How to determine the actual or “true” resolution of a digital photograph?How to analyze images with Fast...
Will a top journal at least read my introduction?
What does "rf" mean in "rfkill"?
How to set the font color of quantity objects (Version 11.3 vs version 12)?
How deep to place a deadman anchor for a slackline?
Can not tell colimits from limits
Why is the origin of “threshold” uncertain?
How to back up a running remote server?
Is it possible to dynamically set properties of an `Object` using Apex?
Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics
Unexpected email from Yorkshire Bank
Does Danger Sense work against invisible spellcasters?
How do I write a simple if-elseif protocol in Latex?
TikZ how to make supply and demand arrows for nodes?
Has any spacecraft ever had the ability to directly communicate with civilian air traffic control?
Can my Warlock be invisible and attack with its familiar?
Is thermodynamics only applicable to systems in equilibrium?
Single Colour Mastermind Problem
Examples of non trivial equivalence relations , I mean equivalence relations without the expression " same ... as" in their definition?
Does jamais mean always or never in this context?
Counterexample: a pair of linearly ordered sets that are isomorphic to subsets of the other, but not isomorphic between them
Packing rectangles: Does rotation ever help?
How to replace the "space symbol" (squat-u) in listings?
What is the difference between `a[bc]d` (brackets) and `a{b,c}d` (braces)?
A Note on N!
How to determine the actual or “true” resolution of a digital photograph?
How to analyze images with Fast Fourier Transform method?Why are effective pixels greater than the actual resolution?how do you determine the size of an image based on resolution , ppi, and type?How can a high resolution camera matter when the output is low resolution?How to scale down images in Lightroom while maintaining quality?What is Snapsort's “true resolution” score?Should two identical digital pictures of the same resolution and format have the same size?How to take high resolution pictures?What size and resolution should I make digital files that I am selling to clients?How can I automatically downsize images which have more pixels than needed for the actual resolution?does the presence of Moiré in a photo implies the “lens outresolve the sensor”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
What I mean by "true" resolution is the resolution at which the maximum available amount of real detail is present. For an ideal picture this resolution is the same as the resolution encoded in the image file. However, in other cases the actual true resolution may be less than the resolution of the image file:
If the image file was digitally scaled - for instance, if the camera has a "digital zoom" feature where it upsamples the individual pixels.
If the image is not completely sharp and in focus.
In either of these cases, it is useful to me to have some mechanical method of identifying what the actual true resolution of the image is independent of what the image file says. How can I do this? Is there some software or algorithm which can take an image and analyze it and tell me the highest resolution it can be displayed at while showing detail at the resolution?
My initial naive expectation that it should be "obvious" and easy to determine by some simple mechanism such as compressed sizes is thwarted in cases where the upscaled image has noticable artifacting or noise not present in the original.
resolution
add a comment |
What I mean by "true" resolution is the resolution at which the maximum available amount of real detail is present. For an ideal picture this resolution is the same as the resolution encoded in the image file. However, in other cases the actual true resolution may be less than the resolution of the image file:
If the image file was digitally scaled - for instance, if the camera has a "digital zoom" feature where it upsamples the individual pixels.
If the image is not completely sharp and in focus.
In either of these cases, it is useful to me to have some mechanical method of identifying what the actual true resolution of the image is independent of what the image file says. How can I do this? Is there some software or algorithm which can take an image and analyze it and tell me the highest resolution it can be displayed at while showing detail at the resolution?
My initial naive expectation that it should be "obvious" and easy to determine by some simple mechanism such as compressed sizes is thwarted in cases where the upscaled image has noticable artifacting or noise not present in the original.
resolution
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it seems to be a theoretical question without any true photographic application.
– Philip Kendall
2 hours ago
1
The question of, "Is this cropped from a larger picture?" comes up all the time in photography. The fact that it can't be reliably determined is an important point and very much on-topic.
– user10216038
1 hour ago
1
@user10216038 whether or not something is cropped may be of use in making a photograph, but I’m failing to see the importance after the fact. If it’s a good clean photo, who cares if it was cropped to obtain the final composition? Isn’t that the advantage of high res sensors?
– Hueco
39 mins ago
@Hueco from a purely hypothetical standpoint, an example of "who cares" might be a judge/panel for a photo contest who requires images to not be cropped (for some strange reason). Also, off the top of my head, perhaps some sort of detection of whether an image is modified (for journalistic submission purposes). I'm not weighing in on the topicality of this question, just devilishly advocating conceivable reasons to care.
– scottbb
15 mins ago
This question assumes that OOF areas do not contribute to “true resolution”. Is a panned motion blur shot not “true”? How about a blurred photo shot through wet glass? What problem are you actually trying to solve?
– Hueco
38 secs ago
add a comment |
What I mean by "true" resolution is the resolution at which the maximum available amount of real detail is present. For an ideal picture this resolution is the same as the resolution encoded in the image file. However, in other cases the actual true resolution may be less than the resolution of the image file:
If the image file was digitally scaled - for instance, if the camera has a "digital zoom" feature where it upsamples the individual pixels.
If the image is not completely sharp and in focus.
In either of these cases, it is useful to me to have some mechanical method of identifying what the actual true resolution of the image is independent of what the image file says. How can I do this? Is there some software or algorithm which can take an image and analyze it and tell me the highest resolution it can be displayed at while showing detail at the resolution?
My initial naive expectation that it should be "obvious" and easy to determine by some simple mechanism such as compressed sizes is thwarted in cases where the upscaled image has noticable artifacting or noise not present in the original.
resolution
What I mean by "true" resolution is the resolution at which the maximum available amount of real detail is present. For an ideal picture this resolution is the same as the resolution encoded in the image file. However, in other cases the actual true resolution may be less than the resolution of the image file:
If the image file was digitally scaled - for instance, if the camera has a "digital zoom" feature where it upsamples the individual pixels.
If the image is not completely sharp and in focus.
In either of these cases, it is useful to me to have some mechanical method of identifying what the actual true resolution of the image is independent of what the image file says. How can I do this? Is there some software or algorithm which can take an image and analyze it and tell me the highest resolution it can be displayed at while showing detail at the resolution?
My initial naive expectation that it should be "obvious" and easy to determine by some simple mechanism such as compressed sizes is thwarted in cases where the upscaled image has noticable artifacting or noise not present in the original.
resolution
resolution
asked 2 hours ago
MichaelMichael
161129
161129
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it seems to be a theoretical question without any true photographic application.
– Philip Kendall
2 hours ago
1
The question of, "Is this cropped from a larger picture?" comes up all the time in photography. The fact that it can't be reliably determined is an important point and very much on-topic.
– user10216038
1 hour ago
1
@user10216038 whether or not something is cropped may be of use in making a photograph, but I’m failing to see the importance after the fact. If it’s a good clean photo, who cares if it was cropped to obtain the final composition? Isn’t that the advantage of high res sensors?
– Hueco
39 mins ago
@Hueco from a purely hypothetical standpoint, an example of "who cares" might be a judge/panel for a photo contest who requires images to not be cropped (for some strange reason). Also, off the top of my head, perhaps some sort of detection of whether an image is modified (for journalistic submission purposes). I'm not weighing in on the topicality of this question, just devilishly advocating conceivable reasons to care.
– scottbb
15 mins ago
This question assumes that OOF areas do not contribute to “true resolution”. Is a panned motion blur shot not “true”? How about a blurred photo shot through wet glass? What problem are you actually trying to solve?
– Hueco
38 secs ago
add a comment |
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it seems to be a theoretical question without any true photographic application.
– Philip Kendall
2 hours ago
1
The question of, "Is this cropped from a larger picture?" comes up all the time in photography. The fact that it can't be reliably determined is an important point and very much on-topic.
– user10216038
1 hour ago
1
@user10216038 whether or not something is cropped may be of use in making a photograph, but I’m failing to see the importance after the fact. If it’s a good clean photo, who cares if it was cropped to obtain the final composition? Isn’t that the advantage of high res sensors?
– Hueco
39 mins ago
@Hueco from a purely hypothetical standpoint, an example of "who cares" might be a judge/panel for a photo contest who requires images to not be cropped (for some strange reason). Also, off the top of my head, perhaps some sort of detection of whether an image is modified (for journalistic submission purposes). I'm not weighing in on the topicality of this question, just devilishly advocating conceivable reasons to care.
– scottbb
15 mins ago
This question assumes that OOF areas do not contribute to “true resolution”. Is a panned motion blur shot not “true”? How about a blurred photo shot through wet glass? What problem are you actually trying to solve?
– Hueco
38 secs ago
1
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it seems to be a theoretical question without any true photographic application.
– Philip Kendall
2 hours ago
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it seems to be a theoretical question without any true photographic application.
– Philip Kendall
2 hours ago
1
1
The question of, "Is this cropped from a larger picture?" comes up all the time in photography. The fact that it can't be reliably determined is an important point and very much on-topic.
– user10216038
1 hour ago
The question of, "Is this cropped from a larger picture?" comes up all the time in photography. The fact that it can't be reliably determined is an important point and very much on-topic.
– user10216038
1 hour ago
1
1
@user10216038 whether or not something is cropped may be of use in making a photograph, but I’m failing to see the importance after the fact. If it’s a good clean photo, who cares if it was cropped to obtain the final composition? Isn’t that the advantage of high res sensors?
– Hueco
39 mins ago
@user10216038 whether or not something is cropped may be of use in making a photograph, but I’m failing to see the importance after the fact. If it’s a good clean photo, who cares if it was cropped to obtain the final composition? Isn’t that the advantage of high res sensors?
– Hueco
39 mins ago
@Hueco from a purely hypothetical standpoint, an example of "who cares" might be a judge/panel for a photo contest who requires images to not be cropped (for some strange reason). Also, off the top of my head, perhaps some sort of detection of whether an image is modified (for journalistic submission purposes). I'm not weighing in on the topicality of this question, just devilishly advocating conceivable reasons to care.
– scottbb
15 mins ago
@Hueco from a purely hypothetical standpoint, an example of "who cares" might be a judge/panel for a photo contest who requires images to not be cropped (for some strange reason). Also, off the top of my head, perhaps some sort of detection of whether an image is modified (for journalistic submission purposes). I'm not weighing in on the topicality of this question, just devilishly advocating conceivable reasons to care.
– scottbb
15 mins ago
This question assumes that OOF areas do not contribute to “true resolution”. Is a panned motion blur shot not “true”? How about a blurred photo shot through wet glass? What problem are you actually trying to solve?
– Hueco
38 secs ago
This question assumes that OOF areas do not contribute to “true resolution”. Is a panned motion blur shot not “true”? How about a blurred photo shot through wet glass? What problem are you actually trying to solve?
– Hueco
38 secs ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
You could compute the Fourier transform of the picture and analyze it in frequency space. If the image was upsampled, higher frequencies will be missing in the transformed image.
Note that the absence of the high frequencies could also mean that the original image did not contain enough detail, or it was not sharp in the first place.
Related: How to analyze images with Fast Fourier Transform method?
add a comment |
Assuming accurate meta data (EXIF) is present, it would be possible to determine possible camera model resolutions.
Without metadata it's a statistical guess from common available possibilities.
What you refer to as "True Resolution" is a difficult concept. To start with, digital cameras don't have pixels in the first place, they have sensors. The sensors in turn are processed to produce pixels, but many sensors produce one pixel and one sensor is part of many pixels.
There are image analysis/forensic tools for determining things like edited, cloned, recompressed, resized, and other alterations. Sometimes the JPG cosine compression tables or noise patterns can strongly indicate a particular camera.
In general, unless you can establish the camera model, I don't believe you can realistically get what you want.
add a comment |
What I mean by "true" resolution is the resolution at which the maximum available amount of real detail is present. For an ideal picture this resolution is the same as the resolution encoded in the image file.
To put that another way, you're trying to differentiate images where one pixel represents one pixel on the camera sensor (i.e., a 100% crop) from those that don't. So a shot taken with a full-frame lens on a full-frame SLR would be considered "true," as would one taken with a cropped-frame lens and cropped to just show what was in the image circle.
In either of these cases, it is useful to me to have some mechanical method of identifying what the actual true resolution of the image is independent of what the image file says. How can I do this?
Most cameras with digital zoom provide the DigitalZoomRatio
EXIF tag which will tell you when scaling happened in-camera. You will not, of course, be able to tell if the image was scaled elsewhere or the metadata was tampered with unless you have some way to verify that the image and metadata were actually produced by the camera.
Assuming you trust the metadata, the ration could be sued to figure out that a 6000x4000 image that had a zoom ratio of 2.0 started life as 3000x2000. That doesn't mean the image can be scaled back down to that size and all will be well; any changes made during upscaling would have an effect on the downscaled version.
You can't do anything with the not-completely-sharp case for the simple reason that given just the image, there's no source of ground truth for what light fell on the sensor and no insight into the photographer's intent. Shooting with intentionally-small depth of field, putting a diffusing filter in front of the lens, producing motion blur or intentionally shooting out of focus would be captured at the camera's "true" resolution. Any algorithm trying to root out scaling would produce a wrong result.
The best you can do is read the metadata and decide whether or not you trust it.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107911%2fhow-to-determine-the-actual-or-true-resolution-of-a-digital-photograph%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You could compute the Fourier transform of the picture and analyze it in frequency space. If the image was upsampled, higher frequencies will be missing in the transformed image.
Note that the absence of the high frequencies could also mean that the original image did not contain enough detail, or it was not sharp in the first place.
Related: How to analyze images with Fast Fourier Transform method?
add a comment |
You could compute the Fourier transform of the picture and analyze it in frequency space. If the image was upsampled, higher frequencies will be missing in the transformed image.
Note that the absence of the high frequencies could also mean that the original image did not contain enough detail, or it was not sharp in the first place.
Related: How to analyze images with Fast Fourier Transform method?
add a comment |
You could compute the Fourier transform of the picture and analyze it in frequency space. If the image was upsampled, higher frequencies will be missing in the transformed image.
Note that the absence of the high frequencies could also mean that the original image did not contain enough detail, or it was not sharp in the first place.
Related: How to analyze images with Fast Fourier Transform method?
You could compute the Fourier transform of the picture and analyze it in frequency space. If the image was upsampled, higher frequencies will be missing in the transformed image.
Note that the absence of the high frequencies could also mean that the original image did not contain enough detail, or it was not sharp in the first place.
Related: How to analyze images with Fast Fourier Transform method?
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
boglbogl
39138
39138
add a comment |
add a comment |
Assuming accurate meta data (EXIF) is present, it would be possible to determine possible camera model resolutions.
Without metadata it's a statistical guess from common available possibilities.
What you refer to as "True Resolution" is a difficult concept. To start with, digital cameras don't have pixels in the first place, they have sensors. The sensors in turn are processed to produce pixels, but many sensors produce one pixel and one sensor is part of many pixels.
There are image analysis/forensic tools for determining things like edited, cloned, recompressed, resized, and other alterations. Sometimes the JPG cosine compression tables or noise patterns can strongly indicate a particular camera.
In general, unless you can establish the camera model, I don't believe you can realistically get what you want.
add a comment |
Assuming accurate meta data (EXIF) is present, it would be possible to determine possible camera model resolutions.
Without metadata it's a statistical guess from common available possibilities.
What you refer to as "True Resolution" is a difficult concept. To start with, digital cameras don't have pixels in the first place, they have sensors. The sensors in turn are processed to produce pixels, but many sensors produce one pixel and one sensor is part of many pixels.
There are image analysis/forensic tools for determining things like edited, cloned, recompressed, resized, and other alterations. Sometimes the JPG cosine compression tables or noise patterns can strongly indicate a particular camera.
In general, unless you can establish the camera model, I don't believe you can realistically get what you want.
add a comment |
Assuming accurate meta data (EXIF) is present, it would be possible to determine possible camera model resolutions.
Without metadata it's a statistical guess from common available possibilities.
What you refer to as "True Resolution" is a difficult concept. To start with, digital cameras don't have pixels in the first place, they have sensors. The sensors in turn are processed to produce pixels, but many sensors produce one pixel and one sensor is part of many pixels.
There are image analysis/forensic tools for determining things like edited, cloned, recompressed, resized, and other alterations. Sometimes the JPG cosine compression tables or noise patterns can strongly indicate a particular camera.
In general, unless you can establish the camera model, I don't believe you can realistically get what you want.
Assuming accurate meta data (EXIF) is present, it would be possible to determine possible camera model resolutions.
Without metadata it's a statistical guess from common available possibilities.
What you refer to as "True Resolution" is a difficult concept. To start with, digital cameras don't have pixels in the first place, they have sensors. The sensors in turn are processed to produce pixels, but many sensors produce one pixel and one sensor is part of many pixels.
There are image analysis/forensic tools for determining things like edited, cloned, recompressed, resized, and other alterations. Sometimes the JPG cosine compression tables or noise patterns can strongly indicate a particular camera.
In general, unless you can establish the camera model, I don't believe you can realistically get what you want.
answered 1 hour ago
user10216038user10216038
3315
3315
add a comment |
add a comment |
What I mean by "true" resolution is the resolution at which the maximum available amount of real detail is present. For an ideal picture this resolution is the same as the resolution encoded in the image file.
To put that another way, you're trying to differentiate images where one pixel represents one pixel on the camera sensor (i.e., a 100% crop) from those that don't. So a shot taken with a full-frame lens on a full-frame SLR would be considered "true," as would one taken with a cropped-frame lens and cropped to just show what was in the image circle.
In either of these cases, it is useful to me to have some mechanical method of identifying what the actual true resolution of the image is independent of what the image file says. How can I do this?
Most cameras with digital zoom provide the DigitalZoomRatio
EXIF tag which will tell you when scaling happened in-camera. You will not, of course, be able to tell if the image was scaled elsewhere or the metadata was tampered with unless you have some way to verify that the image and metadata were actually produced by the camera.
Assuming you trust the metadata, the ration could be sued to figure out that a 6000x4000 image that had a zoom ratio of 2.0 started life as 3000x2000. That doesn't mean the image can be scaled back down to that size and all will be well; any changes made during upscaling would have an effect on the downscaled version.
You can't do anything with the not-completely-sharp case for the simple reason that given just the image, there's no source of ground truth for what light fell on the sensor and no insight into the photographer's intent. Shooting with intentionally-small depth of field, putting a diffusing filter in front of the lens, producing motion blur or intentionally shooting out of focus would be captured at the camera's "true" resolution. Any algorithm trying to root out scaling would produce a wrong result.
The best you can do is read the metadata and decide whether or not you trust it.
add a comment |
What I mean by "true" resolution is the resolution at which the maximum available amount of real detail is present. For an ideal picture this resolution is the same as the resolution encoded in the image file.
To put that another way, you're trying to differentiate images where one pixel represents one pixel on the camera sensor (i.e., a 100% crop) from those that don't. So a shot taken with a full-frame lens on a full-frame SLR would be considered "true," as would one taken with a cropped-frame lens and cropped to just show what was in the image circle.
In either of these cases, it is useful to me to have some mechanical method of identifying what the actual true resolution of the image is independent of what the image file says. How can I do this?
Most cameras with digital zoom provide the DigitalZoomRatio
EXIF tag which will tell you when scaling happened in-camera. You will not, of course, be able to tell if the image was scaled elsewhere or the metadata was tampered with unless you have some way to verify that the image and metadata were actually produced by the camera.
Assuming you trust the metadata, the ration could be sued to figure out that a 6000x4000 image that had a zoom ratio of 2.0 started life as 3000x2000. That doesn't mean the image can be scaled back down to that size and all will be well; any changes made during upscaling would have an effect on the downscaled version.
You can't do anything with the not-completely-sharp case for the simple reason that given just the image, there's no source of ground truth for what light fell on the sensor and no insight into the photographer's intent. Shooting with intentionally-small depth of field, putting a diffusing filter in front of the lens, producing motion blur or intentionally shooting out of focus would be captured at the camera's "true" resolution. Any algorithm trying to root out scaling would produce a wrong result.
The best you can do is read the metadata and decide whether or not you trust it.
add a comment |
What I mean by "true" resolution is the resolution at which the maximum available amount of real detail is present. For an ideal picture this resolution is the same as the resolution encoded in the image file.
To put that another way, you're trying to differentiate images where one pixel represents one pixel on the camera sensor (i.e., a 100% crop) from those that don't. So a shot taken with a full-frame lens on a full-frame SLR would be considered "true," as would one taken with a cropped-frame lens and cropped to just show what was in the image circle.
In either of these cases, it is useful to me to have some mechanical method of identifying what the actual true resolution of the image is independent of what the image file says. How can I do this?
Most cameras with digital zoom provide the DigitalZoomRatio
EXIF tag which will tell you when scaling happened in-camera. You will not, of course, be able to tell if the image was scaled elsewhere or the metadata was tampered with unless you have some way to verify that the image and metadata were actually produced by the camera.
Assuming you trust the metadata, the ration could be sued to figure out that a 6000x4000 image that had a zoom ratio of 2.0 started life as 3000x2000. That doesn't mean the image can be scaled back down to that size and all will be well; any changes made during upscaling would have an effect on the downscaled version.
You can't do anything with the not-completely-sharp case for the simple reason that given just the image, there's no source of ground truth for what light fell on the sensor and no insight into the photographer's intent. Shooting with intentionally-small depth of field, putting a diffusing filter in front of the lens, producing motion blur or intentionally shooting out of focus would be captured at the camera's "true" resolution. Any algorithm trying to root out scaling would produce a wrong result.
The best you can do is read the metadata and decide whether or not you trust it.
What I mean by "true" resolution is the resolution at which the maximum available amount of real detail is present. For an ideal picture this resolution is the same as the resolution encoded in the image file.
To put that another way, you're trying to differentiate images where one pixel represents one pixel on the camera sensor (i.e., a 100% crop) from those that don't. So a shot taken with a full-frame lens on a full-frame SLR would be considered "true," as would one taken with a cropped-frame lens and cropped to just show what was in the image circle.
In either of these cases, it is useful to me to have some mechanical method of identifying what the actual true resolution of the image is independent of what the image file says. How can I do this?
Most cameras with digital zoom provide the DigitalZoomRatio
EXIF tag which will tell you when scaling happened in-camera. You will not, of course, be able to tell if the image was scaled elsewhere or the metadata was tampered with unless you have some way to verify that the image and metadata were actually produced by the camera.
Assuming you trust the metadata, the ration could be sued to figure out that a 6000x4000 image that had a zoom ratio of 2.0 started life as 3000x2000. That doesn't mean the image can be scaled back down to that size and all will be well; any changes made during upscaling would have an effect on the downscaled version.
You can't do anything with the not-completely-sharp case for the simple reason that given just the image, there's no source of ground truth for what light fell on the sensor and no insight into the photographer's intent. Shooting with intentionally-small depth of field, putting a diffusing filter in front of the lens, producing motion blur or intentionally shooting out of focus would be captured at the camera's "true" resolution. Any algorithm trying to root out scaling would produce a wrong result.
The best you can do is read the metadata and decide whether or not you trust it.
answered 1 hour ago
BlrflBlrfl
4,8241423
4,8241423
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107911%2fhow-to-determine-the-actual-or-true-resolution-of-a-digital-photograph%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it seems to be a theoretical question without any true photographic application.
– Philip Kendall
2 hours ago
1
The question of, "Is this cropped from a larger picture?" comes up all the time in photography. The fact that it can't be reliably determined is an important point and very much on-topic.
– user10216038
1 hour ago
1
@user10216038 whether or not something is cropped may be of use in making a photograph, but I’m failing to see the importance after the fact. If it’s a good clean photo, who cares if it was cropped to obtain the final composition? Isn’t that the advantage of high res sensors?
– Hueco
39 mins ago
@Hueco from a purely hypothetical standpoint, an example of "who cares" might be a judge/panel for a photo contest who requires images to not be cropped (for some strange reason). Also, off the top of my head, perhaps some sort of detection of whether an image is modified (for journalistic submission purposes). I'm not weighing in on the topicality of this question, just devilishly advocating conceivable reasons to care.
– scottbb
15 mins ago
This question assumes that OOF areas do not contribute to “true resolution”. Is a panned motion blur shot not “true”? How about a blurred photo shot through wet glass? What problem are you actually trying to solve?
– Hueco
38 secs ago