Nonsense. His results are all perfectly valid... if you always view
your prints with a 5X loupe. He must be terribly disappointed when
watching TV. It's hard to observe the action when you're so close all
you can see is the pixels. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
AG Schnozz wrote:
>> Thom Hogan's interesting article on camera resolution and printing
>> or why you need way more than 21MP to get a good 24x36 inch print
>> and why 8MP is enough for a 13x19.
>> http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm
>
> I hate to say this, but he's full of it. This print pixel-peeping
> garbage is nonesense. I would challenge anybody and everybody on
> this list to truely test the resolution of your printer and viewing.
> Those who think we can identify 1/300" details are dillusional. It
> ain't gonna happen.
>
> As further proof of Thom's misplaced anal-retenticism, to follow his
> theory through, absolutely NO image of his from a 35mm Nikon film
> camera could ever be enlarged larger than 5x7.
>
> An image can be enlarged to the point where the resolution dropoff is
> disturbing to the viewer. Period. This is TOTALLY subject dependant.
>
> AG
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|