# Camera resolution, image resolution, screen resolution



## Anjikun (Aug 7, 2017)

Hello,

I have a basic question about pixels/resolution, which I can never seem to get straight.

My camera (Fujifilm x-T10) has 16.3 megapixels (4896 x 3264) and I am working on an iMac 5k display (5120 x 2880 / 16:9 aspect ratio). I am an artist (oil painter) and one of the main things I want to do with my photos is use them for reference. Now I am looking over my last shoot, and when I zoom up 8:1 (with Lr in full-screen mode) I definitely see pixels.

My assumption is that this is due to the limitation of my camera resolution and not the monitor resolution, and that if I want to be able to zoom in this close or closer (using max screen area) without seeing pixels I will have to get a higher-resolution camera. Is this correct?

Sorry if this is a very basic question. I am an artist not a photographer 

Mary


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Aug 7, 2017)

I am not quite sure of the question you are asking, but if you zoom more than 1:1, then lightroom is making up data, turning one pixel from the camera into more than one pixel on the screen.  That is not necessarily bad if you really want to dive deep.

If you zoom less than 1:1, as you would need to in order to fit the image on the screen (3264 high and your display is only 2880 high) then LR is downsizing a bit, combining pixels from the camera into less pixels on the screen.

Zooming even 1:1 is more highly magnified than any normal viewing distance if the image was printed or projected in a normal process, so artifacts you see there (e.g. "grain" or excess sharpening for example) are not necessarily visible in a normal circumstance. It is often useful to zoom 1:1 (or higher) to evaluate focus, degree of sharpening, etc., but that is a technical step to achieve a goal, and I would not recommend it as a mechanism to evaluate the general artistic impact of an image, any more than looking with a magnifying glass at an oil painting would be "normal", but might be done.


----------



## Anjikun (Aug 7, 2017)

Thanks Ferguson. I'm sorry if my question wasn't very clear. Basically, the reason I would want to zoom up further (8:1, for example) is to be able to paint details and to have the zoomed up view still be sharp enough to work from, with my monitor angled on the desk next to my easel. It would have to be large so I can sit and paint and look over and see it without moving closer to it.

For example, I shot a photo of my friend yesterday that I would like to draw or paint. For most of the work it would be fine to work 1:1. But when working on her eye, it would be beneficial if I could really zoom up on that eye so that I could see it very large on the screen without having it pixelate.

So my question is, were I to save money and buy a much higher resolution camera, would that make the difference, or would the limitation of pixels in the monitor make is so the zoomed up portion would pixelate anyway?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Aug 7, 2017)

OK, I think I understand.

There are a couple possibilities.  First, 16 mpx is not bad.  The highest I use is 36mpx with a Nikon D800, I think Canon has one in the 45mpx range. One thing to keep in mind is that even if you double the resolution (e.g. let's say you went to the D800 at 36mpx) your linear resolution (dots per inch) only goes up by 41%, not 100% (square root).  So there are some limits to what resolution can do.  Also, as you get into the 20+ megapixel, it often takes much higher quality lenses to actually render the resolution of the sensor, otherwise you just see very high resolution blur.

But yes, a somewhat higher resolution camera would help, but not by a whole lot.

You can also upsize what you view.  If you have Photoshop (if you have CC you do), you can edit-in-photoshop and then do an Image, Resize, and change the resolution there.  There are a number of options you can experiment with ("preserve details" is a good place to start), as different algorithms work better or worse sometimes by subject. When you then exit this comes back into Lightroom and you can display it.  This is not a bit improvement, but is usually better than going higher than 1:1 in lightroom.  Somewhat better.  Not magic.  Be aware it makes for a very large file to work with them (be sure you are using 16 bit TIFF's in the options of Lightroom). 

Note that all this is doing is making up pixels a bit more intelligently than Lightroom was when you went larger than 1:1.  It's still trying to fake data it doesn't have.

More difficult for human subjects, but possible, is to do panoramas.  This is a means of getting true, additional resolution with the same camera.   You take the desired image with a too-long lens, so that it may take 6 or 8 or more images to "cover" the subject.  You can then combine those (lightroom will do it with merge to Panorama), and assemble a much higher resolution image.  Instead of 16 mpx, you might do a 2x3 grid and get 3-4 times the resolution (you need to allow for 20-30% overlap in each one).  This is not easy to do, and if the subject moves while you reposition the camera, you get really weird results, but it is a possibility for extremely high resolution.

Of course, and VERY expensive, are medium format cameras with much higher resolution.  Very expensive.

Now all that said, what you might need is just a different perception.  If you have a large TV, try displaying your PC on it.  It may have lower resolution, but will be physically a LOT larger, and easier to see from a distance.  My GUESS is that if you can get a display that's physically a lot larger to look at, you do not need as much resolution.

Those are the ways that occur to me off hand, perhaps someone with a more artistic bent can chime in and suggest something.


----------



## Retrosi (Aug 7, 2017)

Hello, sorry to say but the advice given is not really correct.
Mentioning cameras with higher resolution will not solve your issue.
Your camera is not 16.3 mp maths shows 4896 x 3264 = 15.980544 mp
Your screen is 5120 x 2880 = 14.7456 mp
Take the screen resolution away from the cameras and you have a short fall of 1.234944 mp
Which we all do as our cameras are these days generally of a higher pixel count than our monitors.
However, your difference is ver small and nearly 1:1 compared to most of us with standard FHD screen of 1920 x 1080 = 2.0736 mp
Even my 32 inch true 4k screen is only 3840 x 2160 = 8.2944 mp which is less than your screen.
What this means is without much magnification you are almost looking at the full size image on your screen anyway.
When you zoom in a little the edges are lost and your are looking at 1:1 ie 100% of the camera albeit with the outer edges missing.
Zoom in further and the edges disappear further meaning you are now making your cameras image actually larger than it really is which is why it becomes pixalated.
But as with all of us your camera has more pixels than the screen which will never be able to show a true one to one because the monitor has already shrunk the image to fit the screen.
So when you enlarge the image the monitor is splitting each pixel from the camera into 2 pixels, and each time you zoom in further the monitor splits even further the single pixel across more screen pixels.
So a single camera pixel when enlarged on you monitor is spread over many pixels depending on how much you zoom in by.
This is why the image appears to be pixelated because you have zoomed in beyond the monitors capability of showing 1:1 pixels; it needs to spread each camera pixel over several screen pixels.
Another thing to remember is some TVs are say 48 inches but only FHD and look okay because we sit far enough away not to see the larger individual pixels which although the TV has the same amount of pixels as a FHD monitor of say 24 inches the pixels of the TV are each a lot bigger.
Same amount of pixels just each one is bigger, a bit like a fine dot from a pencil or a splodge from a crayon, still one dot but different sizes.
I hope this helps.
Just don't get dpi and ppi mixed up though


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Aug 8, 2017)

Let me use a different example to explain what I was suggesting by the TV.

Imagine you had an image printed on 4x6 paper at 600dpi.

Now imagine you also print it on a 32 x 48 poster at 75 dpi.  If I did the math right that's exactly the same number of dots on each.

Now sit 6' away from each, and tell me which you can see the detail on better?  Of course it's the poster.  If you viewport (i.e. the angle of view you can see) is limited to that 4x6 area at 6', then to be able to see detail (from 6') you have to zoom WAY in, enlarge things a factor of 8 or so, and can only see a little bit of the image at a time.

It's not about resolution per-se but a combination of resolution and viewing distance; for a given size display, the further away you are, the more magnification you need for your eyes to be able to resolve detail.

So if you are trying to view an image while working a goodly distance from the monitor -- having a much larger monitor (even if lower resolution) can be a benefit.

Perhaps I misunderstood the question though, and hopefully Anjikun will clarify. 

Linwood


----------



## Anjikun (Aug 8, 2017)

Thank you both so much for these answers. I will have to read them over a few times to see if I can understand. I find the whole pixel/resolution thing so difficult to really grasp. I am starting to get the concept though that if I zoom past 1:1 the display is having to spread one image pixel over several display pixels (so having to make up pixels). I guess that is why I'm thinking I will need a higher resolution camera if I want to be able to see more detail zoomed in. If the number of pixels coming out of the camera were three times more, than I would have to zoom less to get a certain element to display the same size on my display (if the viewing distance is held constant).

I had not considered the option of upsizing in Photoshop to try to get a better result than in Lr. I do have access to Photoshop, so I will definitely try that!


----------



## clee01l (Aug 8, 2017)

Anjikun said:


> My camera (Fujifilm x-T10) has 16.3 megapixels (4896 x 3264) and I am working on an iMac 5k display (5120 x 2880 / 16:9 aspect ratio).


Taking a different approach than Linwood, I'll ask you this question:   How big is a pixel?  In your camera, a sensor has 4896 pixels horizontally across a physical sensor that is 23.6 mm (or ~0.9").  Lets say that you shoot a scene that just happens to be 49 feet from one edge of the frame to the other.   That would mean that you sensor is registering  ~1/100 of a foot for every pixel or 1 foot per 100 pixels.  Now let's take one of this pixels and display it on your 5k retina iMac.    Those 5120 pixels horizontally span a physical space of ~23.5" or 218 pixels per inch.   At 1 pixel on the display equalling 1 pixel on the sensor means that your 4896 pixels from the camera will display and  there will be 224 pixels of black border on the left/right of the image.  That also means that the iMac's 2880 pixels vertically won't show all of the 3264 pixel recorded by the sensor.  
Going back to our 49 foot wide scene,  when displayed 1:1, 1 foot of the scene (~100 pixels) will take up about ½ inch horizontally on the display.  
 Getting back to LR, when displaying full scree, you have several options  One of those is 1:1 which produces the image that I just described.   Another is "Fit to screen" where LR will call your image so that the 3264 pixels vertically will fit in to the 2880 pixels that you display has to offer.  That means that every pixel on the screen will represent 1.13 pixels recorded by the camera. If you choose 8:1 as you mentioned, that means that every pixel recorded by the camera will be represented by 8 pixels on the display. 

For your painting efforts, I have a suggestion.  Get a DLP (Digital Projector) and use it as a second display.  you can project the image directly onto the canvas, then sketch in the proportions.  Then you can  use  either a projected color image or your iMac display for details and color.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Aug 8, 2017)

clee01l said:


> For your painting efforts, I have a suggestion.  Get a DLP (Digital Projector) and use it as a second display.  you can project the image directly onto the canvas, then sketch in the proportions.


Excellent!  There's precedent: Camera obscura

An acquaintance is a photo-realist painter, and his wife told me he does exactly this. I always wanted to ask (but was afraid of insulting him) why he didn't just get the image printed on a poster, and then paint the oil over it.  

Honestly I never have understood that genre of art - the idea that you can't tell an oil from a photograph always seemed a bit like someone who customized a Jaguar to make it look like a Ford Pinto.    But I'm told I don't understand art.



Anjikun said:


> I had not considered the option of upsizing in Photoshop to try to get a better result than in Lr. I do have access to Photoshop, so I will definitely try that!


Do realize what happens is it just makes it smoother, so rather than a bunch of very obvious pixels, you get an enlarged blur. They human eye at a distance though tends to put more detail back into the blur than the pixels, but it's a bit of an illusion.


----------



## LouieSherwin (Aug 8, 2017)

Anjikun said:


> My assumption is that this is due to the limitation of my camera resolution and not the monitor resolution, and that if I want to be able to zoom in this close or closer (using max screen area) without seeing pixels I will have to get a higher-resolution camera. Is this correct?



Basically your understanding is correct and as the others have noted there aren't any cameras that have enough resolution to directly give you the detail that you are looking for.  

But there is another method that you could try with your existing equipment if the original reference is large enough. That is to move in close and take multiple shots and then assemble them in Lightroom with the merge to panorama. You will probably want to do this using a tripod to ensure that there is no blurring due to camera shake. 

-louie


----------



## Anjikun (Aug 8, 2017)

Hello all,

Yes, a projector is on my list of things to buy. Many painters use that to get a drawing on the support before starting to paint, but that is only useful to start.

So, I guess I understand the response above about how one pixel from my camera is displayed by 8 pixels on the screen if I zoom in 8:1. So I guess what I am really trying to confirm is, if I get a camera with, say, double the pixel count (there are lots of cameras with double the pixel count on my camera) and shoot the exact same portrait with both cameras, with the higher res camera I will only have to zoom 4:1 to get the same image on my screen, and so it will be less pixelated (so I will see better detail when I am painting an eye, for example). Right?

The panorama is a very interesting idea. I will definitely try that with landscape or abstract nature shots (stuff that won't move between shots)!

As for photorealism, that is interesting but not the type of painting I do. Today I was working in Lr on a portrait shot I took of a friend. It's a great expression and so I will draw or paint it. So in Lr I am making a set of different reference images that I can use when I'm doing the work, one black and white with boosted contrast, one that exaggerates the skin tones and a few others. Lightroom is great for this!


----------



## clee01l (Aug 8, 2017)

Anjikun said:


> So I guess what I am really trying to confirm is, if I get a camera with, say, double the pixel count (there are lots of cameras with double the pixel count on my camera) and shoot the exact same portrait with both cameras, with the higher res camera I will only have to zoom 4:1 to get the same image on my screen, and so it will be less pixelated


Let's go back to the camera that you have and my example.  


clee01l said:


> In your camera, a sensor has 4896 pixels horizontally across a physical sensor that is 23.6 mm (or ~0.9"). Lets say that you shoot a scene that just happens to be 49 feet from one edge of the frame to the other. That would mean that you sensor is registering ~1/100 of a foot for every pixel or 1 foot per 100 pixels.


  Now move closer or use a telephoto lens.  With that same scene  if you stop at the right distance or zoom your telephoto the right amount, it only takes about 6 feet of the 49 ft wide scene to fill up the frame horizontally from one edge to the other.    You can do this experiment with the camera that you have now and see if you like the results when zooming on the display.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Aug 8, 2017)

Anjikun said:


> So, I guess I understand the response above about how one pixel from my camera is displayed by 8 pixels on the screen if I zoom in 8:1. So I guess what I am really trying to confirm is, if I get a camera with, say, double the pixel count (there are lots of cameras with double the pixel count on my camera) and shoot the exact same portrait with both cameras, with the higher res camera I will only have to zoom 4:1 to get the same image on my screen, and so it will be less pixelated (so I will see better detail when I am painting an eye, for example). Right?



I had to go give it a try and I think the answer is No, the issue is linear size vs. area.  When go from 4:1 to 8:1, it is giving you twice the pixels horizontally, and twice vertically, so it is 4 times the pixels total.  Thus if you go by megapixels (which are total) you need 4 times the number, not twice.

But you're on the right track, and that is also why I said a higher resolution camera is not much help.  Really high resolution DSLR's are barely twice your resolution, much less four times.  You don't have far in that direction to go, you need to use other things.


----------



## Anjikun (Aug 8, 2017)

Hi Linwood and Cletus,

Actually I just read about a camera that has like 40 megapixels of resolution. I am not saying I can go out and buy a camera like that, but there are cameras that produce much larger images than my camera.

And yes, I understand that when I am in the field I get get closer (or zoom in on) my subject. But I am thinking about when I recognize something I would like to paint after the fact. For example, I went to the botanical garden with a friend the other day and took a backlit shot of her which is pretty wide angle. My intention was to adjust the exposure on her in Lightroom to show her in the setting behind her. But working on the pictures I cropped in on that shot of her and it would make an amazing portrait painting because of the backlighting. So I made a set that I can use for reference, including a further zoom on her eyes. With Lightroom I can actually bring out a surprising amount of detail in the iris (one of the highlights is in the shape of an angel--very cool!), but it is very pixelated. Of course if I had thought of it, I could have told her "hold that position" and I could have taken some very close-up shots of her face, but my son was with us so we were not really concentrating on shooting.

In one of my other shots of her I also cropped in very close on the eyes and I think I can actually see a silhouette of me taking the picture in one of her eyes, but it's very pixelated so I can't tell for sure 

So basically, my understanding is that, had I shot what I did shoot with a 40 megapixel camera instead of my camera I would have better eye detail to work with (maybe not twice as good, but noticeably better).


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Aug 9, 2017)

Anjikun said:


> Actually I just read about a camera that has like 40 megapixels of resolution. I am not saying I can go out and buy a camera like that, but there are cameras that produce much larger images than my camera.


Yes.  But the square gets most people.  

Here's a question: If you could see the image on your screen exactly 4" x 6", how big does it have to be in order to be twice as large? 

Many people will say 8" x 12", as they want each dimension to be twice as big.  

Megapixels measure area though, so if you go from 16.7mpx to 40mpx it sounds like it is 2.4x as large, but if the same 4"x6" image was displayed but now with a 40 megapixel camera, it would be about 6.2" x 9.3".  That's a nice difference, but it is not as much as one might think.

So when you see the numbers keep thinking -- twice as big is less than half larger.  In other words, twice the megapixels gives you somewhere near 40% more visual size on each edge.


----------



## Anjikun (Aug 9, 2017)

Thanks for the info Linwood. Definitely I will keep that in mind when/if I can ever realistically go shopping for a new camera


----------



## Retrosi (Aug 10, 2017)

Maybe this way of explaining will help.
Your monitor has 5120 x 2880 pixels which gives 14.7456 mp
Almost 15 mp in simple terms.

There are many cameras now with around 30 mp
The new Canon 5d MKiv has 6720 x 4880 which gives 32.7936 (ignoring the actual effective pixels)
This in simple terms is approx little more than twice as many as your monitor, albeit not in the exact ratio.

Monitors mostly FHD 1920 x 1080 are never the same shape (ratio) even though they have the same amount (if FHD) of pixels.
This is because brands have different shape pixels, (yes some are rectangle, some are oblong, some are octagonal and so on...)
Causing some to be a 5:3 ratio while others have 1.7:1 ratio even though they have the same 1920 x 1080 pixels.
I work along with my photgraphy duties in a printers, and have many different monitors and (unfortunately) many differ from each other although all are FHD.

(I am not comparing 6x4 photos and which if needed to be twice as big actually need to be 12 x 4, just put one photo above the other or side by side to make 8 x 6 and of course in pixels will be a different equation when viewed on screen)

So, if we took an ideal scenario of your monitor and you had this magical camera with exactly twice the pixel count (not ratio though) of 10240 x 5760
This would mean each of your monitors single pixels is showing exactly two of your cameras pixels when showing the complete photo in full screen.

When you zoom in to show 1:1 pixel range most of the image is of course now not able to fit on screen, but at least your monitor is now showing exactly one pixel to each one pixel of your cameras.
Which means (although it might look like it) you have zero pixelation.

One pixel of the camera is now being displayed as one pixel on your screen.

Then you go further and zoom in again say to a 4x further zoom you now have split each single camera pixel over several of your monitors pixels.
Meaning you have made the single cameras pixel larger than it actually is.

This is why people mistake zooming for pixelisation when it is not they have just enlarged the cameras pixel past the monitors ability.
You should therefore see from this, that getting a higher rate mp camera is not the solution when viewing on your screen.
You in fact need a higher rate mp count on your monitor but with the monitor you have I am not sure if one exists that is better than what you already have.

Lets get into fantasy world and say such a monitor existed, a 200mp monitor and you have a 50mp camera.
This now causes the reverse where you have one camera photo displayed in full but each of the cameras single pixels is in fact already split across several of the monitors pixels if the photo is viewed in full screen.
To get this photo to show 1:1 you would infact need to shrink said photo from full screen, smaller to have a 1:1 pixel ratio.


I would say that when attempting to "Photoshop or Lightroom" a photo when we zoom in past 1:1 we are infact creating things that aren't there.
Given you/we have one pixel now spread across several pixels when zoomed past 1:1
I wonder if this is a good thing for acurracy! 
Just a thought.....


----------



## Anjikun (Aug 10, 2017)

Thanks for trying to explain! The problem with me is that I am really dim in some ways. I am not bashing myself, just recognizing my limitations, as I have a specific learning disability related to a genetic condition (Fragile X). Abstract things like this that require a lot of mental steps are just extremely difficult for me to grasp (and if I do ever "get" it, I then forget it) 

So, does this mean that if I bought that imaginary camera with exactly twice the resolution of my current camera, and then magically were able to shoot exactly the same scene with the new camera as what I just shot with my current camera, and then--with my current monitor--zoomed in on the same eye at 8:1 in both images, it would look the same, due to the limitation of my monitor?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Aug 10, 2017)

Anjikun said:


> So, does this mean that if I bought that imaginary camera with exactly twice the resolution of my current camera, and then magically were able to shoot exactly the same scene with the new camera as what I just shot with my current camera, and then--with my current monitor--zoomed in on the same eye at 8:1 in both images, it would look the same, due to the limitation of my monitor?


Ignoring the question of whether "twice" is twice the resolution or twice each pixel dimension, the answer is no. 

A camera with more resolution, at the same Lightroom zoom, will show a more magnified image.  So you would see an image twice the size if you zoom to the same 8:1, if the image was taken in such a way that it had the same subject the same apparent size when taken.

I've been trying to think of a good way to describe this with an analogy.  Try this.

When you capture an image, imagine instead you built a model of the image out of legos.  The legos have a fixed size when you capture the image.

Now imagine when you display the image on your screen, the computer is looking at the original, and building a new lego copy for you to look at.  When you zoom 1:1 it uses the same number of lego bricks, but those lego brick size depends on the monitor.  If your monitor was one of those huge wall-size screens, it uses big bricks. On your monitor they are small bricks.

If you look at the image with big bricks there's really no more detail there, just the overall result is bigger -- curved surfaces still have rough, brick-shaped curves.

Zooming in 2:1 says "for every brick, use 4 bricks".  So there's still no more detail, you just more or less are saying use bigger bricks.  There is not a lot of difference in zooming in and using a much bigger monitor (we're talking concepts here, there are a lot of nuances). 

Now go back to the original image.  Let's say you take the image again -- i.e. you build a new lego model, but you are given much smaller lego bricks.  You use these smaller bricks to show smaller details.  Curves are more smooth because your bricks are smaller.  So let's say the width of a face was 100 lego bricks the first time, now it is 200 lego bricks, just much smaller ones.

Go back to your monitor -- remember, you can't "see" the original model, your computer takes each lego brick from the model, and looks at your magnification.  So at 1:1, it still uses one of it's bricks for each of your model bricks.  But the monitor's bricks are no larger, nothing changed there.  So the 100 bricks it used before are now 200 (even though you are still 1:1, because the original model used smaller bricks).  So when you display this image 1:1, it's 200 bricks wide, which is twice as wide on your monitor.  Nothing changed in the monitor, it is your original model -- it uses smaller bricks.

Go back to the huge wall-sized monitor and the same thing happens -- it just uses bigger bricks, so now it takes the 200 bricks across, and the image is huge -- but has no more real detail than you see on the small monitor, it is just larger bricks, a bit easier to see.

This is somewhat like pixels.  Pixels on displays are different sizes on different displays.  You can't tell from the physical size of a display how many pixels it has.  If you zoom 1:1 on a very high density (small pixel) display, you get a smaller image because it has smaller "bricks".   Conversely, if your camera uses smaller pixels (i.e. its model is made with smaller bricks) it has a higher resolution sensor.  These two sizes only get connected when you display, when the computer (in a fairly literal sense) rebuilds the model from your sensor into a model on the screen.

Now in real life there's a lot of nuance to this, as there may be different numbers of pixels, you may be using fractions to display (e.g. to "fit" it may use 1.3 pixels on the screen for each pixel in the sensor, so the brick analogy starts to break down a bit). 

If my lego example doesn't help, delete it from memory now.


----------



## clee01l (Aug 10, 2017)

Anjikun said:


> So, does this mean that if I bought that imaginary camera with exactly twice the resolution of my current camera, and then magically were able to shoot exactly the same scene with the new camera as what I just shot with my current camera, and then--with my current monitor--zoomed in on the same eye at 8:1 in both images, it would look the same, due to the limitation of my monitor?


Go back to my original post.  "How big is a pixel?  On your camera, the sensor is 23.6mm X 15.8mm. That means that a pixel in your camera is only 0.005mm (50/1000 of a mm).  If you double the pixels horizontally (there by increasing the resolution of the camera image), the new width of a pixel is going to be half  of the current pixel width or 0.0025mm (25/1000 of a mm).  Now your display has 218 pixels to the inch (or about 9 pixel per mm or  0.11mm per pixel) Note  that a pixel on your screen is about 25 times larger than a pixel in your present camera.


----------



## Anjikun (Aug 10, 2017)

Hi Linwood, thanks so much for this very detailed and thoughtful explanation! The problem for me is that there are too many aspects of it. I like the analogy of legos though.

So with a higher resolution camera the image would be built out of much smaller legos. So, taking the display monitor out of it for now, that means if I could look at the model directly it would have more detail, because for example the eye would be built out of more, smaller legos.

So this, I get. This is why if I wanted to print my images as a really large poster, if I had more, smaller lego blocks in the original model it would look better at a large size. And also if I wanted to photograph my paintings and drawings and sell them as prints (many artists do this now) the high resolution camera would be much better, because someone could buy a very large print and it would still look detailed enough.

But what I can't seem to understand is how to factor the monitor limitation into this when it comes to using my images on my monitor as reference while painting/drawing. When I get to that part of the explanation it just gets too complex for me to follow (with the 1:1, 8:1 and all that).

Imagine I took two cameras into the field: my Fujifilm X-T10 (APS-C sensor, 16 mp with high-quality lens) and a Sony Alpha A99 II (full-frame, 42.2 mp, with high-quality lens) and I shot exactly the same head-and-shoulders portrait (same framing, same lighting, everything) in raw. Then in my studio, I am drawing or painting using it as reference, and I am ready to work on one of the eyes. So (with each of the two images) I zoom in Lr on my 5k Mac monitor so I can see that eye at the same size (filling much of the monitor). I am not paying attention to 1:1, 8:1 or whatever--I just get that eye to fill the available screen space the same for each of the two images. Will I have a lot more detail in that eye area to work on in the image shot with the better camera, or will it look about the same, such that I feel like a fool for saving up for a year and a half to buy that bloody camera?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Aug 10, 2017)

Anjikun said:


> Imagine I took two cameras into the field: my Fujifilm X-T10 (APS-C sensor, 16 mp with high-quality lens) and a Sony Alpha A99 II (full-frame, 42.2 mp, with high-quality lens) and I shot exactly the same head-and-shoulders portrait (same framing, same lighting, everything) in raw. Then in my studio, I am drawing or painting using it as reference, and I am ready to work on one of the eyes. So (with each of the two images) I zoom in Lr on my 5k Mac monitor so I can see that eye at the same size (filling much of the monitor). I am not paying attention to 1:1, 8:1 or whatever--I just get that eye to fill the available screen space the same for each of the two images. Will I have a lot more detail in that eye area to work on in the image shot with the better camera, or will it look about the same, such that I feel like a fool for saving up for a year and a half to buy that bloody camera?



That's a great way to ask it, specifically ignore the whole 1:1, 8:1, etc.  Just zoom in on the eye until it is the size you want in either case.

And in terms of taking the image, with a full frame vs. crop I assume you will get closer or use a different lens as needed, so the actual photo you take is the same apparent framing.  Let's also assume your lens is adequate to the resolution (the higher the resolution the better lens you need, but that's a detail). 

The answer is that the higher resolution will give you a better image.  In the case of 42 vs. 16 quite a lot better image.

You are correct -- the whole issue of zoom ratio is a detail.  Think of it as an un-labeled control -- you just zoom until it is the size you need.  Forget how it does it.

Higher resolution cameras, so long as you frame the shot the same way and have an adequate lens, when you zoom in, will give a more detailed image.

Note: "Adequate lens" is important as it's really tough to get lenses that can keep up with a 42 megapixel camera.


----------



## Anjikun (Aug 10, 2017)

Yeah--I finally get it (at least well enough to know what my dream camera would be ! And yes, I have heard that I will need an extremely high-quality lens to do justice to an extremely high-res camera.

BTW, I was thinking that the lego analogy is a great one, but a mosaic is even better, because that is 2D. It's like the camera is building a mosaic out of different coloured square tiles, all the same size, and all oriented in exactly the same direction with no overlapping.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all this to me, I really appreciate it!

Mary


----------

