The 300 dpi/ppi figure may well be from the printing industry. It is the
rough equivelent of the old 130-150 line screen for halftones in the pre
digital era. Going much smaller for normal offset printing will produce
results like old newspapers. Those of us that regularly do work destined for
the porinting press have that figure well ingrained.
Bill Pearce
-----Original Message-----
From: Moose [mailto:olymoose@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:09 PM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film
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/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|