The future is here - Sony Nex 7

[Lars]

@ lars
I am not an Astronomy specialist, but these could give you the full details about optical finders, resolution of the human eye and human viewing physiognomy. But it is already quite enlighting to see what the real resoltion can be at max (exerpt from Wikipedia/eye):

"Visual acuity

Visual acuity, or resolving power, is "the ability to distinguish fine detail" and is the property of cones.It is often measured in cycles per degree (CPD), which measures an angular resolution, or how much an eye can differentiate one object from another in terms of visual angles. Resolution in CPD can be measured by bar charts of different numbers of white/black stripe cycles. For example, if each pattern is 1.75 cm wide and is placed at 1 m distance from the eye, it will subtend an angle of 1 degree, so the number of white/black bar pairs on the pattern will be a measure of the cycles per degree of that pattern. The highest such number that the eye can resolve as stripes, or distinguish from a gray block, is then the measurement of visual acuity of the eye.
For a human eye with excellent acuity, the maximum theoretical resolution is 50 CPD(1.2 arcminute per line pair, or a 0.35 mm line pair, at 1 m). A rat can resolve only about 1 to 2 CPD. A horse has higher acuity through most of the visual field of its eyes than a human has, but does not match the high acuity of the human eye's central fovea region.

Spherical aberration limits the resolution of a 7 mm pupil to about 3 arcminutes per line pair. At a pupil diameter of 3 mm, the spherical aberration is greatly reduced, resulting in an improved resolution of approximately 1.7 arcminutes per line pair.[33] A resolution of 2 arcminutes per line pair, equivalent to a 1 arcminute gap in an optotype, corresponds to 20/20 (normal vision) in humans....."


Now what does this tell ?
lets assume the maximum resolution of an optical finder with 1m virtual distance is 3000 linepairs - if you are young, have perfect vision and the scene is bright.

As finders are quite often working at a virtual distance shorter than 1 m this number is reduced further. Second the optimum resolution is also only reached if the light on the subject/Image is bright -the darker the scene becomes resolution of the eye dwindles away.
A resolution of 1024pixel on a viewing distance (I don´t know the simulated /real okular focal lenght and size of the Sony finder- so that are only estimations)) of maybe 50 cm will equal 500 x 2 linepairs (compared to the 1 m resolution) which is already matching your vision at dim light and open pupil. When your vision is less than perfect and it gets even darker this resolution already is BETTER than your eye. And finally you can lighten up the scene electronically and automatic + you can zoom electronically any time..........


So I guess this finder already is a gamechanger having higher resolution than any comparable finder on the (consumer)market - the Arri Alexa has 1280 X 768 pixels.


regards
Stefan

Stefan -
That's just inconsistent with reality. A logical conclusion from your estimate above would be that full HD resolution on a display or TV is a waste of pixels - not to mention a 24 megapixel camera, or any prints from it, since nobody would be able to see more than one megapixel. Or perhaps the whole cinematography industry is mistaken in its quest for 4K digital resolution?

Clearly that's not true. For example, I'm sitting here with a 1920x1200 pixel 24" display at 60 cm distance, and I can clearly see individual pixels and jagged diagonal lines. It's not even close to what my eyes can resolve.

And when I look at a well-exposed 8x10 transparency on my light table, taking in the full 200+ megapixels of detail (an experience that is impossible in the digital realm, short of producing 6ft high-res prints, which according to your estimate is a complete waste anyway), I am just imagining the extreme detail? Clearly that's not the case, as you well know from your days shooting 8x10.

-Lars

 

[Stefan Steib]

Lars

these are the facts about the technical data of your eye. What you mix up here is Acuity and recognition - the brain has several more ways to deal with this information and "computes" these comparably low resolutions into highres images in your brain.
(e.G. remember that this resolution is x3 for the 3 Color receptions RGB + Eye movements + former recognition computed into your sensed image) The article in german Wiki does exist, in english this is not (yet) there - in representation here is the google translate version of this:

"Viewing recognition

Using the example of seeing the present state of knowledge is explained more concretely: the optical image is in the primary visual cortex of the brain (occipital Brodmann's area 17, the sulcus calcarine) generates the type of a projection process of the retina to the cortex fields, see Figure 1 and 2nd It is also called the visual center. This is a primary field cortex Represents the nerve pathways between the eye and brain cortex are called visual pathway. After the switching of the individual fibers of the optic pathway in the brain stem, the optic pathway is called the optic radiation, see → lateral geniculate nucleus. It represents a projection path dar. Prior to this change is called the optic nerve and optic tract. Sensory centers are each defined by a chain of neurons ended there. The Area 17 produced in the "primary image" is also called a visual sensation. Unilateral lesion of area 17, for example, causes unilateral visual field defect on the opposite side of the lesion (contralateral hemianopsia). A double-sided destruction of the entire primary visual cortex caused complete blindness (amaurosis). - Each primary sensory area (primary cortex) is followed by a secondary, which may be why also called association area. In the case of seeing the secondary visual association area is located in boxes 18 and 19 of the occipital lobe, ie immediately prior to the 17th Area In these secondary sensory association areas and the centers in each incoming primary sensory cortical areas information is integrated together with previously stored information (memories) are compared, and so fed to the understanding......."


I know this is complicated, but as astonishing this is, the eye actually is a pretty bad lens, but it compensates for that with the best computer in the world - your brain.


regards


Stefan

 

[Lars]

Stefan,

I'm not saying Wikipedia is wrong (although all sources should be critically evaluated).

I'm saying you are wrong.

Your calculated estimate of 1000 lines does not match reality - or if it does for you then you are going blind soon. Just think about what you are saying, it doesn't make sense.
-Lars

 

[Stefan Steib]

Lars

I am not an ophthalmologist, maybe there´s one around (?), but these are the numbers. You can deny this or as well say the world is a flat disk, but these are the facts.

(and it´s not lines it´s linepairs=at least x2-depends on the definition- and this is in RGB -remember that an HD television set only has only about 1/3 of this information as this is using an RGB scheme similar to the Bayer one that cameras use.)

regards
Stefan

 

[Lars]

Stefan,
You must be having a bad day.

After making some invalid assumptions you came up with 500 line pairs above, that's 1000 lines. That number was what you came up with, not the article you quoted. Calling that fact is just incorrect.

I didn't think it would have to come to this - let me do the math for you: 0.35 mm per line pair from one meter, let's say one meter field of view in finder, that's 2857 line pair or 5714 lines, or for a 3:2 display 49 megapixels. Thats what you need to match the resolution of the eye at best conditions. You can tweak the parameters like field of view a bit, but the conclusion is still the same - the eye can resolve a lot more than today's EVFs.

And no a HD LCD display has 1920x1080x3 dots. It's not a Bayer matrix.

Now can we please lay this to rest?

-Lars

 

[Stefan Steib]

Lars

that is exactly what I said -3000 LPmm.
You skipped the fact - and my writing- that as soon as the light is dimming the aperture of the eye opens up and the resolution goes down.

nothing else I said.

Regards
Stefan

 

[Jonas]

Not skipping anything, but these are busy days with preparing to move overseas.

OK, I see.

I'd like to bring up Jono's point about the iPhone 4 display: at 300+ ppi it would perhaps seem like an infinite resolution. That is, until you see a display with double the resolution. I've seen a FHD display (1920x1200) next to a same-size quad-FHD display (3840x2160). FHD seems like a lot until you see what double the dot pitch really does. There is a realism by clarity, like a softness veil is removed. That's where EVF technology needs to go to match OVF in clarity.

Maybe the EVF need technology needs exactly that to make you happy. (But I guess you won't be satisfied with that either... )

All I can say is that you didn't read my previous post on the topic.

If you don't think this is a valid point then ask yourself why laser printers went from 300 to 600 to 1200 dpi.

So I think the EVF we see today will be considered pure unusable crap in a few years.

And by then there is a chance we'll also consider OVFs to be crap. Oh well. Have a safe trip.

 

[Lars]

Stefan,

You are joking, right? So what you are saying is that you want an EVF that can match your eyesight at the worst possible conditions?

Why on earth anyone would want a finder that limits the view to what your eye can see at the worst possible conditions is beyond me, especially since an EVF can maintain a high enough brightness to keep the eye at optimal viewing conditions.

Moreover, an OVF doesn't limit resolution so for an EVF to do that means it's clearly inferior to an OVF in that regard. Which brings this discussion back to my original point - EVFs need more resolution to match an OVF.

-Lars

 

[pegelli]

C'mon guys, I think you're both stuck in a rut fighting over details that in my mind are not the most significant. Secondly, it's not "better" or "worse", it's just different.

An OVF has the quickest feedback and makes use of all the adaptibilty of the human eye/brain to get the clearest and highest dynamic range picture. However the drawback is that dof perception vs. the final picture is far below par.

An EVF has clarity, dynamic range and resolution disadvantages, however dof perception is much more in line with the final picture and with focus peaking (another thing an OVF doesn't have) it only gets better.

I can see both sides of this argument but for me it's clear there is no "one size fits all" and personal preferences (or what you have with you that day in your bag) will dictate what gets used.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Maybe a moderator should lock this thread? It's getting really boring.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Hi Lars

;-)

No I´m not joking - you just answered the question by yourself:

>...especially since an EVF can maintain a high enough brightness to keep the eye at optimal viewing conditions.<

Do you really think an optical viewfinder will give you the smallest possible eye aperture (and sharpness) when there are several stops of original scene disappearing in the optical system of 1.Lens(f stop!), 2.Mirror, 3. Prisma and 4. okular enlargement. Did you never experience it to be difficult to watch an image on a DSLR finder in Bright sunlight - why do you think people use Eye cups, maybe even black cloth or hoods over their cameras ? Because the contrast between original and image is so large !

It would be interesting though to get a measurement of finder brightness in Lumen of an EVF compared to the same scenes watched on optical finders (LeicaM and DSLR)

regards
Stefan

 

[Jonas]

C'mon guys, I think you're both stuck in a rut fighting over details that in my mind are not the most significant. Secondly, it's not "better" or "worse", it's just different.

An OVF has the quickest feedback and makes use of all the adaptibilty of the human eye/brain to get the clearest and highest dynamic range picture. However the drawback is that dof perception vs. the final picture is far below par.

An EVF has clarity, dynamic range and resolution disadvantages, however dof perception is much more in line with the final picture and with focus peaking (another thing an OVF doesn't have) it only gets better.

I can see both sides of this argument but for me it's clear there is no "one size fits all" and personal preferences (or what you have with you that day in your bag) will dictate what gets used.

You are right.
One note on the resolution though; an EVF can be enlarged allowing for way more exact focusing when really needed. The ability to look at the focus transition areas in a size answering to ta big print is a great thing (for me). The OVF resolution can be discussed btw; in my experience the etching severely limits its usefulness. Seeing what the sensor sees is not wrong.

Maybe a moderator should lock this thread? It's getting really boring.

That sounds boring imo. Do you really suggest posts not-boring-to-Edward should be the only ones allowed?

 

[edwardkaraa]

That sounds boring imo. Do you really suggest posts not-boring-to-Edward should be the only ones allowed?

That would be great, thanks

 

[pegelli]

One note on the resolution though; an EVF can be enlarged allowing for way more exact focusing when really needed. The ability to look at the focus transition areas in a size answering to ta big print is a great thing (for me).

Thanks Jonas, I forgot that. For MF an EVF has several advantages over an OVF

 

[douglasf13]

So long as you don't want to shoot wider than 24mm equiv, the NEX looks great

There are a couple of options together wider than that. Both the Sony ultrawide converter and the CV 12mm get you to 18mm equivalent. Plus, there is a wide zoom coming next year that will likely be at least that wide.

 

[douglasf13]

At the risk of embarrassing myself, and as someone who has owned quite a few cameras with fantastic optical viewfinders, I'm going to go ahead and say it:

EVF/LCD view cameras have made me a better photographer.

I'm not exactly a newbie when it comes to exposure with OVF cameras, and I'd say I'm actually pretty good at it, but, when I'm scrolling through raws in LR3, it's pretty unnerving to see just how much more consistent my exposures are with my NEX-5. Live histogram, DOF preview and various manual focus assists are really starting to outweigh any of my romantic notions of looking through an optical finder. At this point, I'm not sure I could go back, and I'm anxious to check out the new Sony EVF. I guess that something like the X100's hybrid VF might be the only compelling possibility of going back to an OVF, for me.

 

[dhsimmonds]

Douglas

+1

 

[Lars]

I give up - it was a mistake of me to enter here thinking that a discussion based on reason and logic was possible. I apologize to all of you readers for boring you with such a mind-numbing thread - generally here at GetDPI discussions are enlightened, uplifting and polite - this is the worst I have seen with personal insults, total defiance of logic/math/reason, FUD, and almost religious fanboyism. You'd think it was about politics, religion, or Apple gear back in the 90's.

I'm skeptical towards an unreleased product, and I'm the one having to defend my position? Geeez.

Stefan, good luck with your new toy - and your future. Please do everyone a favor: When the NEX9 is introduced spring 2013, with a Full-HD viewfinder and all the Sony fanboys go "Oooh, aaah" - remember this discussion.

 

[douglasf13]

Lars, while I can't speak to who you're referring to in the above post, I take a little bit of offense to such a send off. I've reread all of your posts, and it seems like your main questions about the NEX-7 revolve around size and the EVF, and, while some may be off course, I'd say there have been some acceptable discussions in regards to those questions. What exactly are your concerns again, and maybe we can turn this thread around?

 

[Bob]

I have closed this thread, perhaps a day late, but I urge all those who offended or feel that they were offended to communicate with one-another off line.
Usually misunderstandings are unintentional and seriously, nobody gets extra points from on-upping the other here.
thanks
-bob