New Olympus EM1 Mark 3 will have 80mp jpeg for High Rez mode

[Macrero]

If this comment refers to my parenthetical comment about Enrico's estimate of 40Mp, this did not refer to jpgs, it referred to what he thought was the size that the RAW file needs to be reduced to in order to appear sharp at the 100% level, or something like that. I don't recall his exact criteria, maybe he can be add more explanation here.

No, I was referring to the G9's "LL" HR file size. From what I read before buying the camera, in LL mode both the RAW and the JPEG are 40MP (or that's what I got). Actually, the RAW is 80MP in all modes, as was to be expected.

[Lou Jost]

Thanks, I didn't know about those modes; glad to hear that the RAW files are all 80Mp as expected..

[rjlittlefield]

in order to appear sharp at the 100% level

I am reminded of what I wrote long ago, at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... php?t=2439

Based on introspection -- always dangerous, but hey, it's cheaper than dealing with human subject committees -- I'll speculate that a digital image looks "sharp" when it "shows detail at the level of individual pixels", which in turn means seeing dark/bright/dark (or bright/dark/bright) in adjacent pixels.

Hhmm...

Assuming that's right, then we've stumbled onto a bit of a Catch-22.

A digital image will only contain dark/bright/dark patterns in adjacent pixels if either (a) it's representing real detail near the level of 2 pixels per line pair, or (b) the pattern does not represent real detail, but instead is some sort of artifact due to noise, excessive USM, or something similar.

Let's presume that (b) is not the case, since nobody likes stuff that looks like detail but isn't. (OK, that's not strictly true. Some people just love stuff that looks like detail but isn't, but I'd like to stay away from fractal compression in this discussion.)

OK, so it's (a) -- our digital image looks "sharp" because it contains dark/bright/dark patterns that are due to real detail near the level of 2 pixels per line pair.

But we've seen from the grid demonstrations that detail at that level gets captured only if it's favorably positioned.

That's the Catch-22.

In order for our digital image to "look sharp", we have to shoot it or render it at a resolution that virtually guarantees some of the detail in the optical image will be lost. If you see some tiny hairs just barely separated at one place in the digital image, it's a safe bet that there are quite similar tiny hairs at other places that did not get separated, just because they happened to line up differently with the pixels.

Conversely, in order to guarantee that all the detail in the optical image gets captured in the digital image, we have to shoot and render at a resolution that completely guarantees the digital image won't look sharp.

So, there's "sharp" and there's "detailed" -- pick one or the other 'cuz you can't have both. What a bummer!

Still, I am perversely pleased to have reached this understanding. I have regularly gone through the exercise of choosing what percentage to rescale some fuzzy high magnification image so that it looked as sharp as possible while not losing any detail. Somehow the result never ended up looking as sharp as I would like. Now I understand (or think I do!) why that is, and why it has to be that way. That's a good thing, because it will free my mind to obsess over something else.

--Rik

[Macrero]

macrero, yes, hi res is wonderful! If it were faster I would use it more often. How long did the capture and write process take on the G9?

Sorry, Lou, I didn't see this.

I had very little free time last couple weeks. Have not timed it, but it is certainly shorter than with the Oly. Not a lightning speed either... I am gonna make some tests and gonna time the total per HR shot, will report back.

I don't know if there was something wrong with my Oly Pen F (very unlikely), but I actually like the Panny's HR output much better. I no longer have the Oly, so I can't make a proper comparison though.

I had given up on Pixel Shift, but I am reconciling with it and I start to like it

Best,

- Macrero

[Lou Jost]

Glad to hear you found a system you like. I love my PEN F output but maybe the G9 is better somehow. I actually have both cameras now; Andreas Kay gave me his before he died, so I can test them both.

[Macrero]

I was unaware of Andreas' dead. So sad RIP

It would be interesting to see a head-to-head comparison.

Btw, just did a quick HR test stack. At 1/50 with SanDisk Extreme Pro 300MB/s, shooting RAW only, capturing + processing + writing time is 10sec approx.

[Lou Jost]

He died suddenly of a brain tumor in a matter of weeks.

That's a significant improvement over the approx 16-17s time for the PEN F, though I may not have used the fastest card for that test.

[Macrero]

He died suddenly of a brain tumor in a matter of weeks.

Terrible. My deepest condolences to his family and friends.

That's a significant improvement over the approx 16-17s time for the PEN F, though I may not have used the fastest card for that test.

Capturing and writing time was about 15-16sec with the Pen F. Though I used it with a slower card too. 10sec ain't bad, it is a significant improvement indeed.

Now I have to get the hang of the pixel-shifted RAWs. They need a quite different approach, especially the sharpening/detail rendering.

[Lou Jost]

Now I have to get the hang of the pixel-shifted RAWs.

They are slightly less noisy and hence with more dynamic range thanthe regular shots....but that extra range is entirely at the low end, the highlights blow just as easily as in regular shots. So it may pay to expose a bit less than normal.

[Macrero]

The few tests I made with the Panny are all HR. I have not tested it yet in "normal" mode, but DR in Hi-Res is pretty good indeed, especially considering the sensor size.

I am playing with sharpness-detail / NR-masking settings, trying to find out the sweet spot for the HR files. It is said that pixel-shifted images need to be sharpened with much higher radius than conventional images. Though in my first tests that does more harm than good. Will keep playing...

[Lou Jost]

Apparently the main thing that gets lost in high res mode is fine-detail contrast, so you may want to play less with generak sharpening and more with increasing local contrast