M8 gossip

Nicely argued Philipp. I never thought of the "same lens on different bodies" difference. But it is true, albeit with a 1.33x diffference it is just a matter of getting used to it I feel.
 
Calculations based on 300ppp assume that 6 lp/mm is the higher resolution of the unaided human eye at optimum distance (25cm or a bit more), at best (the average value for adult people is 3-4 lp/mm). Higher resolutions on prints have details that cannot be seen.
 
greggebhardt said:
10mp will be more than enough and it does not have to be full frame either. The has been argued so many times. 35mm is NOT the Gold Standard and IS a "compromise".

Every thing is a compromise!
Click to expand...

10mp will give 60-70 pine pairs per inch or 2.3-2.7 per mm as an upper limit on a 12x18 print I’m sure that will be adequate to produce quite a good image.
 
Nemo said:
Calculations based on 300ppp assume that 6 lp/mm is the higher resolution of the unaided human eye at optimum distance (25cm or a bit more), at best (the average value for adult people is 3-4 lp/mm). Higher resolutions on prints have details that cannot be seen.
Click to expand...


Yes but in reality I can see a single blond human hair on a black sofa at 3 metres, and if I can see it I want to be able to photograph it!
 
Yes but in reality I can see a single blond human hair on a black sofa at 3 metres,
Click to expand...
That's because it is a single hair. If it was hairs laid out next to each other at six hairs per millimeter (commonly called "carpet"), you wouldn't be able to tell them apart anymore.

This is one of the problems with this definition of resolution (another is that, as with lenses, resolving power varies with contrast).

Philipp
 
Sparrow said:
Yes but in reality I can see a single blond human hair on a black sofa at 3 metres, and if I can see it I want to be able to photograph it!
Click to expand...

Well, I cannot, but unfortunately my wife can, and at 10 metres as well......
 
rxmd said:
That's because it is a single hair. If it was hairs laid out next to each other at six hairs per millimeter (commonly called "carpet"), you wouldn't be able to tell them apart anymore.

This is one of the problems with this definition of resolution (another is that, as with lenses, resolving power varies with contrast).

Philipp
Click to expand...
I understand that but that hair is less than the one minute of arc that is the theoretic limit of the eye, therefore applying that as an upper limit on a print is equally spurious.

6 threads per mm is a shirting, 11 is a silk tie, well beyond the 1.2 of a carpet
 
Last edited:
Nemo said:
Calculations based on 300ppp assume that 6 lp/mm is the higher resolution of the unaided human eye at optimum distance (25cm or a bit more), at best (the average value for adult people is 3-4 lp/mm). Higher resolutions on prints have details that cannot be seen.
Click to expand...

How often do you view A3 prints at 25 cm? 75 is more near the mark. That would reduce the resolution to 1-2 lp/mm.
 
jaapv said:
How often do you view A3 prints at 25 cm? 75 is more near the mark. That would reduce the resolution to 1-2 lp/mm.
Click to expand...

I can’t believe that would be enough, my clothing has more threads per mm than that
 
jaapv said:
How often do you view A3 prints at 25 cm? 75 is more near the mark. That would reduce the resolution to 1-2 lp/mm.
Click to expand...

That is right.

However, we tend to look big prints closer after a first general inspection, looking for details or for interesting parts in a composition.

jaapv said:
Well, I cannot, but unfortunately my wife can, and at 10 metres as well...
Click to expand...

...wives are dangerous, even at 10 meters of distance...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom