One thing I have been pondering for a while is to consider how far one should go in zooming into images (a.k.a. pixel peeping), specifically when evaluating a new image (published by others) that we have been presented with. To help with my ponderings I would like to kick off a discussion here to look at this issue from a number of angles and see where it takes us. I would like to 'stir the pot' so to speak and see what different opinions there may be out there (please by kind though
).
How far should we go when pixel peeping (if at all). What zoom level: 0%; 100%; 200%; 300%; more? Why should we do this? I'm guilty of this in that I'm always tempted to zoom to 100% when looking at a new image that others have published with a view to seeing what nasties might lurk therein. But again - why
Things to consider are:
* What is the resolution of the image (this would be based on the camera sensor in terms of pixel size and the physical size of the sensor)?;
* What type of display device is being used to present the image. Possibilities are: 2k 21" monitor; 4k 27" monitor; tablet screen; smartphone; projector; printed format; others?
* Is the image a very high resolution mosaic such that additional detail can be revealed if we zoom into the image?
* The image scale of the system used to generate the image.
* How much resolution can the average human eye see on the screen anyway?
To kick off discussions I will start with a position (which I may, or may not, believe myself
) and see where we go. That position would be to say that most astro images are published with the intent that they are meant to be viewed at the native resolution that they were published in, not at a zoom level of 100% or higher. This being the case it should be redundant to zoom in to the image and find artefacts that cannot be seen at a zoom level where the image fits within the physical confines of the display monitor. In other words, if I cannot see any nasties at normal viewing levels then why should I go looking for them?
What thoughts do others have on this?
Clear skies,
Rodney