Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Practical Resolution discussion

  1. #21
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    4,242

    Re: Practical Resolution discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by hornstenj View Post
    I hope this doesnít take things off topic (OP and Lamda) but for checking your printer with big dig this link gets you started to sample downloads. You donít have to buy the camera to try the files in your process.
    https://digitaltransitions.com/anoth...hase-one-raws/

    they can only be used using C1, which is available as trial download also.
    Yep, I use P1/C1 and H/Phocus with Epson and Roland printers

    Now out of topic
    Thank you, I do have images to work with and I just got Capture One and am learning this software program.

  2. #22
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    4,242

    Re: Practical Resolution discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    With all the good optical references to accutance we should add that our vision is moderated by our brain (The eye is not a camera) and note cases where we see 'sharpness' (accutance) where it hardly exists. An example is our rendering of single hairs, threads of spider webs, and so-forth. Our middle brain makes sense of such structures even though our eyes cannot. Lens optics succeed in similar rendering because we have grown to expect it: the designers work to make it so.
    Yes we fill in the blanks when needed , good point.

  3. #23
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    4,242

    Re: Practical Resolution discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    This may be a controversial opinion... but I'd say that as a bare minimum to make a really nice 16x20 on the current generation Canon print head from a digital sensor, you really need to originate on a Nikon D8xx or Canon 5Dsr or the Sony equivalent (and at as low an ISO as you can) - and that a 22x28" up to 30x40" (without interpolation etc) might be a sweet spot for the 100mp sensor - the Fuji GFX50, Hasselblad etc falling somewhere in the middle. Or maybe I'm just sensitive to the look of files from certain digital sensors when run at under 300ppi - I do think that far too many photographers delude themselves as to how big they can (or should) print from high resolution sensors without stitching (which, of course, has multiple disadvantages), relying instead on middle-aged eyesight to cover up the flaws...

    I think the real thresholds are going to be more into the 2-300mp category - and that may well need a bigger sensor than the current 645 one.
    I think you are right as far as optimum is concerned, how long before we see the 1 gig capture device, I believe its coming , we saw the slow burn from 3mp - 5mp- 12mp- 30mp ......... I would guess it will be under 5 years.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,088

    Re: Practical Resolution discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    and that a 22x28" up to 30x40" (without interpolation etc) might be a sweet spot for the 100mp sensor
    I agree with that, the 53.7 ◊ 40.4 mm IQ3 sensor is an improvement compared to a recent Full Format sensor, this is true, but it allows to enlarge less than a x1.5 more (with same on print IQ) than a D850, so if we consider 20" for a Nikon D850 then for the IQ3 we should consider 30".

    Available lenses for MF cameras are not resolving more than Nikon/Canon primes, then the factor is 53.7/36, this is less than x1.5


    Sony has announced the production of a 150 Mpix in 55x41mm (Sony IMX411 sensor), for MF cameras, but I'd say that only with an aerial lens of the S-Topar A2 kind we would see an improvement beyond 80Mpix... specially in the corners.


    ...but we also should consider the software factor: Adaptive Sharpening: "Adaptive Image Processing Algorithms for Printing" (Amazon)

    This is the kind of technology that allows to make big prints from digital sensors !!!!!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PS2.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	48.9 KB 
ID:	180342

  5. #25
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    11,370

    Re: Practical Resolution discussion

    Ho hum. I'm so glad that I know Bigfoot, just in case someday I need his help carrying my 8x10 film camera. That way, neither of us needs to know math or
    even know how to read. So much simpler. I should send him to Toronto to give a workshop; but I don't know if TSA will allow him to board a plane given
    current pet restrictions. He ate a couple of flight attendants last time.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    Posts
    1,521

    Re: Practical Resolution discussion

    When I was a young whipper snapper I always scaled my input files to be 1.4 times the native resolution of the output device. That seemed to me to be common knowledge. Didn’t your teachers tell you the same thing?

    Seems that formula would “scale up” with the times. Or is it out of date?

  7. #27
    Randy Moe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    9,368

    Re: Practical Resolution discussion

    Bill I donít know your age. Iím 67. 21 years ago I started the digital nightmare with a $400 http://www.nikonweb.com/coolpix100/
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    . It was amazing. It was fun. Looked like a cell phone and no phone had a camera for years. I could point it at anybody. They never flinched. I have files somewhere and they were good enough to print small. 0.3 mp!

    The Epson was not that spectacular either.

    Are we really going anywhere?

    So now we split pixels endlessly.

    No point to my post except do what like or do what makes you money. I prefer the former.

    OP runs a biz. Good for him. I mean that Bob. Iím tired. I enjoy doing less.





    When I was a young whipper snapper I always scaled my input files to be 1.4 times the native resolution of the output device. That seemed to me to be common knowledge. Didnít your teachers tell you the same thing?

    Seems that formula would ďscale upĒ with the times. Or is it out of date?

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,088

    Re: Practical Resolution discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    When I was a young whipper snapper I always scaled my input files to be 1.4 times the native resolution of the output device. That seemed to me to be common knowledge. Didnít your teachers tell you the same thing?

    Seems that formula would ďscale upĒ with the times. Or is it out of date?

    IMHO the Pro way is to send a file with the native printer resolution. If you send an image pixel for each print pixel you have absolute control, you tune how the pixels are in Photoshop and (in theory) the printer makes an exact print of that, regarding sharpness.


    ... but it happens than resizing algorithms in the printer drivers are very, very good, and in some cases better than the skills of the people that are editing the images.


    My view is that digital sharppening is critical in the digital workflow, and that automated algorithms may have an advantage in some situations. Anyway sharppening has a creative side, by far we don't use same settings to sharpen the eyes than the cheek in a portrait. We can suffer major injuries if we overshot in some cheeks


    I think that a principal issue is to separate what is pixel level sharpenning (for "example bicubic, ideal for reductions", in the Image Size dlg of Ps) from creative sharpenning, and from optimal sharpening radius depending on viewing distance.

    Anyway, IMHO, an smart sharpenning is critical for big prints.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    Posts
    1,521

    Re: Practical Resolution discussion

    Oh, not the "native resolution", the size of the halftone dot.

    I don't know how you can figure out the size of a halftone dot on a stochastic screen, but you know even though a device has thousands of lines per inch of native resolution, that's only if the color you want is one of the ink cartridge colors. A printer has got to lay down a repeating pattern of spots to create a spot of arbitrary color.

    You want to have 1.4 times "that" native resolution - the resolution of the halftone.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,088

    Re: Practical Resolution discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    Oh, not the "native resolution", the size of the halftone dot.

    I don't know how you can figure out the size of a halftone dot on a stochastic screen, but you know even though a device has thousands of lines per inch of native resolution, that's only if the color you want is one of the ink cartridge colors. A printer has got to lay down a repeating pattern of spots to create a spot of arbitrary color.

    You want to have 1.4 times "that" native resolution - the resolution of the halftone.
    Bill, sorry, I was speaking in lightjet/lambda continous tone terms, 400 ppi of a lambda equal to an apparent resolution of 4000 dpi or more.

Similar Threads

  1. How Lower Resolution Lens Works on Large High Resolution Wet Plate Negative
    By Mustafa Umut Sarac in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16-Jan-2014, 15:04
  2. Why 2 1/4 format is more practical for me.
    By tom thomas in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 19-Nov-2008, 11:00
  3. Practical Uses for a 545?
    By Frank Petronio in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 5-Nov-2008, 11:15
  4. How is use of f128 possible/practical?
    By Robert McClure in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 3-Oct-2006, 17:46
  5. Practical diffraction
    By Jim Rice in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 27-Sep-2006, 12:38

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •