You don't need to make a super size print. Just an 8x10. But you don't
need to prove anything to me.
Chuck Norcutt
Jim Nichols wrote:
> OK, I give up. But I'm not buying a super printer just to prove a point.
>
> Jim Nichols
> Tullahoma, TN USA
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 2:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Higher Resolution Cleome Image
>
>
>> Your screen has a resolution of approximately 90 ppi.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> Jim Nichols wrote:
>>> Hi Chuck,
>>>
>>> There are a number of constraints when trying to display images on line.
>>> The camera delivers 240 pixels/inch, getting close to your target of 300,
>>> but, if when I tried to display a large image on the LUG gallery, I
>>> encountered the gallery-imposed limit of 10MB per image. I reduced the
>>> size
>>> to get below that, but left the resolution at 240. On my Epson R800
>>> printer, I can only go up to 8.5 x 11, so it is not worthwhile to try a
>>> print to prove anything.
>>>
>>> However, when I display this latest TIFF image to my full screen size, I
>>> can't discern a fall-off in definition in the area of the original image
>>> I
>>> displayed.
>>>
>>> Jim Nichols
>>> Tullahoma, TN USA
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 1:01 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Higher Resolution Cleome Image
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I was not disparaging Jim,
>>>> or the E-510 or the 35/3.5 macro. I was only talking about the apparent
>>>> depth of field... that what appeared sharp in the far background (the
>>>> furthest extent of the DOF) on a small screen image would not be so
>>>> sharp on an 8x10 print. The size of your image is only 1129 pixels
>>>> vertically. When printed 8x10 the resolution (without interpolation) is
>>>> only 141 pixels/inch. At normal reading distance typical human vision
>>>> (not counting Moose) requires 300 pixels per inch such that we don't
>>>> discern the pixels. This image can't be printed larger than 4x5 to
>>>> accomplish that. That doesn't mean you still can't make a good looking
>>>> 8x10 with interpolation but I believe the apparent depth and some of the
>>>> sharpness of the small image will be lost in the enlargement.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jim Nichols wrote:
>>>>> Chuck, et al,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the Cleome image would print well at 8x10 or larger. Here is
>>>>> a slightly larger crop, to show some of the OOF elements as well as
>>>>> the area in the original image. This was saved as a TIFF image,
>>>>> around 9MB, and should be viewed large by clicking on the box symbol
>>>>> at the top or bottom of the page.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Cleome_+Another+Crop.tif.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that you are selling the E-510/ZD 35/3.5 Macro capability
>>>>> short.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim Nichols Tullahoma, TN USA
>>>> --
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|