[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Image Size and M43

Subject: Re: [OM] Image Size and M43
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:59:05 -0700
On 3/27/2014 7:40 AM, Bob Benson wrote:
> Noticed some discussion on the list about image size,  sensor size, and
> related issues.  Such as,  can an acceptable print be produced larger than
> 8x10 with an M4/3 camera based sensor.  As I recall, the answer seemed to be
> no.

HUH? This list??. I can't recall or imagine any such idea here in at least 
several years, if ever.

> Perhaps you'd be interested in another perspective.
> It depends, of course, on the expected use of the print, e.g., something
> destined for a billboard probably isn't printed at 300 DPI.  And, of course,
> physical capabilities of the print device have something to do with it.
> Consider this example.
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/121557118@N03/
> These five images show 16 canvas-printed images, selected by the client and
> shown here as they are hanging in a commercial space.  Thirteen are 2'x3'
> images;  image 2 and 4 show 3'x5' images.

You don't need an excuse to show more of your successful efforts to show the 
beauty of Kansas. :-)

> Most have some cropping.  In particular, the three 3' x 5' images are
> significantly cropped, perhaps to 1/3 of original image size.
> Of the 16 images,  9 are from an E3,  1 is from an E620, and 6 are from an
> M5.
> I have to admit I was hesitant about producing several of them.  What
> surprised me is that they all work well in the spaces in which they're
> displayed.  The client is pleased and has received very positive responses
> from their clients.  (As an aside, these images are in spaces with large oil
> and watercolors;  many viewers think these images are paintings;  the client
> says they compete extremely well.)
> What's my point?    Image size and quality really depends on the expected
> use and the kind of things being pictured.

I guess I don't quite see the point, or the position against which you are 
arguing. I have the same sample Ctein print 
that Bill mentions, taken with an E-PL1. It is essentially flawless; nose to 
paper or with a magnifying glass, the only 
limitations seem to be the resolution of the printer. It could clearly be 
printed larger for longer viewing distances, 
on canvas, etc. with excellent results.

The sensor in the E-M5 is better than that both in pixel count and pixel level 

> Something destined for display
> as an art object (which is what this client wanted) has considerably
> different requirements than something destined, for example, for a print
> medium or magazine.  And things like technical or architectural images, for
> example, have significantly different requirements.    My own experience
> suggests that M43 has been very practical (for me) for large-image art
> displays,  with prints in the 30x40 and (in the example here) at least 3' x
> 5', where the image is viewed from distances of several feet to more.

Canvas, as here, obscures fine detail anyway, so requires less from the image 
than other surfaces.

> Would other platforms/sensors be "better" for this use?  Certainly a 4x5 or
> Hasselblad or big Mamiya would produce something with different
> characteristics.  And perhaps "better."  But when I hear conversations about
> sensor size and expressed imperatives that "bigger is better" I wonder two
> things:  the first is whether as a universal truth this is true (experience
> suggests otherwise), and second --- if this is indeed true,  why stop at FF?
> Surely a 2x2 or 4x5 sensor would be even better.
> Anyway, food for thought.  (As another aside, as another exhibition
> demonstrated, the limiting factor on image quality is at least based on
> glass quality, focus,

Seems to me you've left out ISO. While the E-PL1 and other early Pens are 
capable of exceptional quality at base ISO, 
that deteriorates pretty rapidly as the ISO goes up. The E-M5, M1 (I suppose 
M10) and the later Pens are considerably 
improved, and the Panny GM1 and GX7 even a little better as the ISO goes up.

>   and lack of camera movement; the latter two have been challenging for me.)

I hope you are setting Anti-Shock on your M5 to 1/8 second. Otherwise, you'll 
get apparent motion blurring at moderate 
shutter speeds. IBIS on the M5 is awfully good, too.

How Big Moose

What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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