[soLong]

....just sitting here with nothing to do looking at pictures and wondering....is too much rez the equivalent of too much HDR (or even just too much DR) in that the results can quickly become ugly when out of control....

 

....no need to answer....just wondering....i'm possibly wrong....again....

[Brightcolours]

To much resolution? Not sure what that would mean....  :unsure:

[Guest]

....just sitting here with nothing to do looking at pictures and wondering....is too much rez the equivalent of too much HDR (or even just too much DR) in that the results can quickly become ugly when out of control....

 

....no need to answer....just wondering....i'm possibly wrong....again....

 

The image will not be ugly, storing the images, etc., would become ugly though... :-)

 

Anyway, think about a super high resolution sensor. All it would do is capture the image of the lens with all its imperfections perfectly.  The lens will be the limit of resolution (diffraction). 

[soLong]

<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;">….yes, well, hmmm, ta for the replies - two things - 

 

<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;">Just looking around various picture sites, it seems to my sense of depth and contrast in a picture that if you have super sharp, it’s also nice to have f1.2 or 1.4 so that not all the picture is sharp and stark, which, it seems to me, flatten the image in the same way as unfortunate HDR does, and to combine the two, in a lovely landscape for example, for me is death to a picture, not unlike flat lighting. But I could be wrong because it seems to be popular…. in the same way as colours that 'pop' are popular.

 

<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;">And - yes storage can be ugly :-) but I’m seeing quite pretty slim and shapely terrabite drives these days compared to the old and ugly frumps that used to be, and do still fill our draws and shelves. But for me those very-many-megapixel pictures equal bigger prints more than super sharp. Although super-sharp is also achieved in these huge pictures with the good lens resolving very fine small far away detail.

 

I'm just thinking that there might be an optimum rez (and dr) that looks natural, and below or above can, but not necessarily does, look less than pretty.

 

….oh well, sorry to interrupt, 
I’ll go back to sleep now….

[Klaus]

....just sitting here with nothing to do looking at pictures and wondering....is too much rez the equivalent of too much HDR (or even just too much DR) in that the results can quickly become ugly when out of control....

 

....no need to answer....just wondering....i'm possibly wrong....again....

 

There is no such thing as too much detail. After all the maximum just reflects the real world. :-)

Of course, oversharpening can be very ugly but that's a different topic.

[arvydas]

Well, blur is one of depth perception cues; so it's ok, you are not alone - there is the whole big science about that .

 

A.

[Guest]

Well, blur is one of depth perception cues; so it's ok, you are not alone - there is the whole big science about that .

 

A.

 

Well, while lenses do have limited DOF, only photography really has made an art out of it to isolate subjects, so to speak, i.e. the large sensors and lens physics (aperture) automatically forced photographers to work with that. Camera obscuras (pinhole) of the old school painters didn't have that limitation, so you don't see any out of focus blur in their paintings ;-)  

And the human eye really is mostly looking at the world all sharp, because it focuses constantly on what we are looking at, and it has a pretty good DOF. Most of depth perception comes from our 3D view and knowledge of our surroundings, not from blur. But blur can replace that to some degree in 2D images.

[soLong]

Well, while lenses do have limited DOF, only photography really has made an art out of it to isolate subjects, so to speak, i.e. the large sensors and lens physics (aperture) automatically forced photographers to work with that. Camera obscuras (pinhole) of the old school painters didn't have that limitation, so you don't see any out of focus blur in their paintings ;-)  

And the human eye really is mostly looking at the world all sharp, because it focuses constantly on what we are looking at, and it has a pretty good DOF. Most of depth perception comes from our 3D view and knowledge of our surroundings, not from blur. But blur can replace that to some degree in 2D images.

....yes indeed and using ye olde variable plane back plate ye earlie photographe was able to successfully tilt/shift his/her beautiful hi rez photographs into focus-from-here-to-infinity....which was and still is nice....

 

....but ye oldie goldie also employed "dark" rooms and psychedelic chemicals to process his/her pretty pictures into their natural glory....apparently employing grey-scales and lovely light and shade that (to these oldies eyes) appear natural and beautiful and focus the attention. As if you (after helping them lug around their latest large format 'compact' but huge gear/to be updated tomorrow with something completely different) were actually standing with them on their perfect day (there was less pollution back on their perfect days too....really....unless you did rather like ye oldie steam engines making clouds for their in-depth haze that is....and such haze does look hazier on a clear day you know)....

 

....so what's up folks with present day modern hi-tech resolving glory using infinite digital manipulation to reveal even the darkest darks, lightest lights, far away tiny leaves, and every slight skin perfection that you didn't want to know about and indeed couldn't see with the naked eye (or which your brain ignored)....now we have it all....but have we lost our taste in pictures when we are showing, and apparently selling, what looks harsh etched and unnatural....imho....

 

And anyway, although the eye apparently shows everything in focus, the brain really focuses on small parts of the scene, with the surroundings becoming almost invisible (ignored) unless movement attracts attention....so, mental softening or defocusing....no?

[Brightcolours]

Well, the eye doesn't actually have that great DOF. Ask anyone with reading glasses . So yes, silly deep DOF does tend to look unnatural. Our depth perception is a combination of our semi-limited DOF and our stereo vision. Sometimes a huge DOF can add to an image, but indeed it can have a "flattening" effect, especially if the scene lacks perspective lines cues.

 

The weird shadow lifting fashion by some internet forum snap shooters is a separate issue. Besides that, I am not a great HDR fan, not digital and not from the darkroom.

 

I am not sure that in the technology the art is lost, maybe it is more that with the spread of technology and wealth the technology also gets in the hands of less gifted "artists". And then there also is a matter of tastes (bad, good, different)...

[arvydas]

Well, while lenses do have limited DOF, only photography really has made an art out of it to isolate subjects, so to speak, i.e. the large sensors and lens physics (aperture) automatically forced photographers to work with that. Camera obscuras (pinhole) of the old school painters didn't have that limitation, so you don't see any out of focus blur in their paintings ;-)  

And the human eye really is mostly looking at the world all sharp, because it focuses constantly on what we are looking at, and it has a pretty good DOF. Most of depth perception comes from our 3D view and knowledge of our surroundings, not from blur. But blur can replace that to some degree in 2D images.

In fact, blur was important part of paintings since renaissance; for example sfumato style was introduced by Da Vinci, and Dutch "tonal phase" landscapes are full of blur to make an atmospheric depth effect; blurry paintings by J.M.W. Turner; and more recent famous blur by Gerhard Richter. Some like it, others don't, but blur is here for centuries .

The real human depth perception, arising from disparate objects projections at both eyes, is possible only when subject is 3D; otherwise 3D effect is created by monocular cues, like perspective, paralax etc., and out of focus blur is just one of these cues. IMO human eye would get only one star rating here, at PZ. Sharp is only centre, and then visual acuity rapidly falls down going to periphery. Similarly with DOF - it depends on distance and accommodation, but it is far from perfect. It's just our brain make us think that we are so good.

 

A.