Year 2000: 2 Mpix Does it for Anthony

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

  1. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    Oh, this just gets better.

    Here's the trajectory of maniac's "optimal"
    number of pixels over time:

    1997: whatever a DCS-50 or DCS-120 digicam gets

    1999: 6 Mpix is the limit of human vision

    2000: 2 Mpix is "sufficient for many purposes," but
    8 Mpix ideal for 13x19" print on Epson

    2003: getting by with 80 Mpix scanning Hassy
    images on an LS-8000; EOS-1Ds
    markedly inferior to scanned film.


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

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

    From: "Anthony" <>
    Subject: Re: How many pixels for 11 x 13 prints?
    Date: 2000/01/03
    Message-ID: <m8Xb4.1254$>#1/1
    References: <#MHbQzXV$GA.150@cpmsnbbsa02>
    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:
    sv2-8sXenkiGc6JZ35/pBVRsFrzi2z1EMeU8D4KJ22t5gDyOJNEr6YeiIdLJbzyo8jwzuzqfz61aT1JxzUp!oeb1sfYlEce+
    Organization: None
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:15:46 CST
    Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital


    The optimum for an Epson 1200 would be 3120 by 2640 pixels, so 2
    megapixels would be only one quarter of the required resolution.
    However, this assumes a viewing distance of one foot or less, which
    would be unusual for an 11x13-inch print. In practice, 2 megapixels
    may be sufficient for many purposes.

    Kenneth H. Yoon <> wrote in message
    news:#MHbQzXV$GA.150@cpmsnbbsa02...
    > I thought that the max page size for a 2 megapixel print was 8 x 10. But

    I
    > hear people making prints with Epson 1200's.
    >
    > Do these 11 x 13 prints turn out well, or are they grainy, etc.
    >
    > Any comments would help.
    >
    >
     
    Rafe B., Jul 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rafe B.

    Lionel Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:05:32 GMT, in
    <>, Rafe B.
    <> said:

    >Oh, this just gets better.
    >
    >Here's the trajectory of maniac's "optimal"
    >number of pixels over time:
    >
    >1997: whatever a DCS-50 or DCS-120 digicam gets


    Yuck.

    >1999: 6 Mpix is the limit of human vision


    Well, within a reasonable margin of it at normal print sizes, certainly.

    >2000: 2 Mpix is "sufficient for many purposes," but
    > 8 Mpix ideal for 13x19" print on Epson


    Sounds reasonable.

    >2003: getting by with 80 Mpix scanning Hassy
    > images on an LS-8000; EOS-1Ds
    > markedly inferior to scanned film.


    *Snork!* - Maybe he's gone off his med's?

    >From: "Anthony" <>
    >The optimum for an Epson 1200 would be 3120 by 2640 pixels, so 2
    >megapixels would be only one quarter of the required resolution.
    >However, this assumes a viewing distance of one foot or less, which
    >would be unusual for an 11x13-inch print. In practice, 2 megapixels
    >may be sufficient for many purposes.


    Beautiful. Truly beautiful.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Jul 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rafe B.

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    I killfiled mxmania a couple years ago because he was nothing but a PITA
    troll. No w I find you trolling on the subject of mxmania - so I have to
    conclude you are the same sort of dead weight. Hail and farewell - don't
    write if you get work.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    "Rafe B." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Oh, this just gets better.
    >
    > Here's the trajectory of maniac's "optimal"
    > number of pixels over time:
    >
    > 1997: whatever a DCS-50 or DCS-120 digicam gets
    >
    > 1999: 6 Mpix is the limit of human vision
    >
    > 2000: 2 Mpix is "sufficient for many purposes," but
    > 8 Mpix ideal for 13x19" print on Epson
    >
    > 2003: getting by with 80 Mpix scanning Hassy
    > images on an LS-8000; EOS-1Ds
    > markedly inferior to scanned film.
    >
    >
    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    >
    > ----------------------
    >
    > From: "Anthony" <>
    > Subject: Re: How many pixels for 11 x 13 prints?
    > Date: 2000/01/03
    > Message-ID: <m8Xb4.1254$>#1/1
    > References: <#MHbQzXV$GA.150@cpmsnbbsa02>
    > 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:
    >

    sv2-8sXenkiGc6JZ35/pBVRsFrzi2z1EMeU8D4KJ22t5gDyOJNEr6YeiIdLJbzyo8jwzuzqfz61a
    T1JxzUp!oeb1sfYlEce+
    > Organization: None
    > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:15:46 CST
    > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    >
    >
    > The optimum for an Epson 1200 would be 3120 by 2640 pixels, so 2
    > megapixels would be only one quarter of the required resolution.
    > However, this assumes a viewing distance of one foot or less, which
    > would be unusual for an 11x13-inch print. In practice, 2 megapixels
    > may be sufficient for many purposes.
    >
    > Kenneth H. Yoon <> wrote in message
    > news:#MHbQzXV$GA.150@cpmsnbbsa02...
    > > I thought that the max page size for a 2 megapixel print was 8 x 10.

    But
    > I
    > > hear people making prints with Epson 1200's.
    > >
    > > Do these 11 x 13 prints turn out well, or are they grainy, etc.
    > >
    > > Any comments would help.
    > >
    > >

    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Jul 17, 2003
    #3
  4. Rafe B.

    Annika1980 Guest

    >From: "Tony Spadaro"

    >I killfiled mxmania a couple years ago because he was nothing but a PITA
    >troll. No w I find you trolling on the subject of mxmania - so I have to
    >conclude you are the same sort of dead weight. Hail and farewell - don't
    >write if you get work.


    According to you, everyone is a troll and 98% of all posters have been
    killfiled by you. Of course, your contributions to the Newsgroups consist
    mainly of your killfile announcements.

    Personally, I'd rather read on-topic posts by trolls than another one of your
    stupid killfile declarations. Why do you feel it is necessary to announce every
    addition to your killfile?
    Oops, I forgot .... I'm killfiled!
    Nevermind.
     
    Annika1980, Jul 18, 2003
    #4
  5. Rafe B.

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Slipped out again. No matter three clicks and you are gone.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    "Katie Piecrust" <NoSpam!> wrote in message
    news:...
    > :)
    >
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > >From: "Tony Spadaro"
    > >I killfiled mxmania a couple years ago because he was nothing but a PITA
    > >troll. No w I find you trolling on the subject of mxmania - so I have to
    > >conclude you are the same sort of dead weight. Hail and farewell - don't
    > >write if you get work.

    >
    > According to you, everyone is a troll and 98% of all posters have been
    > killfiled by you. Of course, your contributions to the Newsgroups consist
    > mainly of your killfile announcements.
    >
    > Personally, I'd rather read on-topic posts by trolls than another one of
    > your
    > stupid killfile declarations. Why do you feel it is necessary to announce
    > every
    > addition to your killfile?
    > Oops, I forgot .... I'm killfiled!
    > Nevermind.
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Jul 18, 2003
    #5
  6. Rafe B.

    Annika1980 Guest

    >From: "Tony Spadaro"

    >Why do you feel it is necessary to announce
    >> every
    >> addition to your killfile?
    >> Oops, I forgot .... I'm killfiled!
    >> Nevermind.


    > Slipped out again. No matter three clicks and you are gone.
    >


    The prosecution rests.
     
    Annika1980, Jul 18, 2003
    #6
  7. Rafe B.

    Annika1980 Guest

    >From: "Tony Spadaro"

    >> Oops, I forgot .... I'm killfiled!


    >Slipped out again. No matter three clicks and you are gone.
    >


    How does one "slip out" of a killfile?
    You know, Spadorko, you're more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.
     
    Annika1980, Jul 18, 2003
    #7
  8. Rafe B.

    George Kerby Guest

    On 7/18/03 4:52 PM, in article ,
    "Annika1980" <> wrote:

    >> From: "Tony Spadaro"

    >
    >>> Oops, I forgot .... I'm killfiled!

    >
    >> Slipped out again. No matter three clicks and you are gone.
    >>

    >
    > How does one "slip out" of a killfile?
    > You know, Spadorko, you're more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Hey I know that is an old expression but with this Salmonella thing going
    around...

    I mean we use Pepperidge Farm around here.

    ;-)


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Jul 19, 2003
    #8
  9. Rafe B.

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Ahh little copycat - you think you shall follow me about pretending to be
    me and thereby gain some respect from your fellow humans. It won't happen -
    there are no other humans around here who leave a slime trail the way you
    do. I really don't need the publicity for my website, it's getting a lot of
    visits now. I thank you for the attempt to help me, but, lets face it, no
    one on the planet has ever wanted to be associated with you, and that is
    never going to change. You might as well swallow your pistol - and stop
    swallowing other guys guns cause you will be a loser until you die. FLUSSSH!

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:bfa9e0$nel$...
    > George, you are yet another bottom posting scum sucking dushbag
    > and therefor I will be adding you to all that other jerks in my
    > kill file. There you can bottom post until you die and I won't
    > have to be bothered about it or you again! Bite me!
    >
    > --
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    >
    >
    >
    > "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    > news:BB3DEB75.FA74%...
    > > On 7/18/03 4:52 PM, in article

    ,
    > > "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >> From: "Tony Spadaro"
    > > >
    > > >>> Oops, I forgot .... I'm killfiled!
    > > >
    > > >> Slipped out again. No matter three clicks and you are gone.
    > > >>
    > > >
    > > > How does one "slip out" of a killfile?
    > > > You know, Spadorko, you're more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > > Hey I know that is an old expression but with this Salmonella thing

    going
    > > around...
    > >
    > > I mean we use Pepperidge Farm around here.
    > >
    > > ;-)
    > >
    > >
    > > ______________________________________________________________________
    > > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 -

    http://www.uncensored-news.com
    > > <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source

    <><><><><><><><>
    > >

    >
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Jul 19, 2003
    #9
    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. Rafe B.

    6 Mpix Does it For Maniac

    Rafe B., Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    1,344
    Mxsmanic
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. Allan Mayer

    Re: 6 Mpix Does it For Maniac

    Allan Mayer, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    403
    John Navas
    Jul 24, 2003
  3. Alan Browne

    Re: New Minolta Digital "A2" 8 Mpix.

    Alan Browne, Feb 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,050
    Alan Browne
    Feb 10, 2004
  4. Woody
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    365
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,514
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page