📚 Buy Our Books on Amazon! 📚 📕Stunning Digital Photography: help.tc/s 📘Lightroom 6 Book: help.tc/l 📙Photoshop Book: help.tc/p 📗Buying Guide: help.tc/b

@MultiDavidellis

6 жыл бұрын

One thing that never gets mentioned is that perceived megapixels and file size can be dramatically increased in software such as Photoshop and Onone. . I took a 16 megapixel image from 25 megabytes to 175 megabytes and made an acceptable 40in by 60in print.

You really are the most reasonable and honest photography teacher out there. I like your straight forward style. Much appreciated.

@TonyAndChelsea

8 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@markfly75

8 жыл бұрын

totally agree!

@nightstringers

5 жыл бұрын

I love the fact he provided everything with real facts

@By.ozalsa

4 жыл бұрын

+1

You are the best at covering this stuff. You cover all the bases, and you're no dismissive about any aspects of the subject matter. I don't see anyone else giving such comprehensive explanations that bring the technical side into such a user-friendly explanation. Nice work.

@TonyAndChelsea

8 жыл бұрын

+Terence Kearns Thanks!

Love your lessons. I used to teach photography classes. So far your are the only one that consider all aspects and variables in a subject matter. Your technical knowledge WOW.. thanks.

Having been using my 16MP for 2 years. Just started looking for a new one, this saved me from the MP myth trap. Bad composed photos with more dots are still bad. Thanks Tony!

Great video, I have watched so many video of yours and by many other good photographers in youtube but i have to admit but you are the one with the most analysis and i like this, keep going

I love how technical and specific are your lessons. Thank you for so informative and useful classes in youtube.

Love these videos where you really break it down to the technical info. Thanks for the video as always!

I always learn so much when watch your videos. Thanks. Jon

As usual, an eye opening video from Tony. Thank you. I have great respect for you & you have taught me a lot

@TonyAndChelsea

8 жыл бұрын

+Omar Omari Glad to help!

Thank you for this comprehensive, well-argued and informative video Tony. I especially liked that, by way of reassurance for those who might have been made insecure by the earlier parts of your presentation, you put things into perspective in your conclusion: namely that in the everyday world, viewing distance is a vital consideration. I'd only add that the same point applies to 4k TV's versus 1080p TV's (not 4k monitors, which one views at a far closer distance): the farther away from the screen, the less perceived benefit you will derive. Thanks again.

Tony always does a great job on the technical descriptions.

Another stunning video that helps photographers, and is presented in a methodical way and with great substance, thanks again

As a non-US viewer I would appreciate that you also add a column with metric equivalents. Perhaps there aren't that many of us, but from the comments in previous posts I get the impression that there are at least some. Well, just a suggestion for what is already splendid.

@ObelixCMM

8 жыл бұрын

+Richard Rönnbäck 1 inch = 25.4 mm :)

@DmitryRudoy

8 жыл бұрын

+ObelixCMM And for rough estimations I use: 4 inches = 10 cm, 3 feet = 1 meter

@josephfarrugia2350

8 жыл бұрын

+Dmitry Rudoy yeah & with your standard of accuracy & precision in establishing definitions, your mother is a virgin :-)

@photohounds

8 жыл бұрын

+Richard Rönnbäck Actually the US and UK are the last remaining significant markets using legacy inches. They are actually in the minority. Also US and UK somehow magically know about lens MILLIMETRES - LOL

@paulsimmonds2030

7 жыл бұрын

Actually I come from the UK and was brought on Imperial feet and inches etc and then we had metrication forced on us! Rant over.. :-)

As usual Tony, a very sensible, level-headed point of view. Keep up the good work!

@TonyAndChelsea

8 жыл бұрын

+David Greenwell Thanks!

Thank you for being smarter then me. Things I would never think would even interest me or have any concern with my photography and your way of explanation just has me hooked and understanding. Thank you again for all that you do!

A great educational video, Tony, thanks a lot for the time spent on this. Very clear and extremely informative.

I forgot to add that I really enjoy videos that explain tech aspects. I'm just learning photography and you and Chelsea are my favorite resource. Thank You!

Very informative video. Thank you for all the useful information you have posted!

Tony, you absolutely hit the nail on the head when you said, "300 dpi is the ideal image density for looking at something up close". The key words here are, "for looking at something up close". In my experience, as a professional photographer who has been in commercial photography for over 40 years, the whole dpi or ppi idea is ludicrous. If the 300 dpi theory is correct, then how on earth did they produce 10 x 8 ft billboard posters from my 35mm film transparency images, back in the day? The answer is (surprisingly) that the bigger the image you're printing, then the less dpi you actually need in order to produce what's perceived to be a 'pin sharp' print. Put simply, that's because you view a billboard from about 30ft away. A 20x16" print from a few yards away. And a 5x4" print with your nose pressed against the paper. Only the minuscule 5x4 needs that 300 dpi. If people really want to see their images at their best, then print big and don't be too concerned about the image resolution of your camera's sensor. The human eye won't notice. Indeed, as artists have known for centuries, we're not looking for exact mathematical precision ; the best figurative images are impressionistic. What appears to be a simple crude mark or brushstroke, when viewed from too close, is actually an elegantly expressive rendering when viewed from an appropriate distance. Only "rivet counter" self-appointed photography judges will stick their nose into a 20x16" print -- probably with a magnifying loup -- to base their judgement on what they like to think of as "scientific" judgements. And who cares what such people think. A truly great picture is best viewed in a large print size, where the viewer will stand well back, in order to appreciate the subject and its artistic rendering. Keep up the good work, Tony. You are a brave man to attempt to educate people that great photography is about art, rather than anything that can be broken down into pseudo-science. You'll take a lot of criticism from the rivet counting zealots, but your efforts to educate the wider community are very much appreciated. Rick Bear (Professional, award-winning, photographer.)

This video is great, especially the calculations for getting between print dimensions and pixels, and perceptual megapixels for the lens camera combination. Brought together things I had noticed and suspected, now I don't have to blindly rely on the table I've been using for print size. THANK YOU! Just started stalking birds in my back yard with my new Zeiss batis 85mm on my Sony a7riii with magnified peak focusing, phenomenal wing detail.

Awesome video Tony, thanks for so much valuable information.

Great video! This was very educational. Thanks, Tony.

Today I bought your book here in Brazil! It will arrive in a few days. I'm excited! =D

The end was so motivating, thank you guys

another terrific offering, Tony....thank you

@TonyAndChelsea

8 жыл бұрын

+Neil Hersh Thanks, Neil!

The reason you need megapixels is so you can crop and process your images. When you straighten, add local contrast (clarity), sharpen, noise reduce, etc. you're doing arithmetic on neighbouring pixel values. That arithmetic will blur features that are close to one pixel on the sensor. But if you have a much higher megapixel image to work with so that the features you're hoping to see are five or ten pixels across, the processing algorithms will work much better and the end result will look sharper even if you export a 2 Megapixel JPEG at the end.

@hankroest6836

8 жыл бұрын

+Pavlos Papageorgiou Extremely well put and very much worth saying. I kept expecting Tony to make this point clearly but I suppose he figured it was a little too complex. He did allude to the idea when he showed the two 300dpi prints that looked different. He was right to emphasize the roll played by the lens but processing deserves more mention than it got.

@mwwalk

8 жыл бұрын

This is too good of a reply to come from youtube comments. You gave a clear succinct answer that was on topic without being rude to anybody. Are you sure you understand how youtube comments work. ;) Thank you for being a sane voice on here.

@hankroest6836

8 жыл бұрын

Anonymity is a disinhibitor, like alcohol, so a lot of commenters are like bad drunks; feeling empowered but impotent and over-stimulated. They type like they’re drunk too. All those exclamation marks! And they’re never able to spell “they’re” correctly. I misspelled “role” in my original reply.

@rickbear7249

4 жыл бұрын

Very good answer. Yup, if you really haven't bothered to expend your efforts in learning to develop your photographic skills, then I guess you can never have enough gigapixels upon which to base your faint hopes of discovering a recoverable image in post processing. 😜, the Bear

I really appreciate the scope and range of the videos you guys put out - techy stuff like this, the new informative podcast and the creative focused 'live' shows really provide fantastic educational content - this has caused me to purchase your books which is I guess is the purpose :)

@TonyAndChelsea

8 жыл бұрын

Thanks, Dave!

"Sharpness is not everything" somewhere Jared Polin is crying ;)

@artmartinez5545

8 жыл бұрын

Jared is a quack anyway, let him cry all he wants xD

@martinaee

8 жыл бұрын

+Appelcaster JP is the MTV of YT... The Northrups are like old-school Discovery Channel.

@driverv86

8 жыл бұрын

+martinaee You mean when discovery was actually educational?

@martinaee

8 жыл бұрын

+driverv86 Hence: "old school" :)

@driverv86

8 жыл бұрын

martinaee I miss that version.

Another great explanation. Thanks.

Thanks for the insightful and well thought out video Tony! I think it would be useful to do a similar one for bit depth.

REALLY DETAILED VIDEO. LOOKING FORWARD TO SEE SOME SMARTPHONE CAMERA REVIEW FROM THE EXPERT. THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE

Merci pour les super tutoriels que vous nous offrez chaque semaine! Thanks your are the greats person!

Great video. Very informative

I loved the way you explained. you are a treasure. will you please make a video about pixel size or Pixel pitch

Very sensible information, thanks 🙂

Great content, thank you Tony.

It also used to suck to have to crop an image only to end up with 1-2 mp worth leftover back when I was shooting with much lower megapixel cameras.

Great video. worth to watch.

Very well put.

Technically fantastic video. Thanks!

Yeah! That was clear to me when I upgraded fromm my old tamron 70-200mm 2.8 non VR (9mpix on 70D) to its new Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VR (16mpix, 70d). Its AMAZING the difference on the results, Im stunned and in love with this lens. I think 24-30 mpix is enough for everybody, 20 is perfect for sports. I've noticed that many lenses doesnt come close to 35 pmpix on 5Ds, only zeiss, thats something to think about.

Great video! Thank you.

I love how you answered it in the first 5 seconds :D

this video is really useful, thumbs up good content

Thanks a lot for the valuable information.

really nice video.thanks!

I think sharpness is somewhat important for me being a filmmaker, I don’t have money for Ziess or Cooke lenses but clarity is still important to my art. You make a lot of sense Tony..... Love this channel

Bravo, great work

good job Tony

Very informative, thank you

Thanks T,interesting video.

very informative video. thanx

Great video!

Wow Tony you made me really understand megapixels concept. I get it! Thanks Tony

Great video. As a self taught hobbyist photographer I never needed to print any of my photos, so I really don't have much knowledge when it comes to printing in general. As of lately though, I've been getting more interested in this topic, and I'm thinking about buying a printer (solely for fun, not an investment of any kind). Great timing hahaha

I did an extreme extensive test on this Tony. I am OCD so I did every thing possible with this. I put the 5DSR up against the A7R, against the Canon 6D. Even with pretty extreme crops, it wasn't as night and day as I thought it was going to be. I have a pretty good size print and although the A7R has more resolution, it didn't seem to have much advantage over the 6D. The 5DSR has a lot of details, they are noticeable, especially when cropping. However, even then, it didn't make as big of a deal as I thought it would, unless you're doing a really small crop out of a picture. I could notice that it had more detail, however, the picture on the 6D, which was shot with a really sharp lens, had a ton of detail too and the extra detail I don't think a non photographer would have noticed. BUT with computer monitors, it gets to be even less of an issue. Most people don't have 4k yet, that's only 8 megapixels, we don't have any computer monitor that can see all the resolution of a Canon 6D. Of course we see the difference in zooming in and cropping, but unless it's an extreme crop, it just wasn't as big of a deal as I had made it out to be in my head. The reason I did this test is because I'm a landscaper, I was shooting with the A7R but missed my Canon 5D Mark iii, ergonomics, colors, etc. I thought about going to the 5DSR, so I tested it, but it just didn't offer as much as I thought it would over the Canon 6D. Which is what I have now. I didn't get the 5D Mark iii again because there was nothing it offered me as a landscaper that the 6D didn't have. Now, with that said, with ISO going down, and other things that come with adding more megapixels, I am hoping the next 5D is 28 megapixels. I really feel 28-36 megapixels is the sweet spot right now. The 24-70 2.8 ii and 135mm F/2 from Canon are extremely sharp, they provided a ton of detail with no softness. I used the Zeiss 55mm 1.8 on the A7R as well as the Zeiss 16-35 F/4.

Outstanding, thank you!

I remember as a kid mydad had banner canvases for products he handled. I was surprised to see groups of color dots with alot of white space between elements. Opened one up a little and went to the other side of the warehouse to see the image.

Great video.

such a great video thx

great great insight, thanks!

KZreadr: "I watched the first 10 seconds of your video, and here is why you are wrong about all the things I'm guessing you said!"

Very interesting. Never heard of the p-mp rating for glass. So what it looks like, is with 36mp and higher sensors we're starting to reach the point of diminishing returns as far as sharpness is concerned - at least with current lens technology?

One thing I notice is that it kind of reach the limit of lens resolution when switching to 50mp 5ds 5dsr as the p-mpx improvement is so minor, even using the Otus 85, the very lengendary lens in the world. 36 to 40 mp seems to be a sweet point as the extra mp improvement doesn't convert to more actual information you get.

Hi Tony, do you mind making a video explaining the difference between depth of field and lens compression. i think its a really great topic to cover since a lot of people do not know the difference between those two

very useful comparision

Also, it depends on how you print it. I got one of my pictures, which I have taken with a Canon PowerShot S120 (12MP, really not that good), printed out at 23"*31" on a canvas, and it really looks sharp

I would also add that more MP lets your crop the photo more, but great video!

It would be useful to use centimeters also for those who are not accustomed to inches. Congratulations on your channel! Is very useful for me.

You are kind of the "Fred Picker" (teacher of film photography) of the digital world. Good work.

Totally agree here. My pro lab had a good special on 20"x30", so I sent a test print I was happy with to see how it would go. I've always been happy with the quality, but I didn't really know how it would go, especially as at 300dpi it 'should' be 6000x9000!I have the 24mp Sony A77ii, (6000x4000) and used the 'kit' lens 16-50 2.8. The 20x30 came back looking amazing, even with pixel peeping in really close. I have previously done a billboard using a 10mp A100 too, and it came out looking great, but I certainly wasn't able to look at that one up too close! For shooting sports especially, I love being able to heavily crop and still have have decent sized images though, so I don't think I could go lower than 24mp again!

This is the best vid I’ve watched. I shoot in crop mode all the time with my a7iii because I think 10mp is enough. I’m kind stop doing it now, the end of the day, I need to print 8x10, I don’t think I have enough p-mpix for a sharp print

@TonyAndChelsea

5 жыл бұрын

Definitely not; you definitely want to use all 24 MP. Plus, 8x10 prints are really small.

Those are some funky ass colors, i think the saturation slider is a bit off haha

@danawakes2001

8 жыл бұрын

+Bror Svensson Media It's actually the blending mode. They're just messing around with the curves to create a cross-process effect resulting in terrible greenish and oversaturated skin tones. A blending mode of soft light, color or hue with a 10% opacity would do the trick.

@logtothebase2

8 жыл бұрын

+Bror Svensson Media I think its the Wall paper, it seems to be difficult to light or balance, they have tried to warm up the picture recently, in fact Tony needs to decorate, or he needs to dye his hair violet or something as its camouflaged into the grey (ish) background. ;-)

@zipp4everyone263

6 жыл бұрын

He is using a polarization filter as well, apparently to cut out the update effect of the TV.

Which yields better low-light image quality? A high megapixel image down sampled or a sensor with large pixels.

DxO image testing is based on RAW, so images can still be sharpened in post-processing. Also depending on the type of photograph total P-Mpix across the frame might be completely irrelevant. A portrait lens for example might be extremely sharp in the central portion of the frame but unsharp in the extreme corners. You might likely place your subject toward the centre of frame (maybe slightly off-center to rule of thirds nodes), so you may not end up needing the corner pixels for capturing fine detail. Also, for portraits, these corner pixels might very well be representing out-of-focus blur instead of fine detail.

There you go again +Tony Northrup bringing your science mumbo jumbo into photography :-) . Very we ll done video you took the highly technical info and broke it down in terms that don't take a PhD in Mathematics to understand. Keep up the great work!

I use PPI when talking about digital files, and DPI when talking about actual print density. This way there is no confusion between file export setting and printer settings. I have seen files saved at 600 PPI becouse they tried to match printer's 600 DPI

Thanks Tony :) thumbs up

Uno de los mejores videos que he visto sobre el tema, tenía dudas de ese tipo ya que trabajo como diseñador gráfico. Excelente video.

Your book Stunning Digital Photography contains this kind of information? It is really useful information

Love your work, Tony. I'd be interested to hear if you've tested out piccure+ to increase perceptual megapixels, particularly with dull lenses on fine resolution sensors. Cheers.

Great video as usual! Just one thing, aren't recent videos affected by a blue tint? Tony's hair looks weird with this color temperature

Can't wait for the 1DX II preview, Tony! When do you make it?

Awesome video as usual. Very pedagogical. This might have become my favorite youtube channel. What do think of the Samsung NX500 vs EOS 700D. I have always used cannon but i like the nx500's portability I want to do some hobby 4k filming. It is also think my eos 350 need to retire, its been with me for 12 years.

What I find the most challenging in resolution compartment is photo wallpapers. They tend to occupy whole wall in a room and you come close to them often. But theres always image stacking and stitching techniques...

Professor Northrup..... Great video, interesting discussion. When it gets heavy in the minutia debate, I say just go out and shoot!

yall are almost at a milli subscriberrrrrssss hope it happens soon woop woop!

Great video! I usually don't care too much about dpi and megapixel, but now after I'm watching this video, I feel like I could optimize my dpi setting and hopefully get a better result for both digital viewing and printing. Also this is a good reminder that I shouldn't adapt my full-frame lens to my micro four thirds cameras if I want higher perceptual megapixel.

@TonyAndChelsea

8 жыл бұрын

The dpi setting shouldn't make any difference.

@Gary_W

8 жыл бұрын

+Tony Northrup thanks Tony, will keep it in mind.

This is a very confusing subject at least for the math challenged (like me) but this is the clearest explanation I've seen.

Tony I have a question and you seem like the right guy to answer it. I have a pentax k-3ii with a 100mm macro lens and a 1.4x teleconverter. The pentax has a 1.5x crop factor and the macro lens shoots 1:1 magnification. Along with the teleconverter, what is my total magnification number at the closest focusing distance on the macro lens with the crop factor of the camera? How do I work out that formula? And what is my overall equivalent crop factor with the camera and the teleconverter?

A bit rough and ready. To more accurately calculate DPI from MPixels (total number of pixels over the sensor area) its A = MPixels/300^2 (if you want to work to 300DPI, if not change the 300 to whatever DPI you want to work with). Then you have to decide what aspect ratio you're sensor is, assuming 1.4 (1.4 x height = width) the height of the photograph will be sqrt(A/1.4) and the width of the photo will be 1.4 x height. For those wanting metric units multiply the calculated height and width by 2.54 to give the dimensions in cm.

thank you very clear it helped :)

Bravo! finally somebody said the sharpness is not the most important thing.... because here on web everybody are speaking about it... almost nobody about the main thing ................. composition

One thing you didn't mention was cropping. Not crop factor, but cropped image. Everything you said about the lens and DPI still applies here, but even if you never plan to print larger than an 8x10, if you want to be able to crop your image and then print it that size then you will need a higher initial MP because after cropping your usable MP count will be reduced. I want to add that I enjoyed the video as always.

I've noticed that canon's 5dsr with 50 mp has a lower diffraction limited aperture than the 6d mark 2 with 26mp. The sensor area is the same on both ff cameras.

An image will subtend a comfortable viewing angle when the throw/height ratio is around 5 to 6. You can use that to work the calculations in the other direction when selecting print size. This is an old movie theater rule. YMMV.

Tony you are an outstanding instructor & know infinitely more than I about photography but a question: would Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) not provide a more specific metric of lens image quality separate from the sensor than P-Mpix?

I think I should install a 50 foot barrier between my Pics on the wall and my guests view point. They’ll be outside my house already! Lol

Any plans to break down why some lenses are good for stills versus video in terms of megapixels and image quality?