It would be more helpful if those who enjoy this forum and are capable of converting the RAW data to a large print would tell us what they see when the print is properly displayed under "normal" conditions. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think if Michael and company want to encourage people to do this, they will have to give away an interesting image that they might otherwise sell. Although I've bought the Megabytes DVD disc, I have little interest in churning out multiple 24x36" prints of dolls, balls of wool and dollar bills.
My position is, what I see on my monitor can essentailly be replicated on print. I can estimate from the size of a crop on my monitor, what the print size of the full image would be, of which the crop is a sample, viewed from the same distance I view my monitor, if you get what I mean.
What you see when viewing a print hanging on a wall will depend on the characteristics of your eyesight (whether you're short-sighted or long-sighted) and the distance between you and the print. If you are viewing a large print from a fairly great distance, say the other side of a large room, then it would make little difference which of the cameras in the 'Measuring Megabytes' test was used.
However, in my view, there is no 'normal' distance for viewing a print on the wall, just as there's no normal distance for viewing a vase of flowers in your living room, or a tree in your garden.
In everyday life when we view any object from a closer distance, we expect to see more detail and greater texture. The closer we get, the greater the detail we expect to see till we reach the limits of our eyesight. The photograph is supposed to represent reality. Ideally, the photographic system should be capable of displaying detail as fine as 4-6 lp/mm on any size print we wish to make. Then the only people who might be disappointed would be those who insist on taking a magnifying glass to the print .