Your Move Nikon..50 MP?

Paperman

" I guess 1 bit is maximum difference you can ever see , in practice there may often none "

Not what I mean ...How many bit image is possible in printing / on PC screens ?

Ironheart

It's not measured in bits. It's measured by "gamut" and it is far less than you think. Even "wide gamut" displays only show about half of the 16million theoretical colors in 24bit space.
http://dot-color.com/2011/10/08/the-difference-between-color-gamut-and-bit-depth/
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

FrenchRiviera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth

I think it essentially depends on quality screen , that said , 24 bit colors give 16,777,216 color variations. The human eye can discriminate up to ten million colors.

Extra out of human eye discrimination may be useful for creative development using RAW .

Paperman

I have a feeling my screen is no more than 8 bits And I believe prints from JPEGS are somewhat like that . In short we are worried about resolution we can't ( normally ) see ( without pixel peeping ), color variations which we did not know existed

Invent first and then create a need for it ......

spraynpray

That's marketing @Paperman!

FrenchRiviera

I have a feeling my screen is no more than 8 bits And I believe prints from JPEGS are somewhat like that . In short we are worried about resolution we can't ( normally ) see ( without pixel peeping ), color variations which we did not know existed

Invent first and then create a need for it ......

8 bit on jpeg files is data coding , nothing in common with global quality

Paperman

So you send TIFF files for printing ? Don't most labs accept only JPEGS ? How many bits are magazines printed ? ( Pls don't get me wrong ; just trying to learn...Color depths/bits/printing technology not my favorite subjects )

FrenchRiviera

I send mostly jpeg after post processing ( included softproofing ) .

RAW first and TIFF are for work , JPEG is the final file, after post processing , JPEG is able to contain all values you need .
I may send TIFF for printing , according to paper ICC if softproofing reveals to much loss .

FrenchRiviera

Interesting link :
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/whats-new-in-lightroom-4/soft-proofing-images/

haroldp

!

As we can read by DXO , colors sensitivity ( CS ) is better with higher resolution
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization

When we compare a D4 and a D810 , we have a 1 bit difference on color depth
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-D4___963_767

Under 1 bit , difference is barely noticeable
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores

How many "bits" in digital prints, how many on PC screens ? Just curious ......

many

rmp

I take pictures in raw format. In LightRoom I crop to the expected perspective (such as 4x5). Then, for printing I export to tiff because it has no compression losses (or so I have been told.) The tiff file is exported in its final size (such as 16 inches x 20 inches) with a dpi of 360 (which is optimum for Epson printers). That produces a file that is large. For use on the web, I export to a .jpg file because it can be much smaller and can tolerate the losses associated with compression. Typically my .jpg files are set to something like 1200 x 800 pixels and 72 ppi. This seems to be good enough for screens.

Please do not interpret this as a recommendation: it is not. It is simply a statement of how I get the number of "bits" (pixels or dots) in my prints or displays. It seems to work for me.

donaldejose

spraynpray: Yes, I have printed 12 and 16 mp DX images (D90 and D7000) up to 16x24 and they are just fine. I did not mean to imply DX was limited to 8x10 prints. I was trying to contrast DX with FX and say when you know someone wants an image for the web or for 5x7 or 8x10 prints there is no need to use an FX sensor. I am sure a Nikon 1 sensor would be fine for 8x10 prints. I don't do wedding photography but suspect most such photos are ordered for books not larger than 8x10. No reason DX wouldn't be adequate for wedding photography: unless you wanted the generally true one stop cleaner high ISO provided by an FX sensor. The D750 seems to offer a "just right" compromise: lighter weight, cleaner high ISO and a 24 mp sensor. Wish I had one!

As to all those who see no need for a sensor greater than 36mp; just don't buy the 50+ megapixel one. A few people will want it and will use it at its strength; which may be landscapes at f5.6. If and when such a sensor is marketed we will learn its strengths and weaknesses. For example, the D3x was said (by some) to be not good above ISO 800. Yet wedding photographers were using it. Back in its day some used it and others didn't. It will be the same with a D4x or D810x or whatever it is named. Some will be willing to pay for whatever extra it offers and live with its limitations. Others won't. But I do strongly think it will come and likely may come this year (along with a pro 24mp DX body).

sevencrossing

Well here it is
http://photorumors.com/2015/01/30/this-is-the-new-50mp-canon-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-full-frame-dslr-camera/#more-66532
Big question for me, what is the Dynamic range
and what is the IQ of the EF 11-24mm f/4L USM lens going to be like

manhattanboy

Well here it is
http://photorumors.com/2015/01/30/this-is-the-new-50mp-canon-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-full-frame-dslr-camera/#more-66532
Big question for me, what is the Dynamic range
and what is the IQ of the EF 11-24mm f/4L USM lens going to be like

The dual processors are interesting and should help keep these photos moving at the 5 fps advertised. The million dollar question is whether this is a Canon sensor or a Sony one. Initial reports said it is both, with Canon allowing Sony to use their dual pixel technology. HOWEVER, the latest leaks show no video centric features, which leads one to wonder why dual pixel would be used at all since it increases noise and drag down the ISO range...

I still like my 810, but if Canon can do something mind-blowing like price this under $3K, I would be very tempted.

spraynpray

Under $5k? I doubt that - not bearing in mind the price they charged for the 5D3 and that body is only what the 5D2 should have been!

mikep

personally, im still shopping in the 12-24mp range.

even 36mp is way bigger than a 4k monitor. a 4k monitor is around 3840 x 2160, and a 36mp file would be around 6144x4912

it is a little mad i think. most people dont print huge and most of us consume pictures online. cropping power aside its useless for most folks, but very desirable for those few who do actually use these large files to their full extent.

its akin to someone using expensive equipment to produce high quality 4k video, with 320kb sound, which is useless on youtube, and most people are using viewing equipment that cant take advantage of the quality anyway. in this digital environment there are 2 sets of gear at play; that of the creator and the viewer.

i can see 50mp being useful for some, macro shooters springs to mind first ...

sevencrossing

. most people don't print huge .

Very true . Most people do not own or even need FX, which is why nikon make so many 24 mp cameras

But, some of us do want want to make and sell, very large prints. The bigger the print, the higher the price, the bigger the profit

It is not about print size, its not about Mps its about overall IQ

most people are using viewing equipment that can't take advantage of the quality

Again very true, but some of have clients who pixel peep and if we don't give them the IQ they expect, we might not get the next job

WestEndFoto

I want to resolve eyelashes on full body shots at f/1.4. That is all I ask.

manhattanboy

I want to resolve eyelashes on full body shots at f/1.4. That is all I ask.

You can do this on DX... it is the lens that is currently limiting not the sensor/body.

WestEndFoto

Exactly!!!

Except, which lens would you pair with a 24 megapixel DX to accomplish that?

manhattanboy

Exactly!!!

Except, which lens would you pair with a 24 megapixel DX to accomplish that?

I have an 85 1.4. But the dof is very narrow. This is right up pitch blacks forte so would definitely ask him for advice.
A sharp tele would also produce a similar background blur while maintaining eyelash sharpness you just have to have the room to shoot and flash control is tougher.

WestEndFoto

My D800 paired with my 85 1.4G does not give me eyelash sharpness on a full body portrait until I stop down. So given this, it would not give me that on a DX, where I am essentially blowing up an already fuzzy picture.

I imagine the 200 f/2 or especially the 400 f/2.8 would.

sevencrossing

Yet another thread turns into the Dx vs Fx debate

spraynpray

@mikep: You can't apply logic around here, it's 98% 'want' 2% 'need'!

@WestEndFoto: To counter your argument that if a 36mp D800 can't resolve eye-lashes with your 85/1.4, a 24mp DX never could - DX uses the most accurate centre part of an FX lens, it is the outside where a lot of the fuzziness comes from.

Msmoto

Some much stuff about resolution, did anyone mention 24 MP on DX is about like 54 MP on FX?