Pixels to Perceptual Mega Pixel (data review)

I thought that I'd follow through with some of the data I've compiled to me suggests that to increase the effective (or Perceptual) megapixels on needs increasingly more actual pixels with each sensor format but that with increase the return value is small.  So with a smaller sensor like a APS or 4/3 sized sensor you need to have way higher increases of pixels to get perceptually much increase.

camera	MPix/P-Mpix	Native Mpix
GH1 (4/3)	1.33	12
GH3 (4/3)	1.45	16
40D (APS)	1.68	10
7D (APS)	1.99	18
5D (FF)	1.16	13
1DsIII (FF)	1.4	21
5D III (FF)	1.3	22
Sony RX1 (FF)	1.33	24

With micro4/3 some quick observations (which seem to be representative) are found in such lenses as the Olympus 75mm f1.8 and their 45mm f1.8. These lenses give 9 and 7P-Mpix (respectively) on the GH1 and 9 and 11P-Mpix (respectively) on the GH2. For the This is a ratio of 1.33 and 1.44 Pixels/P-Mpix for the Oly 75mm lenses on the GH1 (12Mpix) and GH2 (16Mpix) bodies, demonstrating that as pixels go up the 'return ratio' of perceptual megapixels gets less. This is otherwise known as diminishing returns.

I suspect that the data on DxO is insufficient (unverified and uncross referenced tests) for a good analysis (to allow for removal of measurement error by proper statistical samples). From my reading of the data on the APS cameras the results seem to follow the pattern. I expect diminishing returns will flatline when you ultimately hit the "aerial resolution limits" of the lens (as one would normally do in MTF testing)

With the Full Frame stuff the 5D was the low hanging fruit, with a very good ratio of yeild per sensor pixel. However as the desire to increase output quality went higher the requirement for capture pixel to Perceptual pixel ratio when higher too. The Sony RX1 for instance has 24Mpix to get its 18P-Mpix

It would seem to me that an appropriate 'storage' compression here would be to downscale the captured RAW file into a DNG (or the like) from the captured Mpix to the reasonable limit of real IQ. There would be little or no loss as observed in my previous post.

Back in the past designers seemed to not be restricted to sensor size and just moved up to a slightly larger film format 35mm - 645 - 6x7 - 6x9 ... and larger

Perhaps the best answers here are really the same?

I would love to see some tests of the Leica S2 system.

a Perceptual Mega Pixel explained?

Well and some other thoughts too...

Espeically beginners who have read just a few internet discussion groups before 'buying in' tend to focus on bodies, features and megapixel counts. They ignore lenses and don't grasp the importance of sensor format size. Frequently people buy the best body they can afford and get a crummy zoom. They justify this variously with:

• "I'll get a good lens later"
• "I really want to take good pictures so I bought the best camera"
• "the images look really good" (but I've never actually compared them side by side)

Yet both Lenses and Cameras are needed to take a pictures of higher quality.

Long ago I wrote a WWW post about what I called Megapixel Madness and I thought that it was about time to take that notion further with the new metric which DxO has introduced: the Perceptual Megapixel. In this blog post I thought I'd explore that and provide what I hope is a tangible representation on what it is that I think DxO are on about.

summary of findings

For those who don't have time to read:

• Perceptual Megapixels as a metric seems to make sence in terms of end product image evaluation
• If you are obsessed with every last skerrik of image quality at capture, then you'll need top lenses and >24Mpix Full Frame digital a tripod : or you've got your hand on it.
• if not using Full Frame don't expect much more than effectively (perceptually) 13Megapixels no matter what's written on the camera specs, but in most cases 8
• there isn't much difference between 4/3 and APS-C (gosh, as the maths would indicate)
• its going to cost you a lot to get a lens to get the high Megapixel counts (and some focusing accuracy and probably a tripod too)
• if clarity and contrast are your gig, why aren't you using Full Frame (it may even be cheaper)
• for light weight, compact versatility and access to interchangable lenses NEX and micro43 are hard to beat

going forward

Now first I'd like to introduce a new term, the bajillapixel camera. This if of course dervied from the numeric bajillion (following on somewhere after million....). From Wikitionary

Noun
bajillion (plural bajillions)

1. (slang, hyperbolic) An unspecified large number (of).
   • 2003 27 August, connie, “Tomatoes . . .”, rec.food.preserving, Usenet:

     However, I have a bajillion cherry tomatoes. Is it worth it to try to make spaghetti sauce from them, or will it take 10 bajillion cherry tomatoes to make any quantity of sauce?

So without getting all detailed and accurate on ya I reckon any camera that has more than enough pixels is a bajillapixel camera.

its just a jump to the left..

Beginners (and sadly more experienced photographers too) go on about "image clarity" as it it was something obviously quantifiable. Yet at the same time these folk shy away from metrics - after all its the picture quality which counts right? All this quantative stuff is just hard to grasp and gets in the way of the photographic journey ... then a step to the right. Put your hands on your hips ...

Ok, so too much is never enough ... sure ... well if you're buying the media cards and HDD storage and downsizing for www .... Well anyway, before we get bogged down, what is "more than enough"?

Let me go out on a limb here and say - if the lens system you're using provides the limits to the maximum number of megapixels obtainable then a body that captures more than 1.3 times that is "more than enough".

DxO provides this nifty metric (ok, go get the garlic and crucifixes I said metric) called the Perceptual Megapixel which uses the lens on the camera and gives you a rating. Ok ... sounds great but what does it "look like". To answer that question I have done what I think demonstrates what they are trying to encapsulate in a single number. So presenting my

Virtual Perceptual Megapixel

Fig 1 - workflow

Basically the idea is simpler that it sounds in description, so I hope that the diagram I have to the left here makes it clearer.

Assuming you start with  12 megapixels (or 4000 x 3000) and your camera + lens rating is 7P-Mpix then it would be the same as if you scaled down the image to 7 megapixels (which is 3150 x 2363, and yes the diagram is to scale) and then upscale that image in software (which please recall results in detail loss, if there was fully 12Mpix present, because upscales can not create what is not there, if they could then you could just buy a 1Megapixel camera and upscale all the time).

So lets have a look at this experimentally.

Method

To do this I thought that I would capture a scene which has a (nearly) "Perfect Mexapixel" content. I then scale it back as above and then scale it up as above and compare to an actual capture.

So, how to get a perfect capture? Well stitching a 4 x 4 array of images taken with a x2 focal length (resulting in something like 8000 x 6000) wold do that. For instance, this scene (taken with the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 lens)

when taken with a x2 longer focal length lens, and combined in stitched format (before its properly joined) would have 4 12mpix images:

and would then scale back divided by 2 (to 4000 x 3000) to produce a nearly perfect 12 Megapixel capture.

Since I am going to be pixel peeping major league here I didn't bother with doing all that (well and you can't see a 8000x6000 image on the web anyway) and just took one image with the 14mm and one with the Sigma 30mm f2.8 and work with just them at pixel peeping levels. For the curious I also used the following methods:

• capture in RAW
• used the lenses at f2.8
• illuminate by bounce flash (camera set on manual exposure) to ensure that effective shutter speeds (that would be the flash duration, which would be about 1/5000th of a second) removed any shutter bounce
• mount camera on tripod

So, here we have 100% pixel crops of the outcomes

since that might not look clear enough on these monitors (btw, use the middle mouse button to "center-click" the image to open in a fresh tap at a proper 100% viewing) I thought I'd look at them at 200% in photoshop.

which shows to me that the "virtual perceptual megapixel" still holds a wee bit more detail than the 7PMpix I chose.

This suggests that either I'm wrong in my theory or that the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 isn't as sharp as people whack on about (and that's my experience with this lens btw). As there is no DxO rating that I can find for the Panasonic 14mm I'm left in the 'lurch' on this one for actual data (AKA your guess is as good as mine). However its also possible that the 'perfect' megapixel capture is more perfect than possible because the stitching actually reduced the effect of the anti-alias filter.

None the less it does show the sorts of degradation which are at least what you'll see.

If the theory works then one should be able to scale back the actual capture of the 12Mpix and then scale back up without loss, as there is in theory no extra data there to lose.

So I took the 14mm image and downscaled it to 7MP saved it (as a TIFF) then opened and enlarged it back to 12MP using 'nearest neighbor'. Assuming there was only 7MP (or less) then this "compression" should not create much in the way of loss

So, in blind testing, you tell me: which is which?

I have one further point to add on the creation of the "perfect" 12Megapixels and that is the the role of the anti-alias filter will be reduced (making it a little less soft) than if you had a way of perfectly getting light to the sensor in a 12Megapixel manner.

Discussion

So were you surprised?
Did all the changes  (looking at the above Fig 1 of workflow) result in as much change in clarity as you may have expected? I suspect not.

To me this shows that the differences between 7 and 12Mpix are perhaps less than people appreciate (something I've been banging on about for a while) and that to see really significant differences you need to go up more than x2 in dimensions, meaning that you need a good 36 megapixels to see any substantial increase in clarity. I'd call that diminishing returns.

Now think about that for a while. How big is that file going to be, how large will it be in memory, how long to demosiac how much to store? The answer is basically x4 ... because to see a x2 improvement in image detail you need x2 on each dimension (as well as the lens systems able to capture it).

To be honest, how often are you going to actually print anything big? I know from personal experience that I have taken images that were 4000x3000 and had them printed at 150dpi will yeild a print that is 68 x 50 cm or 27 x 20 inches. Do you really want your camera to be capturing 8000x6000? Thats 48Megapixels.


With what we've seen above lets look at a few Lens / Camera combinations in the DxO listings.

Some top rated micro4/3 lenses

Nothing higher than 9P-Mpix, and that is a prime. In the zooms (which people froth on about as being 'stellar') are quite limp in reality at 7 and 8.

For those smug "well I've got APS-C not that winky dink 4/3 sensor" folks let me present that as a compare:

So on a camera like the 18Megapixle 7D your total capture still only gives you 9PMpix ... looks bad even with one eye to me. This backs my view that back about the 12Mpix times on the APS cameras we were hitting limits

The problem is actually capture size.  Bigger is Better in that area (and I mean area not just cutting your pizza into more slices), a well known point among photographers with any training. Lets look at some full frame examples. I chose the EF 35mm f2 lens as I also used that to look at the 7D above:

So the trusty old 5D 12Mpix full frame gives 11 P-Mpix (nearly a perfect match with the sensor) and there just isn't a lens combo that gives you this IQ in APS even though the bodies are mostly the same size.

Even with Full Frame, its a diminishing return as each higher MPix cound gives progressively gives less Perceptual image quality. So as the camera M-Pix goes up to 21Mpix the end result is still only going up to 17P-Mpix. Diminshing returns to me, unelss you are willing to pop some BIG BUCK$ on some Zeiss lenses.

I'll leave it up to the reader to determine the ratio of dollars / P-Mpix for you to work out if you (like me) would be happier with a $500 full frame that gets 80% of the image quality of a $2000 body and some $5000 lenses.

To drive this point in (*of format size being the most important factor for end result IQ), I thought I'd compare a EOS 40D (10 MPix APS camera) with a couple of Full Frame cameras with various lenses.

So with a lens that's much better than the reglarly purchased "kit" lens (meaning on a lesser lens you'll get less P-Mpix) the 40D is down from its real10MPix to 6P-Mpix and the 36MegaPixel Nikon D800 only gives its best with a uber expensive Carl Zeiss lens (and giving a piss poor 13P-Mpix with an expensive Nikon lens that people will probably go 'ooooh' over).

My point here is that if you are going to get a Full Frame camera with a high megapixel count then you'll need to back it up with actually stellar lenses. So the DxO P-Mpix rating actually gives you a good tool  to help in that decision making process. My other point is there is little point in getting a APS or 4/3 camera sensor in much higher than 16Mpix because you're not going to get any benefit.

This suggests that in reality (something I've argued for a while) that a good 6Megapixel image is really quite enough for most things and certainly more than we need for our big screen HDTV's our phones or our tablets. These 12Megapixel captures (on either of the smaller sensor formats) are showing Perceptual Megapixel values of 9P-Megapixels and that's not really far from a really good 6Megapixel.

Chasing IQ

So far I have not even touched on the other significant issue, and that is of camera shake. Even IF you have a potential for 28P-Mpix on the Nikon system (or on some other system) you just won't get that high IQ without the camera on a tripod and attention to things like shutter bounce. So its quite possible that your hand held images are in reality back down to 12P-Mpix if done hand held or with a crummy tripod. Even tripods are not all equal as I discovered some time ago with problems I had with my (then) new Manfrotto 190.

Basically as soon as you start humping a good tripod about you can kiss goodbye to any weight or size savings in the camera body. So if you're after image clarity as a goal you really need full frame and a tripod.

This raises the ugly question of "if you're going to hand hold, why the hell would you hump around bloated DSLR cameras which only have APS sensors in them?" The evidence is that you won't get observable IQ differences (refer again to the above images) using such cameras.

This is exactly the reason I dumped my EOS 20D, didn't go further in EOS APS and got into micro43.

To me the only reason to hump around a bloated APS sensor camera like a Canon 70D is because you're into the feel of a heavy camera. There is perhaps also the argument to be made of better AF speed on telephoto work (read sports) and being able to get better 'telephoto effect' from the same telephoto lens as compared to Full Frame.

To me unless you're using a tripod and care, then cameras like the NEX and the micro43 cameras yeild all the image quality with significantly less weight and so unless there is some utility to be gained from the brick in your hands, you will be better off with Full Frame (especially perhaps with a Sony A7) than a bloated APS camera.

So hopefully this new metric from DxO will allow photographers to plan what they need and make better informed purchases of both camera bodies and lenses. Wangers of course won't be worried about how the images look because they're more worried about being seen with the right gear ;-)

A classic from WhatTheDuck to sum up

what I'd like to see as outcomes

Based on these findings I would love to see (as I have since 2001 when disappointed with the EOS D30) more of a push for larger sensors (full frame) but with no major emphasis on pixel density (12Mp is enough for most) and instead a greater emphasis on actually giving better bit depth. The current RAW formats are under used and even adding another most significant bit depth to the data would make for better highlight handling and enable us therefore to get better shadows (by exposing to the right).

This analysis makes it clear to me that not only do larger sensors do a better job of getting Higher Image Quality (IQ) in terms of effective pixels but all my previous experience shows that larger sensors also give better contrast and bokeh.
:-)

Guided Contemplation and TV

I guess that there is some flexibility in defining Meditation vs Contemplation, I'll leave it to those interested in semantics to clarify that. But for me I'll call this Guided Contemplation.

Realigning myself after the passing of Anita has been a complex and emotionally vexed task, I reckon its the same for anyone who has lost someone who not only did they love deeply, but had become part of themselves.

The questions which I needed answers to (many of which I still have no answer for) are ones which can not be found in normal searching, nor can they be found in asking others; for the answers must come from me.

Its not that I have not tried reading and talking, I most certainly have, but its just that the answers didn't come to me that way.

Long ago I settled into the idea that if you pose a question in your mind the answer will eventually come. You just need to be cognizant of the question so that when the answer is presented to you that you recognise that answer for what it is (and don't miss it because you were gazing out the window).

However the complexity of the questions I need to ask myself here are themselves a puzzle.

Limitations of Language

I have long felt that our spoken language is good for many things, but its not good for everything (well, that's why we have maths right?) and that humans being visual creatures sometimes symbolism (communication in images) is so powerful. We can conceptualize something in an icon.

The Twentieth Century saw the rise of motion pictures which are often more powerful and communicative than any single image or any spoken word can be. I'm quite the visual person and have related to some movies strongly in my life. Anita and I are both SciFi fans (among other things) and I especially liked X-Files, So it is no surprise that we came to love the TV series Fringe. We watched the first 4 series together. There was something we could relate to in the characters too, as well as the fantastic impossible stories. Olivia as a character had many of the attributes of Anita and I personally could relate to both Peter and Walter Bishop. It was something which we both enjoyed so much we had to own the all the series and watched them at least twice.

Seen From another Angle

A little while after settling here in Finland I decided to watch the series again (for something to do) and at first it just reminded me of sitting with Anita on the couch. Then I began to see some interesting parallels which I had not really observed the same as when we were watching them together. For I was quite different and thinking quite differently.

So much happened which reached out to me, I began watching the series again with a mind towards seeing what was in it for me now. Interestingly quite a lot.

There are many themes in the Fringe TV series which are perhaps neglected by many. One such theme is that of "Struggling with  the idea of God" another is "Self Development" and another is "Forgiveness". These are all interwoven among at least 60 episodes with reference between them as the characters develop.

GOD

I myself have been struggling with the idea of God for many years of my life, probably since I was in primary school and asking questions of the Catholic Nuns (no, I never got any decent answers). Anita and I discussed God many times and she totally rejected the ideas of the various modern religions (all of the Abramahmic stemmed religions) and felt more in touch with the 'traditional' religions of Finland.

I was personally down that path back when I was in high school and came to the conclusion that for complex reasons I felt that socially Christianity was more coherent to my socialization, but that I took guidance from other religions (Taoism, Buddhism , even Bushido and Shinto).

Being a scientifically oriented person I have grappled with a view of God that means something to me, some time ago I wrote this blog post, where I tried to explain how I see that Creation as an idea could fit within what we know of the physical world. Of course like everyone I'm left without knowing ... without proof.

Unlike many I simply can't just take it on faith and move on. I need to have something meaningful to me. So knowing that the answer to that question is elusive I simply keep my mind open to answers.

Dr Bishop

Getting back to Fringe, in one episode Dr Bishop (Walter) said:

When you open your mind to the impossible, sometimes you find the truth.

Which triggered me to think of things: for many things in this modern world are quite impossible to the people of even 100 years ago. My father (born in 1928) used to marvel at 3rd person shooter games (I got him hooked on Wolf 3D and then later Doom) where there was "just so much inside there, how do they fit it all in there". To someone from the 19th Century the modern world seems impossible.

Yet clearly there remains much for us to learn which defies our current grasp of reality.

A new perspective to viewing

So I began watching Fringe again with my many questions of God and what is the spirit and Anita as the goals of my TV guided meditation.

It happened in one episode that Walter was dealing with a woman who was a Christian, and he replied to her with the words: "Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis", which I have verified as meaning something like "Unless you will have believed you will not understand" (attributed to St Augustine) I've also seen this translated as "Unless your faith is firm, I cannot make you stand firm"

Oh my ... this answered nothing but forced open my mind again to the question. How do I know that what I believe is right? Without proof how do I know that what I believe is not just the propaganda of men who seek power?

This is a question which I have asked myself many times over. I feel that I have some answers to that but they are difficult to enumerate clearly.

In an aside Walter says to Oliva (when she is doubting herself):

"I know what it is like to feel unequal to the task required of you, to feel incapable. I'll never be the man I was [plot note: someone had removed parts of his brain to prevent him thinking certain things], but I've come to embrace those parts of my mind that are peculiar, broken. I understand now that's what makes my mind special. You should see yourself the way I see you. You have no idea how extraordinary you are."

Olivia replies:

I know you want to believe in me, I want to believe in me. But Believing does not make it true.

Ohh, how this felt like conversations I'd had with Anita and conversations I've recently had with myself. Perhaps Believing does not make it true, but if something is true but unseen, then the faith needed to guide you is only had by Believing. Which sits me right in front of St Augustine again.

White Tulips

On this subject of Faith a recurring theme within the series is of Walter seeking Gods forgiveness. For over his life Walter has changed from being a denier of God to wondering if his actions [which broke the universe] have been an offense to God.

In an episode about Time Travel (featuring Peter Weller) Walter confides in the time travelling physicist (Dr Alistair Peck) that that he is looking for a sign from God that God has forgiven him. For if God can forgive him of his acts then perhaps his son Peter can forgive him too. He says to Dr Peck that he has been looking for a specific sign to make it clear: a white tulip. Dr Peck again travels back into time (so that none of this existed for Walter) and leaves him letter with a drawing of a white tulip on it. Walter (not knowing where it could have come from)  feels he has had his sign from God and is comforted.

This leaves me asking: does this suggest that God does not exist, and that it is only the messages that we do not understand which are interpreted as signs by our minds (seeking to find answers in chaos) or does it suggest that while God can not enter the universe he created (following my computer model view of the quantum universe God kicked off and we call creation) that God is able to influence things in some way?

I don't know.

More white tulips appear in a later episode where a woman who looses her husband (in our universe) and her husband (in the other universe who looses his wife instead) find each other.

They think they are seeing ghosts of each other across the boundary of the two parallel universes. Their strong bond and strong grief for each others loss tears at the (already made thinner by Walters earlier damage) weakening boundaries between their tangent universes. After the woman on our side is convinced (by Peter and Olivia and something the man says) that the he is not her husband, she lets go of her connection to him, realizing he is not her husband. When she is sitting talking with Olivia there is a vase of white tulips in the background behind her.

Messages to me

I have felt there to be many significant and poignant quotes and complex situational references about our relationship with God and about difficulties in coping with loss. For instance Walter says:

"Its sad. I don't think there's anything sadder than when two people are meant to be together and something intervenes."

When Peter has been erased from time and both he and Oliva are feeling a sence of loss that they can not explain.

Of course this series was written as a general work of fiction. However that does not mean that the human experiences in it can not speak to me, or at least speak in a way that evokes  responces and gives me answers. While contemplation is often done in a more simplistic way, Fringe and its characters somehow allow me to see segments of parallel with my own circumstances. When these moments occur i stop and reflect on what just caught me. I then work through that and spend time on reflecting howI feel about it. Kind of like a guided contemplation.

One of the earlier messages in the series which stood out to me was the one that Peter had:

Be a better man than your Father

This stands out to me because it is a goal that I have always had: To be a better man than my Father. Its not that I think that my father is so horrible, but just that as I grew up I saw that he developed into a better man than his father, and while I could see his inadequacies I felt that rather than focus on that as a negative aspect of his character I instead wanted to make myself better.

Lastly (and to round this up) Walter comes up with the idea of comparing the human soul to energy. Applying the laws of thermodynamics: human thought and our souls represent energy. Energy is not lost it only moves from one place to another. Even though it is dissipated it does not disappear.

This tugs at my hope that somehow the energy of Anitas soul does not dissipate beyond recapture. I don't know if my thoughts of her and my love of her helps that in any way, or if somewhere she has flowed to another 'container'. I hope so.

I'll leave you with this image from a Cathedral in Tampere, Finland A striking feature of this altar (for me) is the lovely art work behind the Altar. Unlike so many churches with a crucifix depicting the death of Jesus on the cross, this has a fascinating huge painting depicting the rise of the dead to the after life. Rather than the dreary Death on the Cross (which I'm sure cheers noone) this image is of the Resurrection of the Dead. Seeing this and contemplating its meaning is one of the most powerful experiences I've ever had in a Cathedral in my life.

To my Anita ... and to the ones whom you love. May their souls be there for us later.

Camera Related Illnesses

GAS

1. Gear Acquisition Syndrome
   • observed compulsion to unnecessary purchases of photographic equipment. Sufferers seldom are aware of its intrusion into their lives. Can self identify by noting their need for yet even more glass front cabinets.

TREATMENT: No current treatment is known, although strict financial budgeting has been suggested in the literature. 

Camera Diarrhoea

1. uncontrolled generation of digital images. This illness exceeds the capacity of previously known (although self limiting and rare) motor-drive madness (WHO has reported that motor-drive madness cases have not been reported since 2004). Sufferers can be found taking thousands of still images at weddings or family events. Sufferers seldom look at the images they take and yet are often unable to delete images.

TREATMENT: suggested treatments include family support and in extreme cases enforced use of a film camera and self scanning to restore perspective on what is needed to really cover an event.

Megapixel Madness

1. Insatiable desire for more megapixels in cameras. Sufferers are unsatisfied with existing pixel count of their cameras and will continue to seek out more and more megapixel cameras in a geometric progression. Early stage delusions onset (seen soon after contraction of this disease) that even 10% increase in capture pixels are needed to make a better image then their previous bajila-pixel camera. (this disease is often associated with pixel peeping, although this is a co-morbidity rather than a related symptom) 
2. Choosing phones based on it having a pixel count greater than needed to produce a wall sized mural. Sufferers frequently email such images to unsuspecting relatives - clogging mailboxes pr causing apparent phone lock-up and occasional late onset of 'bill shock' when looking at their phone data component bills.  

TREATMENT: suggested treatments include forced attendance during printing and double blind self examining of prints. At no stage should family or friends examine the prints directly. A good slap has been suggested in cases where printing is impractical. For sufferers without any capacity for mathematics dividing a pizza into successively smaller slices and demonstrating that like light reaching a sensor eventually a piece (or pixel) contains no food has been suggested (see photon).

Pixel Peeping

1. the need to affirm that your image was good by applying successively greater magnification on it so as to be unable to actually perceive the image at all. There is conjecture in some of the literature that this is a related issue to "peep hole" show addicts who view only specific live sex shows for the purposes of "satisfaction" (frequently not resulting in any, but the belief becomes self feeding)
2. refusal to accept and enjoy images until its been shown that they are produced with a lens that shows clear pixel differentiation at magnifications not possible in any prints.

TREATMENT: none known