Re: MP needed for 24x36 print? (a calculation)
- From: Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:28:53 +0000 (UTC)
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Scott W
<biphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>], who wrote in article <1135375690.695362.123840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> What I conclude from this is that if you are sure people will not get
> closer then 3 feet to the print then 8 MP can be enough, assuming a
> good sharp photo.
Nowadays, the resolution of a decent digicam is close to be as good or
better than resolution of the human eye. This means that if you are
at such a distance from the image that you can simultaneously see all
the image, you will not be able to see the "fuzzyness" of a perfectly
made image.
Thus a different metric should be used: I would call it the "dive
factor". Take the viewing distance L from which you can see all the
image simultaneously. Take the distance l from which the (normal) eye
starts to discern the fuzzyness (or noise, depending on how the image
is postprocessed: same narrowband S/N ratio can be implemented with
high signal and higher noise, or smaller signal and small noise).
The dive factor is L/l: how close you can "dive" into the image to
"enjoy a small area of the image" without visible artefacts.
Hope this helps, (and I hope I did not misunderstand what you wrote),
Ilya
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: MP needed for 24x36 print? (a calculation)
- From: Bart van der Wolf
- Re: MP needed for 24x36 print? (a calculation)
- Prev by Date: Re: IrfanView is not affected by the MS JPEG vulnerability.
- Next by Date: Re: Olympus E-20 problem
- Previous by thread: Receiving large photos via email
- Next by thread: Re: MP needed for 24x36 print? (a calculation)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
