Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hope you don,t find this question to forward but anyway here goes How old are you and do you have good eyes? s > You should try it for yourself, even with a loupe the difference > between 300 dpi and 600 dpi is not great, I use 300. > Frank > > On Sunday, February 22, 2004, at 03:27 pm, animal wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> On Feb 22, 2004, at 1:49 AM, Frank Dernie wrote: > >>> Does one often need/fully exploit the potential of 35mm film on a > >>> Leica? I only exploited the full potential in the darkroom on my > >>> biggest prints, most of the time the resolution superiority was just > >>> wasted on a print of only 10x8". > >> > >> It is generally excepted that 360 ppi is a reasonable maximal printing > >> resolution, that is increasing printing resolution beyond this does > >> not > >> generally yield better prints. Assuming an 8x10" print, that is 10 > >> megapixels. Consequently, although 8x10s can look fine with 6 > >> megapixels, the optimal resolution for 8x10 is 10 megapixel (assuming > >> zero cropping). > >> > >> Thats for an unmanipulated image, if you are going to run USM etc. on > >> the image it is a good idea to start with a higher resolution -- to > >> minimize the introduction of digital processing/blocking artifacts. > >> That is why I scan at ~40 megapixels. > >> > >> The other issue is the difference between shape and distribution of > >> pixels vs. film grains. Rectangular pixels when enlarged are not > >> pleasing to the eye. Film grains have a more irregular shape and more > >> random spatial distribution and when visible are *much much* more > >> pleasing. That's why photoshop filters exist to *add* the appearance > >> of > >> film grain to digital images, and why it is often recommended to *add* > >> gaussian noise to a digital image ... this "randomness" (which is a > >> characteristic of film) reduces the appearance of digital "blocking" > >> artifacts. > >> > >> Enlarged film grain is very often not a terrible problem -- that is > >> why > >> folks like Tri-X and can accept 35mm enlargements of 16x20 or greater. > >> > >> On the other extreme, if you need to be convinced about the potential > >> benefits of higher resolution, look at a good 8x10 contact print (i.e. > >> from an 8x10 negative). As much as I like my Leica, these 8x10s have a > >> characteristic look that cannot be equaled in smaller formats. I can't > >> explain the neural physiology or physics behind it, but it just *looks > >> different*. > >> > >> Jonathan > >> > >> -- > > Well, i have read that good eyes can easily spot the difference upto > > 600 > > dpi.So my guess is that if people can get close to let,s say an > > architecturial photo they,ll spot the difference.Probably as long as > > the > > viewing angle is the same as it was with the camera it wont > > matter.simon > > jessurun > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html