| Author |
Message |
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:57 am Post subject: New Rule...Screen shots must be at least 1200 Pixels wide! |
|
|
Thought it was just kind of interesting. 
I posted my findings in the big ass screen shot thead on the "A" site too.
SD
HD
SD
HD
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
that depends on the camera ya got, what do you have Mike?
pretty darn good 
-Gary
Last edited by Gary M. on Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:03 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
These were taken with a 21MP Canon.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papalek
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1536
Location: Longs SC
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | These were taken with a 21MP Canon.
Mike |
Holy sh*t 21!!!!  I did not think they made a 21MP camera. That thing must cost as much as your house.
_________________
My current list of PJ's AmPro 1 1/2-4600,4200, 1/2-3600,2600.
I do love my AmPro's
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nashou66 wrote: | It around 8 g's and its his Brothers i think . Right Mikey?
I agree smaller sizes do not show the flaws with SD, and its hard to tell the difference.
Athanasios |
Yeppers.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The smaller photos are only 768x315 so it's no surprise that 1920x1080 HD discs don't look as good when downscaled.
The number of mega-pixels in a cameras is a meaningless indication of the quality or sharpness of the resulting image you'll get. The quality of the lens assembly, quality of the sensor array, and the processing/filtering the camera applies is what matters. A low end old 6mp Canon Rebel takes better pictures than a newer 12mp point and shoot.
1920x1080 is only just slightly over 2 mega-pixel anyway so any digital camera from the last 10 years is beyond HD in resolution.
The 21MP Canon is the EOS-1Ds Mark III. It takes good pictures because of the quality of the lenses that people usually couple with it and the quality of the camera itself. Not to mention that someone with an $8K camera usually understands all this so they know what they're doing. 
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
overclkr
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 4227
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dudes, I've been going higher rez for a LONG TIME now. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| overclkr wrote: | | Dudes, I've been going higher rez for a LONG TIME now. |
Oh I know...ur the master!
It just bugs me when people post tiny screen shots, they don't really mean much at all.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: | | 1920x1080 is only just slightly over 2 mega-pixel anyway so any digital camera from the last 10 years is beyond HD in resolution. |
True, but a 2MP camera can't accurately represent a 2 mexapixel image -- unless you managed to line up the camera's pixels precisely with the projector's pixels, which is impossible. The smooth analog qualities of a CRT display are even harder to represent accurately than a fixed-pixel digital display. Your eye perceives the image with a whole lot more "pixels" than that, which is why you can see the difference between fixed pixels and CRT. You need a LOT more pixels in the camera than there are "pixels" in the image if you want to represent it accurately.
I don't know a formula to say how many pixels you really need, but I'd guess you need at least 2-4 times the pixel density of the picture. So to accurately represent a 1920-wide fixed-pixel digital projector, you'd probably need at least a 4000-pixel-wide image, which is roughly a 12MP camera. To *really* accurately represent the smooth qualities of a CRT you'd need more than that.
Of course then you'd have to post them in that 4000-8000 pixel wide format, in order for people to really see the differences. And nobody wants to look at those monster pix. 
The best way to show true detail, if you really want to fully represent it, is to zoom in on a portion of the screen. That way you can get the more-camera-pixels-than-screen-pixels situation without taking or posting gigantic pix. But of course then it's not really an accurate representation of what you see from your viewing position. It's more like what you'd see if you walked right up to the screen.
Full-screen screenshots, at least 1200-1500 pixels wide, are probably the best compromise if you want to show something anywhere similar to what your eye sees from the viewing position.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
