On 10/25/2010 2:31 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> 300 dpi is generally considered what's required in order to not see dots at
> typical reading distance (about 10-12 inches or 25-30cm).
Where do you suppose that came from? It just doesn't match my experience, and
that of others I've read on the web.
Sometimes rules arise at one stage of development of a technology, then persist
even after the reason(s) for their
existence no longer apply.
> That works for everybody but Moose who has Superman vision.
Yeah, but even with 20/8-10 acuity in the eagle eye, I don't agree.
I have a print made with the Epson 1270 of a shot of one of my granddaughters
taken with the 1.9 MP Canon S110. It's
slightly cropped, so the effective input is about 150 ppi. It's a terrific
looking print. Closer than about 10" or so,
eagle eye can start to see unsharpness and artifacts. Beyond a foot or so, it
has a 'sense' of sharpness and clarity
that is excellent.
My photobook has pages about 8.25x10.75". The native resolution of images to be
uploaded to fill a page is 1200x1600.
Again, input ppi of about 150. At about 15=18", I can see that there is a
texture in low detail areas like sky. By 8-
10", I can see the pattern of the dots. But as with the print above, get out
to normal viewing distance of a couple of
feet, and there is a sense of great clarity and sharpness.
I guess the point for me is that I simply don't notice dots in these images.
the only time I've noticed the dot pattern
in the book is when the issue has come up here, and I've gone looking for them.
Not a single person who has gone through
my book has ever said anything about this. IF I get right down to approaching
nose distance, yup, I can see where the
limit of apparent resolution is the color dots.
I can also see where the DOF that was great at normal, even at semi-close,
viewing distance, doesn't hold up. But that's
exactly what DOF calculations predict! So what? I didn't make the image to be
looked at that way. I want people to enjoy
the whole image,what it may say to them, how it makes them feel - and you can't
see the whole image from that close.
Hmmm, maybe that's a good criterion. Can you see the flaws from the distance at
which you can comfortably view the whole
image at once?
D P I Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|