are you a pro, or "serious amatuer", or someone like me that just likes to see a good image? Your camera cost you a big piece of change, so I understand why you want to see what it can really do, but I don't have nearly enough info to give you any advice other than the above. I'm not trying to insult you, just understand your intended usage for an ultra-high- resolution monitor. I imagine you'll get better responses to your OP if you elaborate some on what you want to do and why. Good luck! SignatureATM, aka Jerry "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford > Today Edward Holt commented courteously on the subject at > hand [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Good luck! I'm just an amateur that likes good quality photos and kit. I've been using SLR cameras for the past 30 years. I intend to primarily view the images on screen rather than print most. I've got access to an Epson R300 that I print images out with from time to time - if a better printer would benefit in terms of image quality then I'd be happy to look at that. My first D-SLR was a Canon D-300. I was disappointed that it was a cropped sensor and didn't want to carry the bulky Pro cameras about. When the full frame 5D came out I jumped at it (after it had come down in price). I've got a Canon 20mm F2.8 which always gives great results. I've also got a Canon 28mm F2.8 and a 50mm F1.8 which can give variable results. I'm waiting on the arrival of a 24-105. Today Edward Holt commented courteously on the subject at hand > I'm just an amateur that likes good quality photos and kit. > I've been using SLR cameras for the past 30 years. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > which can give variable results. > I'm waiting on the arrival of a 24-105. Edward, if you want the best compromise of size, price and high quality for the graphics images your camera produces, I'd get a for-real LCD monitor, preferably 21" or 24". If you want TV and your video card doesn't support it (mine doesn't), you can buy a cheap tuner. Or, you can set up your system for two monitors. But, the reason(s) for wanting a very large LCD display for cable TV or DVDs and the reason(s) for wanting as good quality as you can get for the $$$ you've budgeted for your /graphics/, then, IMHO, the only way to get their is a quality PC-only monitor. I'm in love with my Samsung. For only $700 after rebate, it is one terrific display for even the 8 MP images my Rebel XT puts out. I have a Sigma 18-105mm, a Canon 17-45mm, and a Canon 28-70mm. I use the Sigma if I want to have a long zoom range with small size, even though it is soft compared to the two Canon "L- glass" zooms. But, the small zoom is around 12+ oz and the big guy is 33 oz. so they're huge (for me!) and heavy, but they /do/ perform outstandingly. I most often shoot at the middle 4 MP size because I don't print. Occasionally, I'll go to the full 8 to get an effective "digital" zoom by cropping a piece out of the image that is beyond the range of whatever lens I'm carrying around. If you have more questions I might be able to give an opinion on, please clarify what you'd like to know and I'll try to help. Good luck in finding a solution that fits your needs, wants, and Visa card! SignatureATM, aka Jerry "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford >> Get a monitor that can run at 4368 x 2912? Then you get to see hot bad your camera really is. > I've never seen any monitors that go much beyond 2MP though - that's why I'm > interested in finding out if it's possible Apple 30", Mac or PC - 4MP - requires dual link DVI and is $3k. Well, I view them at whatever magnification will fit them onscreen and then just zoom into 100% for detailed assessment of sharpness, retouching, etc. Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog and Podcast http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Personal art site http://www.artinyourface.com/ > As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region of 1MP, > what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my Canon > 5D can produce on screen? ACDSee is a handy image browser I use when I need to examine detail. When you zoom in 100%, the mouse becomes a hand for panning the page & looking at corners, the initial view is centered. Then zoom to fit height & scan back through the images at that scale. Tap the + & - keys to zoom temporarily at any time. Spacebar to advance, backspace to reverse. View fit to screen to review composition then zoom to 100% to cull the set for sharpness. My 21-inch monitor will go up to 3MP but it's impossible to read the tiny writing on any programs so I don't bother doing that. I tried a couple times. 2048x1536 (3MP) is only missing a border of 476 to 232 from a 6MP image. A 10 MP image = 3872 X 2592 you'd have to pan the screen into four corners to examine everything. That high-res screen setting would fill four screens at 10MP. Using a second monitor set at a low resolution for reading helps some but you still have some controls in the itty-bitty-text high res window. >> As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region >> of 1MP, what's the best way to view the much higher resolution [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > backspace to reverse. View fit to screen to review composition then > zoom to 100% to cull the set for sharpness. The problem with zooming image viewers is that the scaling they use is usually rather poor. > My 21-inch monitor will go up to 3MP but it's impossible to read the > tiny writing on any programs so I don't bother doing that. If text becomes unreadable you've exceeded the dot pitch of the CRT, in effect viewing a badly scaled image. Lowering the resolution and scaling with a good software algorithm will give better results. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >>>As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region >>>of 1MP, what's the best way to view the much higher resolution [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The problem with zooming image viewers is that the scaling they use is > usually rather poor. That's just for quickly culling keepers & rejects. At full zoom there is no problem except the color space <g>. >>My 21-inch monitor will go up to 3MP but it's impossible to read the >>tiny writing on any programs so I don't bother doing that. > > If text becomes unreadable you've exceeded the dot pitch of the CRT, > in effect viewing a badly scaled image. Lowering the resolution and > scaling with a good software algorithm will give better results. Well, it exceeds my eyesight but I think most people will go nutty trying to read menus & icons that small. My monitor is nothing extraordinary, 21" Sony Multiscan G500 several years old, maybe $1000 new. >>>>As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region >>>>of 1MP, what's the best way to view the much higher resolution [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That's just for quickly culling keepers & rejects. At full zoom there > is no problem except the color space <g>. Sure, for quick reviews I don't mind using a fast scaler. >>>My 21-inch monitor will go up to 3MP but it's impossible to read the >>>tiny writing on any programs so I don't bother doing that. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > extraordinary, 21" Sony Multiscan G500 several years old, maybe $1000 > new. A quick google tells me this monitor has a dot pitch of 0.24mm, i.e. 106 dpi. With a viewable area of 19.8" (google again) this translates into 1676x1257 dots. Running at 1600x1200 should be usable but with some moire. Anything higher will be basically dropping pixels, giving the unreadable text you describe. The maximum rated resolution of 2048x1536 probably refers to the limits of the electronic circuitry, as is common in monitor specifications. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >>>>>As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region >>>>>of 1MP, what's the best way to view the much higher resolution [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > resolution of 2048x1536 probably refers to the limits of the > electronic circuitry, as is common in monitor specifications. Maybe not the best quality but the resolution can be set to that in the desktop properties. My eyes aren't good enough to read that small though. >>>>>My 21-inch monitor will go up to 3MP but it's impossible to read the >>>>>tiny writing on any programs so I don't bother doing that. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Maybe not the best quality but the resolution can be set to that in > the desktop properties. I'm not doubting that. > My eyes aren't good enough to read that small though. Use a magnifying glass. Look at some small text and see if all the pixels really are there. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >>>>>>My 21-inch monitor will go up to 3MP but it's impossible to read the >>>>>>tiny writing on any programs so I don't bother doing that. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Use a magnifying glass. Look at some small text and see if all the > pixels really are there. Hmm, OK I made a little 1 pixel checkerboard & it was barely legible at 1280 x 960, definitely not legible at 2048 x 1536. >>>>>>>My 21-inch monitor will go up to 3MP but it's impossible to read the >>>>>>>tiny writing on any programs so I don't bother doing that. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Hmm, OK I made a little 1 pixel checkerboard & it was barely legible > at 1280 x 960, definitely not legible at 2048 x 1536. That's about what I expected. According to the sampling theorem we will get aliasing at any resolution higher than 800x600 (the screen has 1600x1200 dots). However, that is for a random signal with no correlation to the sampling points. The output from the video card is sufficiently stable that we can fine-tune the scanning to make the pixels line up with actual dots. This is what the moire adjustment does. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region of 1MP, >what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my Canon >5D can produce on screen? First, what programs do you have? You would want to have your program set to resample the image if you are not viewing 1:1 pixels and best at an even divisor, ie 1/2 size, 1/4 size. -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com > On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:50:24 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems > "Edward [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) > http://EdwardGRuf.com By programs do you mean digital photo manipulation applications? I've got Photoshop CS2 and Elements - though I'm completely useless with them. > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:50:24 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems > > "Edward [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I've got Photoshop CS2 and Elements - though I'm completely useless with > them. If you're useless at Photoshop then why are you concerned about how many pixels your monitor supports? View at 1/4 to get an idea of the composition, and view sections of the image at 1/1 to see/manipulate detail. If you want your photos to be used as a desktop background image or viewed as a full screen slideshow then downsize 25% at a time with the last downsize to fit your screen. Or maybe you should have saved your money and bought a used, high quality 2MP camera. Greg >>On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:50:24 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems >>"Edward [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I've got Photoshop CS2 and Elements - though I'm completely useless with > them. Working in photoshop, it helps to have a second (smaller) monitor on the desktop to put toolbars on & get the use of the entire main screen for the image window: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/dual-desktop> PS is not the best for quick browsing and culling though, which is why I recommended ACDSee or at least irfanview or something. Those will resize to fit the full screen (no menus at all) and it's easy to zoom & pan at full size in ACDSee. >As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region of 1MP, >what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my Canon >5D can produce on screen? You have NO idea how bad your shots look compared to viewing them on a good screen. -Rich > You have NO idea how bad your shots look compared to viewing them on > a good screen. Probably that plastic monitor. STFU >> You have NO idea how bad your shots look compared to viewing them on >> a good screen. > >Probably that plastic monitor. > >STFU Don't worry, as long as you don't eat any of it, it won't make you sterile. On second thoughts, never mind. -Rich > As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region > of 1MP, what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos > that my Canon 5D can produce on screen? Get a 9.2MP monitor? http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8578 David > As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region of 1MP, > what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my Canon > 5D can produce on screen? Zoom in. Print big. 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: Remove FreeLunch. |
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.