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/
|