6 Mpix Does it For Maniac

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rafe B., Jul 17, 2003.

  1. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    Found it. The post I was looking for. Note the startling
    conclusion, in the final paragraph. Makes you wonder
    what mxsmaniac is doing with those 80 million pixels
    he gets from scanning 6x6 on his LS-8000.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com

    ---------------------

    From: "Anthony" <>
    Subject: Re: Human retina: # of pixels?
    Date: 1999/09/10
    Message-ID: <ZH1C3.24821$>#1/1
    References: <7r9jhh$>
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
    X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
    properly
    X-Complaints-To:
    X-Trace:
    sv1-7NjjgWqnMpsvYnrrir6GO0JDdOfnEcrDUGihucv+VAKMER2QDbm7OzbyvJzmIIgN7MwhOdPV0T5T9Oj!cGAsM+c=
    Organization: None
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 01:38:49 CDT
    Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital


    Sandy Santra <> wrote in message
    news:7r9jhh$...

    > But what is the pixel count of the human retina? It's not
    > infinite, right, because there's a finite # of rods and cones.


    Correct. There are about six or seven million "pixels" in the human
    retina, for color and detail vision.

    There is a slight problem, though, in the fact that human beings can
    only see one tiny area of their visual fields in focus at any given
    instant. We don't notice this because our eyes move constantly,
    bringing this tiny area to focus on thousands of different points
    every few seconds. To us, it seems like everything is in focus
    simultaneously. However, if you hold your gaze at one spot on your
    computer screen, you'll notice that you can't read the rest of the
    screen without moving your gaze.

    It would be better, then, to calculate the "human pixel count" in
    terms of the number of pixels required to produce an image that
    matches the resolving power of the central zone of maximal acuity in
    human vision as it is scannedover an image of reasonable size. The
    resolving power of a human eye with perfect vision (no refractive
    errors or anything like that) is about 30 seconds of arc (1/60 the
    diameter of the full moon), under good conditions.

    If we assume that a person is looking at, say, an image that is 20
    inches wide at a distance of two feet, then we need about 5729x3819
    pixels in the image to match human resolving power. That's an image
    of 22 million pixels.

    In practice, we rarely achieve the theoretical resolving power cited
    above, so an image of only 7 million pixels or so will look razor
    sharp to us most of the time. No matter what other claims are made,
    this is pretty much sufficient for any image intended for viewing by
    human beings.

    -- Anthony
    Rafe B., Jul 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rafe B.

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Rafe B. writes:

    > Makes you wonder what mxsmaniac is doing with
    > those 80 million pixels he gets from scanning
    > 6x6 on his LS-8000.


    They allow greater enlargement, closer viewing distances, and aggressive
    cropping without obtrusive grain.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rafe B.

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:57:13
    GMT, Rafe B. <> wrote:

    >Found it. The post I was looking for. Note the startling
    >conclusion, in the final paragraph. Makes you wonder
    >what mxsmaniac is doing with those 80 million pixels
    >he gets from scanning 6x6 on his LS-8000.


    Not really. I long since realized that he's just trolling for effect. He
    must have a great deal of free time.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Jul 17, 2003
    #3
  4. Rafe B.

    Lionel Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:57:13 GMT, in
    <>, Rafe B.
    <> said:

    >Found it. The post I was looking for. Note the startling
    >conclusion, in the final paragraph. Makes you wonder
    >what mxsmaniac is doing with those 80 million pixels
    >he gets from scanning 6x6 on his LS-8000.


    Shoving them where the sun doesn't shine, I expect.

    [...]
    >In practice, we rarely achieve the theoretical resolving power cited
    >above, so an image of only 7 million pixels or so will look razor
    >sharp to us most of the time. No matter what other claims are made,
    >this is pretty much sufficient for any image intended for viewing by
    >human beings.


    ROTFL! Rafe, this is truly beautiful. Thank you very much for digging it
    up. I'll be sure to wave it in his face every time he wanks on about the
    'poor resolution' of digital images.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Jul 17, 2003
    #4
  5. Rafe B.

    Pat Chaney Guest

    On 17/7/03 6:57 am, "Rafe B." <> wrote:

    > Found it. The post I was looking for. Note the startling
    > conclusion, in the final paragraph. Makes you wonder
    > what mxsmaniac is doing with those 80 million pixels
    > he gets from scanning 6x6 on his LS-8000.


    Digging up a variety of posts dating back to 1999 is not consistent with
    having a strong argument in 2003.


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
    Pat Chaney, Jul 18, 2003
    #5
  6. > From: "Anthony" <>
    >
    > It would be better, then, to calculate the "human pixel count" in
    > terms of the number of pixels required to produce an image that
    > matches the resolving power of the central zone of maximal acuity in
    > human vision as it is scannedover an image of reasonable size. The
    > resolving power of a human eye with perfect vision (no refractive
    > errors or anything like that) is about 30 seconds of arc (1/60 the
    > diameter of the full moon), under good conditions.
    >
    > If we assume that a person is looking at, say, an image that is 20
    > inches wide at a distance of two feet, then we need about 5729x3819
    > pixels in the image to match human resolving power. That's an image
    > of 22 million pixels.
    >
    > In practice, we rarely achieve the theoretical resolving power cited
    > above, so an image of only 7 million pixels or so will look razor
    > sharp to us most of the time. No matter what other claims are made,
    > this is pretty much sufficient for any image intended for viewing by
    > human beings.


    There are two problems with the above. 1) it assumed one
    pixel per resolution element, when in fact it is two.
    2) the statement about rarely achieving the resolving power is
    untrue. Normal eyes, 20/20 vision and reasonable lighting
    (like office or outdoor, or well-lit photo) the limit is
    achieved. Thus with the factor of 2 in pixels per
    dimension, it would be 4x, or 88 million pixels.

    This is also one specific case, and a very limited one viewing
    only 45 degrees long dimension. To simulate
    real life (what the eye sees), one wants to achieve a print
    that simulates "being there." Such a print must subtend a large
    angle. People viewing my 30x40-inch prints on my walls usually
    approach and view from a distance of about 18 inches. Thus
    the print subtends about 80 x 96 degrees. At these angles,
    and assuming 0.45 arc-seconds resolution, one needs
    12768 x 15360 = 196 million pixels, very close to what a 4x5
    drum scanned Fujichrome Velvia image gives.

    And the above image really is not good enough, because somehow
    the eye perceives edges in lines much better than the resolution
    specification, thus some lines will still look less than crisp
    (depends on image content). Simple proof of this is illustrated by
    text by a laser printer: try examining print and graphics on
    300, 600 and 1200 dpi laser printers. Most people see the
    difference between 300 and 600 dpi printed text, and many too
    can tell the difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers.

    Thus the true "image is like being there" requires even larger
    format, just as those who work in 8x10 and larger format
    film cameras will attest to.

    Roger Clark
    Photography (35mm film, digital SLR, 4x5 film), image detail and
    digital info at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger N. Clark, Jul 18, 2003
    #6
  7. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:04:44 +0100, Pat Chaney <> wrote:

    >On 17/7/03 6:57 am, "Rafe B." <> wrote:
    >
    >> Found it. The post I was looking for. Note the startling
    >> conclusion, in the final paragraph. Makes you wonder
    >> what mxsmaniac is doing with those 80 million pixels
    >> he gets from scanning 6x6 on his LS-8000.

    >
    >Digging up a variety of posts dating back to 1999 is not consistent with
    >having a strong argument in 2003.



    Since I was the one digging, I presume you're talking about
    me in that last sentence.

    I am confident in my own argument(s) but not at all convinced
    that they are worth presenting to mxsmaniac.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Jul 18, 2003
    #7
  8. "Roger N. Clark" <> writes:

    >There are two problems with the above. 1) it assumed one
    >pixel per resolution element, when in fact it is two.


    No, it seems to me that he got that part correct. The eye has a
    resolutio limit of about 60 cycles per degree, or one cycle per
    arcminute. As you note, one cycle requires (at least) two pixels.
    But the maniac used a angular extent of 30 arc seconds, 1/2 an
    arcminute, in his calculations. That *is* the correct size for one
    pixel, and the resolution of 5729x3819 that he calculates is a
    reasonable value.

    Of course, that resolution is almost 22 megapixels. He doesn't explain
    how he gets from 22 to 7 megapixels.

    I agree with your other comments though.

    >At these angles,
    >and assuming 0.45 arc-seconds resolution, one needs
    >12768 x 15360 = 196 million pixels, very close to what a 4x5
    >drum scanned Fujichrome Velvia image gives.


    I assume you mean 0.45 arc *minutes* per pixel. 0.45 arc seconds is
    considerably beyond the resolution capability of my best telescope, let
    alone the naked eye.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Jul 18, 2003
    #8
  9. Rafe B.

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Dave Martindale writes:

    > Of course, that resolution is almost 22 megapixels.
    > He doesn't explain how he gets from 22 to 7 megapixels.


    It's mainly a result of practical viewing conditions. You really need
    ideal viewing conditions to reach the 22 megapixels; try it and see. So
    it's true that you'd need 22 megapixels to _guarantee_ that you reach
    the resolution limit of the eye under all conditions, but in real life,
    you hardly ever need that. Typically linear resolution will be only
    about half that, at best, and since pixel count varies with the square
    of linear resolution, that means that a more practical number is about
    six megapixels.

    This is why six megapixels is a "sweet spot" of sorts. For ordinary
    prints viewed at standard distances, six megapixels provides about all
    the detail you can actually see in the vast majority of viewing
    situations. Improvements beyond that can be hard to perceive, whereas
    improvements below that limit were easy to distinguish.

    Beyond 6 megapixels, additional increments improve the visual experience
    only under exceptional conditions. Beyond 22 megapixels, the additional
    pixels are a waste unless you are viewing an image at less than the
    standard distance, or unless you are cropping the image (in which case
    you need enough pixels to have at least 22 Mp in the final image).

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 18, 2003
    #9
  10. Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Roger N. Clark writes:
    >
    > > There are two problems with the above. 1) it assumed one
    > > pixel per resolution element, when in fact it is two.

    >
    > No, it's one in this case. 1 pixel = 1 cone cell in the retina. At
    > standard viewing distances, you'll need 18 megapixels or so to provide
    > one pixel per cone if the image is scanned by the eye (which it normally
    > is). But that's for ideal conditions and perfect vision. In normal
    > real-world situations, six megapixels is a good figure to aim for (if
    > you can get more, so much the better, but beyond 22 Mp or so, it won't
    > matter).


    No, you are wrong. There is extensive research on this. Some is
    analyzed in my book "Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky." Look at
    Figure 2.6 on the page:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/visastro/omva1

    The curve for resolution of the eye is the "critical visual angle"
    curve which bottoms out at 0.7 arc-minute. This level is
    achievable if you have 20/20 vision or correct to 20/20
    (note: some people do better than 20/20). The eye effectively
    needs a minimum of two resolution elements to resolve something.
    It may be achieved by scanning the eye, but nevertheleess it
    achieves it. The 30 arc-seconds is actually wrong, and I should have
    corrected that too (that is why I used 0.75 arc-minuite in my
    example). With 0.7 arc-minute resolution, one needs 44 megapixels
    in the original example. But as I also noted, resolution is one
    thing, and edge sharpness is another and the eye does much better,
    thus you need MANY MORE pixels to show that edge as sharp as the
    eye would see it in real life.

    > > 2) the statement about rarely achieving the resolving
    > > power is untrue. Normal eyes, 20/20 vision and reasonable
    > > lighting (like office or outdoor, or well-lit photo)
    > > the limit is achieved.

    >
    > No, the limit is pretty difficult to reach.


    Not if you correct to 20/20 vision. The light levels neded to
    reach it are found in normal indoor good lighting conditions.

    >
    >
    > > Thus with the factor of 2 in pixels per
    > > dimension, it would be 4x, or 88 million pixels.

    >
    > For an 8x12-inch print held at a standard distance (14.4 inches), you
    > need 5720x3818 pixels, _maximum_, which is 22 megapixels (by a happy
    > coincidence, this is the equivalent of 35mm film scanned at 4000 dpi).
    > But viewing conditions that really allow this to be achieved are very
    > rare, and so are photos that merit it, so half the linear resolution (6
    > Mp or so) is fine.


    Then you imply that a 20-inch print from 35mm (with a sharp lens)
    is indistinguishable from medium or large format. This is very
    incorrect, which I am sure you know being a medium format user.

    > Thus, six megapixels is a good figure. A digital camera that can
    > deliver a true six megapixels should be good enough for a majority of
    > photo applications. All film cameras can deliver this (except
    > diposables and very high-speed films).


    While this may be correct, it is not the resolution limit of the
    eye, nor even close if you actually compared prints side by side
    from 6-megapixel DSLR, 35mm film SLR, medium and large format.
    The larger format will produce consistently sharper prints,
    especially at 11x14 or larger.

    > > At these angles, and assuming 0.45 arc-seconds resolution,
    > > one needs 12768 x 15360 = 196 million pixels, very close
    > > to what a 4x5 drum scanned Fujichrome Velvia image gives.

    >
    > Granted. And if I could shoot everything on Provia or Velvia with 8x10
    > sheet film, I would. I'd love to have pixels to burn. Sometimes I do,
    > with film, but even with MF you run out if you get ambitious.
    >
    > > And the above image really is not good enough, because
    > > somehow the eye perceives edges in lines much better
    > > than the resolution specification ...

    >
    > The human visual system does integration over time as it scans an image,
    > which can increase resolving power in some situations.
    >
    > > Most people see the difference between 300 and 600
    > > dpi printed text, and many too can tell the difference
    > > between 600 and 1200 dpi printers.

    >
    > The former is distinguishable with 20/20 vision, the latter is not,
    > although one can see it under magnification. The situation changes for
    > halftones, which require far higher dot densities.
    >
    > > Thus the true "image is like being there" requires even
    > > larger format, just as those who work in 8x10 and larger
    > > format film cameras will attest to.

    >
    > I agree with them. I just can't afford to emulate them. But there are
    > a lot of photos I've taken that I'd love to have in 8x10, scanned at
    > 16000 dpi.
    >
    > It's possible to have enough pixels for a given purpose, but you can
    > never have too many!
    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Roger N. Clark, Jul 18, 2003
    #10
  11. Dave Martindale wrote:

    > "Roger N. Clark" <> writes:
    >
    > >There are two problems with the above. 1) it assumed one
    > >pixel per resolution element, when in fact it is two.

    >
    > No, it seems to me that he got that part correct. The eye has a
    > resolutio limit of about 60 cycles per degree, or one cycle per
    > arcminute. As you note, one cycle requires (at least) two pixels.
    > But the maniac used a angular extent of 30 arc seconds, 1/2 an
    > arcminute, in his calculations. That *is* the correct size for one
    > pixel, and the resolution of 5729x3819 that he calculates is a
    > reasonable value.


    Repeating my post to: Mxsmanic
    No. There is extensive research on this. Some is
    analyzed in my book "Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky." Look at
    Figure 2.6 on the page:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/visastro/omva1

    The curve for resolution of the eye is the "critical visual angle"
    curve which bottoms out at 0.7 arc-minute. This level is
    achievable if you have 20/20 vision or correct to 20/20
    (note: some people do better than 20/20). The eye effectively
    needs a minimum of two resolution elements to resolve something.
    It may be achieved by scanning the eye, but nevertheleess it
    achieves it. The 30 arc-seconds is off, and I should have
    corrected that too (that is why I used 0.75 arc-minuite in my
    example). With 0.7 arc-minute resolution, one needs 44 megapixels
    in the original example. But as I also noted, resolution is one
    thing, and edge sharpness is another and the eye does much better,
    thus you need many more pixels to show that edge as sharp.

    >
    > Of course, that resolution is almost 22 megapixels. He doesn't explain
    > how he gets from 22 to 7 megapixels.
    >
    > I agree with your other comments though.
    >
    > >At these angles,
    > >and assuming 0.45 arc-seconds resolution, one needs
    > >12768 x 15360 = 196 million pixels, very close to what a 4x5
    > >drum scanned Fujichrome Velvia image gives.


    >
    > I assume you mean 0.45 arc *minutes* per pixel. 0.45 arc seconds is
    > considerably beyond the resolution capability of my best telescope, let
    > alone the naked eye.


    Oops, that was 0.75 arc-minutes. The calculation used 0.75 arc-minute,
    I just typed it wrong.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark, Jul 18, 2003
    #11
  12. Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Dave Martindale writes:
    >
    > > Of course, that resolution is almost 22 megapixels.
    > > He doesn't explain how he gets from 22 to 7 megapixels.

    >
    > It's mainly a result of practical viewing conditions. You really need
    > ideal viewing conditions to reach the 22 megapixels; try it and see. So
    > it's true that you'd need 22 megapixels to _guarantee_ that you reach
    > the resolution limit of the eye under all conditions, but in real life,
    > you hardly ever need that. Typically linear resolution will be only
    > about half that, at best, and since pixel count varies with the square
    > of linear resolution, that means that a more practical number is about
    > six megapixels.
    >
    > This is why six megapixels is a "sweet spot" of sorts. For ordinary
    > prints viewed at standard distances, six megapixels provides about all
    > the detail you can actually see in the vast majority of viewing
    > situations. Improvements beyond that can be hard to perceive, whereas
    > improvements below that limit were easy to distinguish.
    >
    > Beyond 6 megapixels, additional increments improve the visual experience
    > only under exceptional conditions. Beyond 22 megapixels, the additional
    > pixels are a waste unless you are viewing an image at less than the
    > standard distance, or unless you are cropping the image (in which case
    > you need enough pixels to have at least 22 Mp in the final image).


    This may be a good rule for 8x10 inch prints, but is totally
    off base for larger prints, getting further off base as the
    print size gets larger, assuming you want tack sharp prints.
    I challenge anyone to make a 30x40 inch print from a 6-megapixel
    camera that even comes close to the detail in a 30x40 inch print
    from a drum scanned (650 megabyte file) Fujichrome Velvia 4x5
    inch image. And this does not mean that a 30x40 inch print that
    has impact can't be made from a 6-megapixel digital.

    Statements like the above apply to only a very restricted case
    and do not in any way represent the complete parameter space
    of common real situations in photography and image diaplay.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark, Jul 18, 2003
    #12
  13. "Roger N. Clark" <> writes:

    >No. There is extensive research on this. Some is
    >analyzed in my book "Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky." Look at
    >Figure 2.6 on the page:
    >http://www.clarkvision.com/visastro/omva1


    >The curve for resolution of the eye is the "critical visual angle"
    >curve which bottoms out at 0.7 arc-minute. This level is
    >achievable if you have 20/20 vision or correct to 20/20
    >(note: some people do better than 20/20). The eye effectively
    >needs a minimum of two resolution elements to resolve something.
    >It may be achieved by scanning the eye, but nevertheleess it
    >achieves it. The 30 arc-seconds is off, and I should have
    >corrected that too (that is why I used 0.75 arc-minuite in my
    >example). With 0.7 arc-minute resolution, one needs 44 megapixels
    >in the original example. But as I also noted, resolution is one
    >thing, and edge sharpness is another and the eye does much better,
    >thus you need many more pixels to show that edge as sharp.


    The 0.7 arc-minute figure seems to relate to the eye's ability to see a
    small object on a large background. From the graphs and text, it seems
    that an object smaller than this is seen as a point, while a larger
    object appears to have area. Is that correct?

    The 60 cycles/degree figure I used is a measurement of the highest
    frequency periodic test pattern (sine wave or alternating black/white
    bars) that can be seen by the eye.

    Neither of these matches the actual content of the usual photograph, but
    it isn't obvious to me that the spot-on-background data is more relevant
    than the periodic-pattern data. Also, you clearly need at least two
    resolution elements to resolve one cycle in the periodic pattern, but it
    seems to me that the 0.7 arc minute critical angle for a single point on
    a background suggests that one pixel (not two) needs to be kept below
    0.7 arc minute.

    Anyway, there's always some room to argue. As you point out, some
    people have better than 20/20 vision, particularly when corrected.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Jul 18, 2003
    #13
  14. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:30:31 -0600, "Roger N. Clark"
    <> wrote:

    >"Rafe B." wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:04:44 +0100, Pat Chaney <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On 17/7/03 6:57 am, "Rafe B." <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Found it. The post I was looking for. Note the startling
    >> >> conclusion, in the final paragraph. Makes you wonder
    >> >> what mxsmaniac is doing with those 80 million pixels
    >> >> he gets from scanning 6x6 on his LS-8000.
    >> >
    >> >Digging up a variety of posts dating back to 1999 is not consistent with
    >> >having a strong argument in 2003.

    >>
    >> Since I was the one digging, I presume you're talking about
    >> me in that last sentence.
    >>
    >> I am confident in my own argument(s) but not at all convinced
    >> that they are worth presenting to mxsmaniac.

    >
    >Rafe:
    >Your post was really trolling. But a few of us jump in
    >because we try to keep information correct.


    Trolling? Whatever. I've been "dealing" with Anthony
    on USENET and elsewhere for years. The purpose of
    this series of posts was to show that Anthony is wildly
    inconsistent in his arguments. In short, he is equally
    comfortable arguing that black is white, or that white is
    black. Point is, few posters are more consistently wrong,
    or more sure of their correctness as they deliver mis-
    information.

    Plus, there's something about Anthony's unquenchable,
    unshakeable ego that's intensely irritating.

    >The philosophical ideas constantly being presented in this
    >group often (depending on the religious camp) say digital
    >is better than or equal to film versus no it's not.
    >People forget that there is not one answer here. Depending
    >on the target requires vastly different resolution. So
    >ridiculing someone for needing 88 megapixels just shows
    >bias and ignorance.


    I understand. While I argue (lately) in favor of digital capture,
    I am well aware that there are two sides to this story -- but
    mxsmaniac only acknowledges one side.

    In case you missed it, I do a lot more work with scanned
    film than I do with digital capture -- at least for now. But
    I expect that to change over the next few years.


    >If you have ever seen a big print from large format, and tried
    >to do something similar from 35mm film or DSLR, you would
    >quickly realize you can't get the detail. Go to a poster store
    >and look at some 24x36-inch posters (of photographic scenes)
    >(if you don't have a nearby gallery of large format prints).
    >I bet you can pick out the large format posters, as they will be
    >much sharper than the others. And they need on the order of
    >200 megapixels to achieve that sharpness.


    LF hasn't really entered this discussion. Even Anthony
    can only get 80 Mpixels or so scanning 6x6 on his CoolScan.
    Me, I'm stuck with 55 Mpixels (645 film), but I'm not selling posters.

    Still, my point is that dicams get a lot more mileage than
    scanned film from a given pixel count. I can't give you
    the magic ratio, but my gut says it's around 2x or more --
    maybe even as much as 4x more. Obviously it depends
    on lenses in both cases, and for the scanned film case, the film.


    >The right tool for the right application: no current photographic
    >tool can do it all for every application, and it is unlikely
    >to ever occur in our lifetimes.



    Who could disagree? I don't mean to be a digital-capture
    evangelist, although I certainly do believe it is the wave of
    the future. I don't have personal experience with an EOS-
    1Ds, but I certainly have looked at some captures from that
    camera and been impressd.

    I get enough pixels from my 645 scans to make some really
    good sized huge prints. Let's see... 8500 pixels at, say, 360
    dpi still gives a print 26 inches on the long axis.

    But I don't see why a print is necessary -- viewing the image
    in Photoshop at 100% or 200% tells the story.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Jul 19, 2003
    #14
  15. Rafe B.

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Roger N. Clark writes:

    > I bet you can pick out the large format posters,
    > as they will be much sharper than the others.


    If you can find any! Posters made from MF originals are very rare, and
    posters made from LF originals are almost nonexistent. When they do
    exist, they may be extremely expensive.

    Most people don't realize how fuzzy the average poster is, because
    they've never seen really sharp posters.

    Also, if the viewing distance is kept proportionately constant, the
    extra resolution is not needed. But if the enlargement is wall-sized,
    chances are that people will be viewing it at less than the standard
    distance.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 19, 2003
    #15
  16. Rafe B.

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Roger N. Clark writes:

    > I challenge anyone to make a 30x40 inch print from
    > a 6-megapixel camera that even comes close to the detail
    > in a 30x40 inch print from a drum scanned (650 megabyte
    > file) Fujichrome Velvia 4x5 inch image.


    If you are viewing it from a standard distance of 60 inches away, it
    won't matter.

    > Statements like the above apply to only a very
    > restricted case and do not in any way represent
    > the complete parameter space of common real situations
    > in photography and image diaplay.


    In the real world, I think that most people don't see more than a
    handful of 30x40-inch prints in their entire lifetimes.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 19, 2003
    #16
  17. Rafe B.

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Rafe B. writes:

    > Plus, there's something about Anthony's unquenchable,
    > unshakeable ego that's intensely irritating.


    A single sentence that reveals much.

    But is it really ego that irritates you, or is it something else?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 19, 2003
    #17
  18. Rafe B.

    Lionel Guest

    On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 01:55:09 +0200, in
    <>, Mxsmanic
    <> said:

    >At a stadard distance, and from a resolution standpoint, that is quite
    >true. It's even true for digital originals, if the DSLR had enough
    >pixels.
    >
    >There are other factors that might give things away, but resolution is
    >not usually among them.
    >
    >Despite this, I'd certainly prefer LF over MF, and MF over 35mm, and
    >35mm over digital, all else being equal.


    This is, of course, an emotional bias on your part.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Jul 19, 2003
    #18
  19. Rafe B.

    Lionel Guest

    On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:33:18 +0200, in
    <>, Mxsmanic
    <> said:

    >Rafe B. writes:
    >
    >> Plus, there's something about Anthony's unquenchable,
    >> unshakeable ego that's intensely irritating.

    >
    >A single sentence that reveals much.


    About you, certainly. In England & Australia, we use the word 'wanker'
    to describe people like you, who pretend to be authoritative about
    things they know little about, & who refuse to back off when they get
    something wrong.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Jul 19, 2003
    #19
  20. Rafe B.

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Lionel writes:

    > In England & Australia, we use the word 'wanker'
    > to describe people like you, who pretend to be
    > authoritative about things they know little about,
    > & who refuse to back off when they get something wrong.


    More forced teaming, I see ("we" in place of "I").

    As a matter of fact, I do know quite a bit about quite a few subjects.
    I don't have to pretend.

    And I admit when I'm wrong, but I take care not to say things that may
    turn out to be wrong in the first place. Usually, when people say I'm
    "wrong," they are actually attacking their incorrect assumptions about
    what they think I said, instead of actually examining what I really did
    say.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 19, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frisbee®

    OT: Monday Maniac

    Frisbee®, Nov 28, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,297
  2. Rafe B.

    Year 2000: 2 Mpix Does it for Anthony

    Rafe B., Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    383
    Tony Spadaro
    Jul 19, 2003
  3. Allan Mayer

    Re: 6 Mpix Does it For Maniac

    Allan Mayer, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    354
    John Navas
    Jul 24, 2003
  4. Woody
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    320
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    672
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page