My point is: In the absence of a comparative image, how likely is it that
human eye is going to differentiate between an image that is blown up to the
equivalient of 260 ppi vs 300 ppi? Frankly, extremely unlikely.
It is far more likely that we run up against optical limits of the imaging
system (lens, sensor, diffraction, etc., than resolution loss due to scaling
of the final output.
Between 150 ppi and 300 ppi there is a huge difference and 150 ppi is
usually pretty identifiyiable, not in pixelization, but the fact that you're
just enlarging things too much--specifically the optical traits of the lens.
Yet, people who THINK they can look at a quality-done print and say "well,
this is fine, but I can tell it's only giving me 260 ppi resolution" are
smoking dope. I'm pretty anal-retentive about some things and my close
vision is actually quite excellent. When presented with an image without a
comparative, there is no way I can determine what the pre-scaled display
resolution is. I can tell if it's fuzzy, but I can't determine pixel-sharp
at 300 ppi. That's just moronic. Frankly, I have a hard time seeing loss of
resolution in an image printed to the equivalent source-image resolution of
200 ppi.
Besides, the type of paper and the method of framing will change everything.
The point of this, is if the scaling is done correctly, you can blow an
image up quite a bit without any visible artifacts that would clue you in on
the fact it was scaled.
But I suppose if you want a print of a field of grass where you can make out
each and every blade right down to the limits of human vision, then fine i
agree with anybody that claims that 300 ppi must be maintained. But then
comes the reality that the optical system and human technique is barely up
to task.
Printing at 300 ppi is different than sourcing at 300 ppi. By the time an
image is processed, if you REALLY want true 300 ppi equivalent resolution,
then you need to shoot with twice the resolution in-camera and downsize the
image 50%. If we want per-pixel resolution, then you have to defeat the
bayer array and the only way to do that is with downsizing.
The camera makers really love this. They are selling cameras by the
boatloads to us photographers that think we have to have 18mp to print
anything larger than a postage-stamp.
Meanwhile, there are those of us still making a decent income from 5mp
cameras. Granted, I'm not making bedspread-sized prints, but I'm not getting
much income from that market anyway, nor would I being here in flyover
country where pictures of cornfields at 300 ppi don't exactly fly off the
walls of the galleries. Besides, that market is already pretty saturated.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|