How big can you enlarge with mfdb?

[Ray]

Did I ever tell you how impressed I was with the 2mp resolution of my 65" plasma TV?

From a distance of 2.5 metres, a 2mp resolution is all that's required.

From an artistic perspective, the obsession with razor sharp resolution from close-up (like reading distance) in a large print, is a load of codswallop.

Would you read a book at a distance of 2 inches from the page?  Why would you want to look at a 30"x40" print from a distance of 10"?

[ErikKaffehr]

Ray,

Nice to see you again on these forums...

I usually project my images, also at full HD which is about 2 MPixels. But I also use some zooming effects.

On A2 prints I can see difference between 12 MP and 24 MP, sometimes, depends on subject.

Best regards
Erik

Did I ever tell you how impressed I was with the 2mp resolution of my 65" plasma TV?

From a distance of 2.5 metres, a 2mp resolution is all that's required.

From an artistic perspective, the obsession with razor sharp resolution from close-up (like reading distance) in a large print, is a load of codswallop.

Would you read a book at a distance of 2 inches from the page?  Why would you want to look at a 30"x40" print from a distance of 10"?

[JeffKohn]

Photographers tend to pixel peep, walk close up to a picture and look at fine detail, no one else does.

I disagree. I've seen non-photographers "pixel peep" large prints time and time again; more often than not, in fact. If the picture is of interest to them, and there's lots of detail there, they'll step closer to see just how much.

I suppose it depends on the type of photography - most people probably have no desire to count nose-hairs in a portrait.  For for landscapes, you can never have too much detail.

[Ray]

I disagree. I've seen non-photographers "pixel peep" large prints time and time again; more often than not, in fact. If the picture is of interest to them, and there's lots of detail there, they'll step closer to see just how much.

I suppose it depends on the type of photography - most people probably have no desire to count nose-hairs in a portrait.  For for landscapes, you can never have too much detail.

One of the reasons I often preferred RSP to ACR (before Adobe wiped them out - bought them out) was the painterly effect one could always get with RSP in place of the over-sharpened effect that ACR tends to produce when trying to emulate RSP.

If photographers wish to call themselves artists, they should try to transcend preoccupatioin with miniscule detail.

[Ray]

Ray,

Nice to see you again on these forums...

I usually project my images, also at full HD which is about 2 MPixels. But I also use some zooming effects.

On A2 prints I can see difference between 12 MP and 24 MP, sometimes, depends on subject.

Best regards
Erik

Nice to be missed. But I have to ask, at what distance can you see the difference between 12mp and 24mp? At 2.5 metres I have trouble distinguishing between 2mp and 12mp interpolated to 100mp in the form of a 23"x33" print.

[JeffKohn]

One of the reasons I often preferred RSP to ACR (before Adobe wiped them out - bought them out) was the painterly effect one could always get with RSP in place of the over-sharpened effect that ACR tends to produce when trying to emulate RSP.

ACR doesn't produce over-sharpened results unless you ask for it (with sharpening settings).

If photographers wish to call themselves artists, they should try to transcend preoccupatioin with miniscule detail.

Umm, I think the "photos have to emulate paintings to be taken seriously as art" movement died out about 100 years ago...

[ErikKaffehr]

Ray,

I made 3-4 experiments. In all cases there was a significant difference in the quality of the file. In one case I could not tell the images apart. In the two other cases I could learn the difference and see them apart at about one meter. Tonality may play a role, it is hard to get tonality exactly same between different prints from different shots.

I have some writing on the issue:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...xels-do-we-need

Best regards
Erik

Nice to be missed. But I have to ask, at what distance can you see the difference between 12mp and 24mp? At 2.5 metres I have trouble distinguishing between 2mp and 12mp interpolated to 100mp in the form of a 23"x33" print.

[bjanes]

All pixels are not created equal and much is depending on post processing.

There is quite a bit of difference between a 2 um P&S pixel and a 6-8 um pixel from a professional quality dSLR or MFDB. Noise, dynamic range and pixel uniformity are much better with the larger pixel camera. Some users claim a mystical and almost magical quality of a MFDB image, but I am not convinced that the MFDB merely offers more pixels over what one can get with a good dSLR. MFDBs don't have blur filters and the image may appear sharper, but aliasing can degrade the image. The effects of a blur filter can be counter acted by proper sharpening and a deconvolution algorithm can also help.
 

Jeff Schewe used to say that you need 180 PPI for a good print. With the P65+ the maximum print size would be 37*49" at 180 PPI,
but you could probably print larger. Also, according to Jeff uprezzing with 200% is possible.
Erik

180 may yield a good print, but if you want a print that will knock your socks off, you need more resolution for most images, especially landscapes and architectural shots.

Regards,

Bill

[Ray]

ACR doesn't produce over-sharpened results unless you ask for it (with sharpening settings).

Well of course! What I meant was, if one interpolates an image in order to print large one needs to apply more sharpening and greater contrast. How that sharpening appears from a close distance may be of concern in the event one accidentally sees the print from close up. I usually preferred the result I got from RSP in such circumstances.

Umm, I think the "photos have to emulate paintings to be taken seriously as art" movement died out about 100 years ago...

As I understand, there was often a greater tendency for paintings to emulate photos even before the camera, with its chemical film, was invented. Renaisance painters often achieved photographic results with the aid of projected images on the canvas using lenses and mirrors. The marvelous detail and attention to correct perspective one sees in many of these Renaisance paintings was not entirely due to the unaided skill of hand and eye.

As I see it, a picture is a picture, whether of the painting or photographic variety, and similar rules of composition apply to both. You could argue that the movement of photos emulating paintings went out of fashion about 100 years ago, but I would argue that the movement of paintings tring to compete with the fine detail that the camera was able to produce so much more easily, went out of fashion and Impressionism was born.