5 ms·

There's simply no way a small sensor+lens can capture enough light, that's why even old DSLRs have higher picture quality (esp. sharpness/clarity) than the newe

by jotm 7y ago

There's simply no way a small sensor+lens can capture enough light, that's why even old DSLRs have higher picture quality (esp. sharpness/clarity) than the newest smartphones.

bscphil 7y ago
Surely that depends quite a lot on the display size though, right? If you print out the 6 MP image the GP was talking about at 300 DPI, that's something like a 7x10 image. If you're printing at typical wall portrait sizes, surely the latest iPhone (with its superior low-noise processing and all) would win in the majority of shooting conditions.
- moron4hire 7y ago
  You also don't stand 6 inches away from a wall portrait.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    Well sure, but the high quality photo printers I've looked at seem to recommend 300 dpi. Some back of the envelope math: 20/20 vision = the ability to resolve differences 1 arc minute ≈ 290 microradians across. A distance of 1/300 inch subtends an angle of about 280 microradians at 12 inches, so I estimate someone with 20/20 vision could see pixelation on a 300 dpi image inside 12 inches. Is that too weird? Well, maybe if you're hanging it on the wall, but it seems odd to put a 7x10 image on the wall unless it's in a collection or montage. I think photos printed at 7x10 are more likely to be held in the hands, in which case shooting for transparent at 12 inches seems like the way to go, actually. (I suspect many people would have trouble discerning details in a 7x10 image from several feet away.)
    - mceachen 7y ago
      It depends on the image. Very high contrast areas (like text) on high quality coated stock can resolve up to 1200dpi (where higher resolution don't hold up even under a loupe). Photographic continuous tone images never have that sharp of contrast, though, and, again, depending on the image, you might not see jaggies even at 100dpi. 300dpi is sufficiently overkill to be an easy "set it and forget" resolution to recommend. (Source: I paid for college doing typesetting, graphic design, and digital prepress work).
      - moron4hire 7y ago
        Meant to come back and make this comment. I've made a LOT of photographic prints at 150dpi and have never once had any comment other than "that looks amazing". I used to think 300dpi was "bare minimum", having studied computer graphics in college and Nyquist limits and all that. And then one day my father printed a 640x480 cellphone camera photo as an 8x6 and... it looked fine. I was blown away. And then I finally remembered: human eyes don't detect absolute light value, we can only see relative differences in light values. Gradients don't provide enough change to see the edges between colors. You can see it on a computer screen because the screen amplifies the contrast of the image (another old lesson I eventually had to relearn so as to compensate when making prints of digital photos). Nobody knows what resolution you print things when they see the print. If the average joe "knew" how the photo was made, they might scoff at it. I guess people think that craft requires fine precision at all steps of every process. Certain craft does, but some other craft requires randomization and binning, and others have diminishing returns on extra effort. So I find it kind of fun to print low-resolution photos. Feels like I'm winning a game against overly officious critics.
        bscphil 7y ago
        > Gradients don't provide enough change to see the edges between colors. You can see it on a computer screen because the screen amplifies the contrast of the image (another old lesson I eventually had to relearn so as to compensate when making prints of digital photos). > Nobody knows what resolution you print things when they see the print. Well sure, you're right about the gradient thing, but what if you have an image with some really sharp, contrasted edges? Just anecdata, but my family and I were walking through a seasside town a while back and ended up in an artist's shop. Took a look at some photographic prints on the wall (going for $50-$150+, as "artisan" stuff often does), and I had to call my partner over to look at them because I couldn't believe they were all pixelated! Some of them quite badly. I was about 18 inches away from them, I guess, and they looked to have been printed at about 100 dpi. Sure, you probably don't need 300 DPI for large wall prints, but I'd rather have a margin of error and not have that happen to one of my prints. Most people aren't likely to notice flaws in printed images, and are even less likely to tell the owner if they do. I guess it's possible the shots sent to the printer were badly compressed JPEGs, but that seems unlikely.
jaimex2 7y ago
Most people don't realise that their phone camera+software hallucinates most of what you get in the final image.
freepor 7y ago
Yes, but the software and hardware capabilities in the phones are decades ahead. My Pixel 4 categorically takes better low light photos than my 80D because it takes dozens of photos, does AI voodoo on them, etc. If the DSLRs had that software who knows what they could do.

by jotm 7y ago

There's simply no way a small sensor+lens can capture enough light, that's why even old DSLRs have higher picture quality (esp. sharpness/clarity) than the newest smartphones.

bscphil 7y ago

Surely that depends quite a lot on the display size though, right? If you print out the 6 MP image the GP was talking about at 300 DPI, that's something like a 7x10 image. If you're printing at typical wall portrait sizes, surely the latest iPhone (with its superior low-noise processing and all) would win in the majority of shooting conditions.

moron4hire 7y ago
You also don't stand 6 inches away from a wall portrait.
- bscphil 7y ago
  Well sure, but the high quality photo printers I've looked at seem to recommend 300 dpi. Some back of the envelope math: 20/20 vision = the ability to resolve differences 1 arc minute ≈ 290 microradians across. A distance of 1/300 inch subtends an angle of about 280 microradians at 12 inches, so I estimate someone with 20/20 vision could see pixelation on a 300 dpi image inside 12 inches. Is that too weird? Well, maybe if you're hanging it on the wall, but it seems odd to put a 7x10 image on the wall unless it's in a collection or montage. I think photos printed at 7x10 are more likely to be held in the hands, in which case shooting for transparent at 12 inches seems like the way to go, actually. (I suspect many people would have trouble discerning details in a 7x10 image from several feet away.)
  - mceachen 7y ago
    It depends on the image. Very high contrast areas (like text) on high quality coated stock can resolve up to 1200dpi (where higher resolution don't hold up even under a loupe). Photographic continuous tone images never have that sharp of contrast, though, and, again, depending on the image, you might not see jaggies even at 100dpi. 300dpi is sufficiently overkill to be an easy "set it and forget" resolution to recommend. (Source: I paid for college doing typesetting, graphic design, and digital prepress work).
    - moron4hire 7y ago
      Meant to come back and make this comment. I've made a LOT of photographic prints at 150dpi and have never once had any comment other than "that looks amazing". I used to think 300dpi was "bare minimum", having studied computer graphics in college and Nyquist limits and all that. And then one day my father printed a 640x480 cellphone camera photo as an 8x6 and... it looked fine. I was blown away. And then I finally remembered: human eyes don't detect absolute light value, we can only see relative differences in light values. Gradients don't provide enough change to see the edges between colors. You can see it on a computer screen because the screen amplifies the contrast of the image (another old lesson I eventually had to relearn so as to compensate when making prints of digital photos). Nobody knows what resolution you print things when they see the print. If the average joe "knew" how the photo was made, they might scoff at it. I guess people think that craft requires fine precision at all steps of every process. Certain craft does, but some other craft requires randomization and binning, and others have diminishing returns on extra effort. So I find it kind of fun to print low-resolution photos. Feels like I'm winning a game against overly officious critics.
      - bscphil 7y ago
        > Gradients don't provide enough change to see the edges between colors. You can see it on a computer screen because the screen amplifies the contrast of the image (another old lesson I eventually had to relearn so as to compensate when making prints of digital photos). > Nobody knows what resolution you print things when they see the print. Well sure, you're right about the gradient thing, but what if you have an image with some really sharp, contrasted edges? Just anecdata, but my family and I were walking through a seasside town a while back and ended up in an artist's shop. Took a look at some photographic prints on the wall (going for $50-$150+, as "artisan" stuff often does), and I had to call my partner over to look at them because I couldn't believe they were all pixelated! Some of them quite badly. I was about 18 inches away from them, I guess, and they looked to have been printed at about 100 dpi. Sure, you probably don't need 300 DPI for large wall prints, but I'd rather have a margin of error and not have that happen to one of my prints. Most people aren't likely to notice flaws in printed images, and are even less likely to tell the owner if they do. I guess it's possible the shots sent to the printer were badly compressed JPEGs, but that seems unlikely.

jaimex2 7y ago

Most people don't realise that their phone camera+software hallucinates most of what you get in the final image.

freepor 7y ago

Yes, but the software and hardware capabilities in the phones are decades ahead. My Pixel 4 categorically takes better low light photos than my 80D because it takes dozens of photos, does AI voodoo on them, etc. If the DSLRs had that software who knows what they could do.