From the artist's page it appears to me that he's shooting with a
Mamiya 645 (just a guess based on what appears to be the sweeping curve
from pentaprism to eyepiece on that camera). The camera takes various
digital backs which are available in 22, 28, 33 and 56 MP sizes with
prices ranging from $3700 to $30,500. My guess is that he'd have to
sell an awful lot of prints to justify that 56 MP back. So, I'm
guessing it's 33 MP or smaller. These sensors are 4:3 ratio just like
4/3 sensosr.
The 33 MP sensor is 6726 x 5040 pixels. Over 40" 6726 gives you only
168 pixels/inch. Not much relative to a desired level of maybe 240 ppi
for a large print. So I think you're looking at a ressed up image but
it looks good because it's very clean... no grain and no noise from
those still big pixels. The 56 MP sensor is 9288 pixels on the long
side which would give 232 pixels per inch. That's a lot closer to what
would be considered high quality for a large print. But I think that
sensor is just too expensive and probably not used here.
Why not send him a note and ask?
Chuck Norcutt
John Hudson wrote:
> See this photo
>
> http://www.novascotiaphotos.com/frmpage/00269.html
>
> Taken across water the camera is ~ 1.5 to / 2 kilometers from the buildings
> in the distance.
>
> The camera is digital, likely a DSLR.I have no information concerning the
> focal length of the lens or the brand of the camera.
>
> I have seen a framed print of this image. The exposed part of the print
> measures 40" x 25". When viewed at 12" the level of detail in the entire
> photo is simply amazing.
>
>>From the photographer's web site, the gross measurements of the print appear
> to be 48" x 22".
>
> Every single window frame, whether a whole window or part of a window, is
> clearly visible and discernable in the two storey sun lit building to the
> left of the light house. Each segment of the light dome of the lighthouse is
> clearly visible and discernable likewise.
>
> Can anyone with experience of making big digital prints give an opinion as
> to the possible megapixel size of the in-camera image from which this image
> could have been taken. Would the Olympus E3 be capable of producing this
> level of detail.
>
> Just curious.
>
> John Hudson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
> database 4651 (20091201) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|