Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Best guess for arrival of E-2/E-3

Subject: [OM] Re: Best guess for arrival of E-2/E-3
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:31:46 -0700
Chuck Norcutt wrote:

>I sure don't understand "prefers images to be at 400 dpi".
>
>I think you're pursuing an unnecessarily high standard.  One that may, 
>in fact, be beyond the ability of your eyes to see it.  3 line pairs/mm 
>is a fair standard for the eye's ability to resolve detail at a reading 
>distance of 10".  That's only about 150 dpi.
>  
>
I agree. Of course it depends on lots of factors, printer, paper, 
settings, print size, viewing distance, visual acuity of the viewer, 
etc. But I'll bet anything over 240ppi can't be seen as an improvement 
in resolution on the print without a loupe, and maybe not even then. I 
know I've done prints at 180 ppi that are very sharp at any viewing 
distance short of face mashed against print.

>Before spending large sums of money on a 16 MP full frame DSLR I would 
>encourage you to get some of your existing images printed at the same 
>size and crop but at 150, 200, 250 and 300 dpi and see if you can tell 
>the difference.  You might be very surprised.
>  
>
Whei this thread started, I was in the middle of a flurry of printing, 
with 5x7 paper loaded up. I took a quick look for a web size image with 
lots of different kinds of detail. I settled on the color version of 
this one <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/boat.htm>. Cropped the 
tiniest bit to fit the print area of my printer on 5x7 paper, it ended 
up as 120.881 dpi and I printed it. I put it in with a stack of prints 
made at over 400 dpi that I handed to visiting friends, one a fairly 
serious photographer and serious teacher of videography and film making. 
No one noticed, or at least commented on, any difference between it and 
the other prints.

Looking at it myself, at somewhere around 10-12 inches and further away, 
it is simply indistingushable from the other prints in sharpness. At 
about 8 in., 'ol eagle eye, my 20/10 right eye, can see some artifacts 
of upsizing, and closer in, it starts looking distinctly unsharp.

>BTW, you do not need TIFF images.  JPEG's will be just fine for printing 
>as long as you don't continually edit, save and reload the image.
>
People talk like JPEG is only one level of compression and data loss. 
JPEG is a definition for a continous range of compressions, from 
virtually no loss through huge losses of detail. As someone recently 
pointed out, it is unfortunately true that different apps use different 
designations for compression that are generally unrelated to each other. 
At what PS calls "10", I've never seen any visible difference from a 
TIFF or PSD. As Chuck says, a high quality/low compression/low loss JPEG 
loses nothing over a TIFF for printing. If you are going to do lots of 
editing, saving, reloading, etc. etc., you should work in lossless 
format until finished.

Moose


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz