Re: Where are the BEST Point and Shoot Photos ?

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:58:17 -0800 (PST), acl <achilleaslazarides@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:53 pm, Chris Malcolm <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
acl <achilleaslazari...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
<http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...>
Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
the above statement.

I was rather startled to discover some years ago that I couldn't see
any failures in sharpness or detail on A4 prints from my 3MP digital
camera when viewed at a distance of two feet. I hadn't expected them
to be as good as that. I could easily see the failures of detail
etc. at six inches, however. Extrapolating from that result I would
expect 6MP to be good enough for A3 prints at two foot viewing
distance, and 12MP for A2. The "A" paper sizes go up in size
increments of the square root of 2, so every doubling of image pixels
should get you up one A4 size. Like apertures and shutter speeds.

In a week or two I will have discovered what 10MP can look like at A2
on a wall at two feet :-)


Well I certainly don't disagree that, if you look from far enough, 3mp
is enough for A4. I, however, certainly don't look at my A4 prints
from 60cm. And I do like as much detail as possible in my prints (but
then again, I am clearly a lousy photographer trying to justify my
equipment).


You're finally starting to figure it out. I know you thought you were being
cutely and cleverly sarcastic, but you're not. Failing on both counts, neither
cute nor clever. You're looking at the details so much because your photography
as a whole isn't worth your attention, probably nobody else's attention either.
That's the main reason, often the only reason, that most people are as hung up
on the details as you are. You sit there thinking, "If ONLY I had more
resolution, more clarity, more pixels, THEN someone will be able to see my
photography for how great it is! And then so will I!"

If you can't find the quality that you need in the subject and composition then
no amount of pixels in the universe will ever save you.

"All art is knowing when to stop." - Toni Morrison

It would be interesting to test the "least needed" limit as to what others might
find as admirable photography. Can it be done with just 2 pixels of the right
hues? Just one? I daresay I might need at least 180x120 to pull it off. I'm not
that confident. Then again, some icons I've designed in the past with dimensions
of less than 20 pixels per side were fairly attractive.

Resolution means nothing without it being able to convey something of
interminable value.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More on 720 vs 1080, plasma
    ... From the chart on viewing ... The sizes in the second chart seem very large to me, but if you want a home ... Most charts give you the distance where a normal eye can resolve the ... distance is to increase the distance somewhat so that the pixels blend ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Size TV I should get?
    ... Depending on if the type of screen is a direct view with sharp pixels ... "Viewing Distances based on Visual Acuity". ... I recomend a minimum viewing distance (or panel size) based ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Print resolution (was: Where are the BEST Point and Shoot Photos?)
    ... viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156 ... PPI for excellent results, ... CRT high frequency response limits the contrast between adjacent pixels ... Measure your distance from the screen at this point. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: MMX speedup for Floyd Steinberg error diffusion
    ... The edges are handled by ignoring all pixels which do not have the ... neighbours, the simplest way I found was to keep my x and y loops ... Well Initially the code used the standard distance matching algorithm ... the wrong palate colour (not the nearest according to the ...
    (comp.lang.asm.x86)
  • Re: Where are the BEST Point and Shoot Photos ?
    ... viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156 ... camera when viewed at a distance of two feet. ... I could easily see the failures of detail ...
    (rec.photo.digital)