Camera Resolution vs Monitor Resolution

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Edward Holt, Mar 8, 2006.

  1. Edward Holt

    Edward Holt Guest

    As the effective pixel count on my computer monitor is in the region of 1MP,
    what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my Canon
    5D can produce on screen?
    Edward Holt, Mar 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Edward Holt

    G.T. Guest

    Get a monitor that can run at 4368 x 2912?

    G.T., Mar 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Edward Holt

    Edward Holt Guest

    I've never seen any monitors that go much beyond 2MP though - that's why I'm
    interested in finding out if it's possible
    Edward Holt, Mar 8, 2006
  4. Edward Holt

    ben brugman Guest

    There are larger monitors, but they are extremely explensive, I have only
    them for very specialistic design stations. (Designing money that was).

    If you want to look to the picture as a whole, you will not get the maximum
    resolution from the picture. But you can enlarge parts of the picture to see
    parts of the picture bigger or judge the sharpnes of the picture.
    You won't be able to get more than about 1 to 2 Mp on most monitor screens.
    Most Monitors are only capable of displaying about 100 dpi and not above.

    If you look only at complete pictures on your monitor, you not need
    the number of Mp your camera can produce.

    ben brugman, Mar 8, 2006
  5. Edward Holt

    Paul Furman Guest

    ACDSee is a handy image browser I use when I need to examine detail.
    When you zoom in 100%, the mouse becomes a hand for panning the page &
    looking at corners, the initial view is centered. Then zoom to fit
    height & scan back through the images at that scale. Tap the + & - keys
    to zoom temporarily at any time. Spacebar to advance, backspace to
    reverse. View fit to screen to review composition then zoom to 100% to
    cull the set for sharpness.

    My 21-inch monitor will go up to 3MP but it's impossible to read the
    tiny writing on any programs so I don't bother doing that. I tried a
    couple times. 2048x1536 (3MP) is only missing a border of 476 to 232
    from a 6MP image. A 10 MP image = 3872 X 2592 you'd have to pan the
    screen into four corners to examine everything. That high-res screen
    setting would fill four screens at 10MP. Using a second monitor set at a
    low resolution for reading helps some but you still have some controls
    in the itty-bitty-text high res window.
    Paul Furman, Mar 8, 2006
  6. Edward Holt

    Kyle Jones Guest

    what's the best way to view the much higher resolution photos that my
    Apple sells a 30 inch display with a native resolution of 2560 x 1600 or
    4096000 pixels. I've heard of 9.2 MP monitors but nothing with
    favorable reviews. I have the Apple monitor and it is quite nice for
    photo and video editing.
    Kyle Jones, Mar 8, 2006
  7. First, what programs do you have? You would want to have your program set
    to resample the image if you are not viewing 1:1 pixels and best at an
    even divisor, ie 1/2 size, 1/4 size.
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Mar 8, 2006
  8. The problem with zooming image viewers is that the scaling they use is
    usually rather poor.
    If text becomes unreadable you've exceeded the dot pitch of the CRT,
    in effect viewing a badly scaled image. Lowering the resolution and
    scaling with a good software algorithm will give better results.
    Måns Rullgård, Mar 8, 2006
  9. Edward Holt

    Edward Holt Guest

    By programs do you mean digital photo manipulation applications?

    I've got Photoshop CS2 and Elements - though I'm completely useless with
    Edward Holt, Mar 8, 2006
  10. Edward Holt

    Edward Holt Guest

    I've got a 32" LCD TV that my PC is attached to - the Apple 30 inch looked
    great at the time but was just too expensive.

    I've also got a 19" CRT that does about 2MP - I might have a look at that.
    Edward Holt, Mar 8, 2006
  11. Edward Holt

    Paul Furman Guest

    That's just for quickly culling keepers & rejects. At full zoom there is
    Well, it exceeds my eyesight but I think most people will go nutty
    trying to read menus & icons that small. My monitor is nothing
    extraordinary, 21" Sony Multiscan G500 several years old, maybe $1000 new.
    Paul Furman, Mar 8, 2006
  12. Edward Holt

    Paul Furman Guest

    Only 1366 x 768 though:
    Those big apple monitors are gorgeous, I saw one at work at a graphic
    designer's office. Hmm $2,500 though and a $1,000 CRT will get almost
    the same resolution.
    Paul Furman, Mar 8, 2006
  13. Edward Holt

    G.T. Guest

    If you're useless at Photoshop then why are you concerned about how many
    pixels your monitor supports? View at 1/4 to get an idea of the
    composition, and view sections of the image at 1/1 to see/manipulate detail.
    If you want your photos to be used as a desktop background image or viewed
    as a full screen slideshow then downsize 25% at a time with the last
    downsize to fit your screen.

    Or maybe you should have saved your money and bought a used, high quality
    2MP camera.

    G.T., Mar 8, 2006
  14. Sure, for quick reviews I don't mind using a fast scaler.
    A quick google tells me this monitor has a dot pitch of 0.24mm,
    i.e. 106 dpi. With a viewable area of 19.8" (google again) this
    translates into 1676x1257 dots. Running at 1600x1200 should be usable
    but with some moire. Anything higher will be basically dropping
    pixels, giving the unreadable text you describe. The maximum rated
    resolution of 2048x1536 probably refers to the limits of the
    electronic circuitry, as is common in monitor specifications.
    Måns Rullgård, Mar 8, 2006
  15. Edward Holt

    Paul Furman Guest

    Working in photoshop, it helps to have a second (smaller) monitor on the
    desktop to put toolbars on & get the use of the entire main screen for
    the image window:

    PS is not the best for quick browsing and culling though, which is why I
    recommended ACDSee or at least irfanview or something. Those will resize
    to fit the full screen (no menus at all) and it's easy to zoom & pan at
    full size in ACDSee.
    Paul Furman, Mar 8, 2006
  16. Edward Holt

    Paul Furman Guest

    Maybe not the best quality but the resolution can be set to that in the
    desktop properties. My eyes aren't good enough to read that small though.
    Paul Furman, Mar 8, 2006
  17. I'm not doubting that.
    Use a magnifying glass. Look at some small text and see if all the
    pixels really are there.
    Måns Rullgård, Mar 8, 2006
  18. Edward Holt

    Paul Furman Guest

    Hmm, OK I made a little 1 pixel checkerboard & it was barely legible at
    1280 x 960, definitely not legible at 2048 x 1536.
    Paul Furman, Mar 8, 2006
  19. That's about what I expected. According to the sampling theorem we
    will get aliasing at any resolution higher than 800x600 (the screen
    has 1600x1200 dots). However, that is for a random signal with no
    correlation to the sampling points. The output from the video card is
    sufficiently stable that we can fine-tune the scanning to make the
    pixels line up with actual dots. This is what the moire adjustment
    Måns Rullgård, Mar 8, 2006
  20. Edward Holt

    Rich Guest

    You have NO idea how bad your shots look compared to viewing them on
    a good screen.
    Rich, Mar 9, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.