I forgot to say that I'd be interested in the answer too if you ask him.
Chuck Norcutt
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> 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/
|