Yeah, I have no idea where this comes from. More mathematics and
measurbations ignoring the real world I guess. If you can't count the
individual dots on your monitor screen at 10" (25cm) you sure can't see
300 ppi.
Chuck Norcutt
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> These arguments have been used by anti-digital hysterics for years to
> "prove" film is superior to digital. They are based on the old "look
> at my clever arguments and ignore your lying eyes" fallacy.
>
> I am unaware of any camera maker that claims you can make 16X20
> prints. I shocked at the small size of the recommended largest print
> by Nikon when I bought my first Coolpix and it was good enough for me
> to make the decision to more than dabble in digital. The manual for
> my D200 does not even bother to talk about print size. It is
> reviewers and users that say that because they are using their eyes.
>
>
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Ali Shah wrote:
>
>
>>Notice that as the print size doubles, the megapixels
>>required increases geometrically. You can make nice 8"
>>x 10" prints with a 6 or 8 megapixel camera, but to
>>make a true photo quality 16" x 20" print, you need
>>between 24 and 30 megapixels. Don't be fooled by
>>manufacturers' claims that say you can make 16" x 20"
>>prints from an 8 megapixel camera. While you certainly
>>can make a print that size, it will not be true photo
>>quality.
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|