That wasn't clear to me at all. The resolution levels he was talking
about are considered to produce very sharp images for very good eyesight
at normal reading distance (10" or 25cm). 13x19" prints are not
normally expected to be viewed from 10". One does not need to put down
300 ppi on a large print as you would on a 4x6 which is expected to be
viewed at reading distance. 250-300 ppi seems to be embedded in peoples
brains as a hard and fast requirement for any print. I don't know why
because 'taint so. The requirement is based on the resolving power of a
good human eye (as is the DOF table) but it's only valid for a normal
reading distance.
Remember the 24x36 portrait done with a D30 that I mentioned the other
day? The resolution of that image is only 60 ppi. If you inspect it at
normal reading distance you can see the pixellation. But that doesn't
change the fact that it looks great at 3-4 feet away which is how it's
meant to be viewed.
Chuck Norcutt
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> If people are to be believed, magazine editors can do just that -
> recognize the make of camera from the image. Hard to develop a
> critical eye if you do not regularly review lots of images for
> publication.
>
> I think it is clear from his article he is talking about obvious
> differences at normal viewing distance.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On / October 23, 2007 CE, at 2:07 PM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>
>> Not once have I heard a customer say, "Ah! Looks like a 4.9 megapixel
>> image. Olympus E-1, no doubt. Not worth bothering with." And _no one_
>> has ever deployed a loupe.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|