Most of these kind of "hard and fast" rules depend a lot on what kind of
photo is reproduced. Most wedding and portrait photographers produce things
that are lo res on purpose.
Bill Pearce
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 4:44 PM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film
Moose may need 300 dpi at 3 feet but I think the rest of us could get by
with much less at that distance. According to the math here
<http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Int
roduction/visualacuity.htm>
it's about 95 dpi at 3 feet. The same math says about 285 dpi at 1 foot.
Chuck Norcutt
On 10/25/2010 4:01 PM, John Hudson wrote:
> If viewed at 30 feet 260 ppi would be overkill. If viewed at 6 feet or
> less 260ppi might be enough but likely not. Viewing distance matters.
>
> If the 100cm x 80cm image was intended for up close viewing, say three
> feet, more like 300 ppi might be advisable.
>
> Saying that he generated a 100cm x 80cm image means not much unless
> there is some indication of the level of detail that is evident from
> whatever viewing distance is chosen.
>
> jh
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Norton"<ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion"<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film
>
>
>> Which is a load of bogus crud. What happens when you scale the image
>> to the equivalent of, say, 260 ppi? Does the image turn to junk? Of
>> course not.
>>
>> AG
>>
>> On Monday, October 25, 2010, John Hudson<OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dawid Loubser"<dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion"<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 8:43 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a test, I have had made (some years ago) a ~ 100cm x 80cm high
>>>> quality print of this image (not otherwise great, but technically
>>>> at the limits of what was achievable in 2002 with a compact digital
>>>> camera):
>>>>
>>>> http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs10/i/2006/115/3/b/Progressive_by_philo
>>>> somatographer.jpg
>>>
>>> Interesting:
>>>
>>> What was the pixels per inch resolution of the file that was sent to
>>> the printer ?
>>>
>>> As I understand it 300 ppi is adequate for a high quality close up,
>>> say a viewing distance of 36" or less, but less than 300 ppi will
>>> suffice the further away one is from the print.
>>>
>>> jh
>>>
>>> --
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Ken Norton
>> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.zone-10.com
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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/
|