Of course the point is that it does not always take lots of resolution
to make a very attractive print. I think the first chink in my "film is
better" armor was seeing a beautiful 8x10 portrait from a 1.3 MP
camera. It would not have been nearly so good with a more detailed
subject. But now we have arguments over whether 35mm resolution is
surpassed by digital SLRs and the point that is missed by both sides
that the differences are so little as to be insignificant especially
when printed and other factors like color and lack of grain may be more
important in its overall appearance.
Another point that is important is that while one can make all kinds of
intellectual arguments either side, it is just sophistry to think that
perception can be reduced to argument and a little crude mathematics.
The only test is looking and everyone is their own judge.
Winsor
Long Beach, California
USA
On Aug 17, 2004, at 4:54 PM, W Shumaker wrote:
> At 10:40 AM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
>
>> Because by the time you print, they're the proper 360dpi. Photoshop
>> CS
>> can't create pixels, but it can use some pretty sophisticated math to
>> predict them.
>
> The print software is simply doing interpolation, which helps the
> printing process disperse the dots of ink on the paper. But the
> interpolation that is happening is not enlarging the picture. Rather it
> is just smoothing the square pixel boundaries. The interpolation that
> happens does not add detail that allows for a larger print size. It
> only smooths the existing edges of the pixels themselves. If you look
> at lines/mm nothing changes. Sampling has a limited frequency response
> and nothing can improve it unless it is creating fictitious data. the
> converging lines on a resolution chart that blur into gray cannot
> become lines again? Making crisp edges from blurry ones gives the
> impression of sharpness. To some degree you can say it pulls out
> information, but that information has to be there in the first place,
> and it is frequency limited by sampling. I think it is more a matter of
> the way we perceive. Crisp edges feel sharper so we percieve the image
> to be sharper. For example, why do some more grainy films seem sharper
> than some finer grain films? Is there more information, or is it a
> visual phenomon?
>
> A friend of mine has a 256x256 watch camera. He has made some
> interesting pictures with it, even though it is only a 0.0625
> megapixels (yes zero.zero-six). It is our minds that are good at
> predicting visual information. Now that is sophisticated math.
>
> \A/yne
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|