achilles500
Steve
What is meant by the term 100 % crop ?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
100 % crop (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter achilles500
- Start date
Harold Stiver
Well-known member
It is when the resolution of your file is the same as the monitor.
For example if you use the view command in Photoshop and select "Actual Pixels" you are looking at 100% crop (1:1)
For example if you use the view command in Photoshop and select "Actual Pixels" you are looking at 100% crop (1:1)
I would explain it a little bit differently by trying to give an example:
Part 1: You take an image with a camera that for example give you 3000*2000 pixels. That image has too many pixels to be uploaded here on birdforum, so most often before upload you will use some program to reduce the number of pixels without changing what is actually seen in the image; the resulting number of pixels could be 600x400. This is uncropped but with resolution reduced.
Part 2: If I ask for a central 100 % crop of the same image, I would expect you to cut away content from the edge until you are left with an area in the middle that has the same number of pixels, but now only shows a little from the center of your photo. A reason to look at a 100% crop is to compare equipment or methods: for example, is there a little bit of fuzzyness in the image at that resolution, it could be due to lens problems or problems with shutter speed too long compared to the stability of your rig. That fuzzyness might not be visible when you have reduced the resolution as in the first example.
Hope this helps
Niels
Part 1: You take an image with a camera that for example give you 3000*2000 pixels. That image has too many pixels to be uploaded here on birdforum, so most often before upload you will use some program to reduce the number of pixels without changing what is actually seen in the image; the resulting number of pixels could be 600x400. This is uncropped but with resolution reduced.
Part 2: If I ask for a central 100 % crop of the same image, I would expect you to cut away content from the edge until you are left with an area in the middle that has the same number of pixels, but now only shows a little from the center of your photo. A reason to look at a 100% crop is to compare equipment or methods: for example, is there a little bit of fuzzyness in the image at that resolution, it could be due to lens problems or problems with shutter speed too long compared to the stability of your rig. That fuzzyness might not be visible when you have reduced the resolution as in the first example.
Hope this helps
Niels
Last edited:
That's what I end up doing with a lot of my photos.
Oh wait a minute............... I thought the OP said 100% CRAP. I need some new reading glasses.......
QuantumTiger
Well-known member
But that's 66% clap and 33% smiley.
Achilles: 100% crop is a funny term really since it doesn't really do what it says. Intuitively a 100% crop should mean cropping 100% of the image. But that is not what people mean.
What it is used to mean is: any crop which is presented so that one pixel on the display device equates to one pixel on the camera sensor. eg if I cropped 800x600 pixels from the original image and displayed them at 800x600 pixels that would be a 100% crop. If I resized them to display at 400x300 pixels it would not be.
Which is just a different way of saying what Harold and Niels said...
RAH
Well-known member
I agree with what Ian and others have said. Just want to emphasize that the point of a 100% crop is that you are presenting for view exactly what the camera produced, unmodified by any resize/resample. Once you have resampled an image, you have corrupted it, and you really cannot compare the results to the results from some other camera, for example.
achilles500
Steve
Thanks to all that replied, it now seems clearer.
Steve
Steve
