canonetc
canonetc
I'm curious as to what is the biggest enlargement anyone's been able to acheive using the RD-1, with picture perfect quality and no pixelation or digital ICE... size matters here, I think.. 
Chris
canonetc
Chris
canonetc
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I would say fairly large using a program like Genuine Fractals, maybe 16 x24 inches or better. I would think it is no different from the Nikon D70 (same sensor?) and people have claimed great results with the D70. Check it out http://www.imaging-resource.com/SOFT/GF/GF.HTM . Be interesting to see if this is so.
Bob
Bob
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
There's no such thing as a digital image with "no pixelation." The image is composed of pixels -- the only question is whether or not they're big enough for the eye to see on a print.
At normal reading distances, a longtime rule of thumb is that the eye won't be able to distinguish between a pixel image and a continuous-tone image as long as the pixel image has a density of 300 pixels per inch or higher. This is based on the resolution limits of the human eye. Going by this rule of thumb, the limits of the R-D 1's (roughly) 2000x3000-pixel image would be 7-point-something x 10 inches.
In fact, though, people often accept images with lower pixel densities as continuous-tone, either because the output device blurs the pixel boundaries (inkjet printers do this) or because they view the photo at greater than reading distance.
Last summer I used my Nikon D100 to shoot a photo that later was used on a billboard, meaning it was enlarged to a height of 14 feet. Nobody complained about pixelation at all -- but then, the closest viewer was hundreds of feet away!
Closer to earth (literally) a studio photo I shot last month with my R-D 1 was blown up into a 20x30-inch advertising poster with no problems at all, thanks to the fact that wall posters seldom are viewed from any closer than two or three feet away.
What this comes down to is that 'picture perfect' is in the eye of the beholder! It's not the camera, but the viewing conditions that make the difference.
At normal reading distances, a longtime rule of thumb is that the eye won't be able to distinguish between a pixel image and a continuous-tone image as long as the pixel image has a density of 300 pixels per inch or higher. This is based on the resolution limits of the human eye. Going by this rule of thumb, the limits of the R-D 1's (roughly) 2000x3000-pixel image would be 7-point-something x 10 inches.
In fact, though, people often accept images with lower pixel densities as continuous-tone, either because the output device blurs the pixel boundaries (inkjet printers do this) or because they view the photo at greater than reading distance.
Last summer I used my Nikon D100 to shoot a photo that later was used on a billboard, meaning it was enlarged to a height of 14 feet. Nobody complained about pixelation at all -- but then, the closest viewer was hundreds of feet away!
Closer to earth (literally) a studio photo I shot last month with my R-D 1 was blown up into a 20x30-inch advertising poster with no problems at all, thanks to the fact that wall posters seldom are viewed from any closer than two or three feet away.
What this comes down to is that 'picture perfect' is in the eye of the beholder! It's not the camera, but the viewing conditions that make the difference.
pfogle
Well-known
I'm pretty satisfied with prints on matt paper up to about 16in without upresing, maybe 20 with. They're fine on the wall, but I still don't really feel I've cracked the technical problems of getting them sharp on close inspection. I'm sure it can be done...
What isn't often talked about, is that there's quite a learning curve to migrating from film to digital, if you're going to get the best from the medium. So expecting gobsmacking 24in prints straight off is probably unrealistic.
just my 2c
cheers
Phil
What isn't often talked about, is that there's quite a learning curve to migrating from film to digital, if you're going to get the best from the medium. So expecting gobsmacking 24in prints straight off is probably unrealistic.
just my 2c
cheers
Phil