Actually, we need even more resolution.

[Manoli]

Only in that the 36x24mm format would require an f-stop of about f/2 or lower to control diffraction, while the 54x40mm could control diffraction equally at about f/3 and lower --- with each having the same pathetically shallow DOF when diffraction is equally controlled. So about 420 million of those pixels would be OOF and so wasted as far as resolution goes.

This thread is veering towards the [/tongue-in-cheek] mode: OFF.
But before we officially revert to customary LuLa dialogue ...

I'll settle for the 400 million f/2 pathetically OOF  .. sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts

[jerome_m]

Others have used bigger cameras ..., contact prints are much better than enlargements

(tongue in cheek mode is still on)

But this is a small camera!



This is a big camera: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Picture

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess that the question may be a bit academic. It is quite obvious that very small pixels are needed for optimal image quality, but fortunately enough we are limited by our vision, which is dominated with low frequency detail. Clearly, the eye can resolve fine detail with large contrast, but the contrast sensitivity of the eye is highest at low frequencies.

It is well explained in this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBKDjLeNlsQ 

Now, the above presentation is about motion film, which is presented on large screen, with well controlled viewing distance. Still it makes two things pretty clear:

- Human vision is dominated by low frequencies (10-20 lp/mm in motion industry)
- Higher resolutions are helpful to suppress aliasing artefacts

The motion industry wanted lenses that reach something like 90% MTF at 10-20 lp/mm, without sharpening. That is one reason why movie lenses are that big and expensive.

Now, photography is not motion, at least not yet. We can view large prints close. But I would still be pretty sure that low frequency detail dominates perception and the main benefit of high resolution is to reduce fake detail.

Best regards
Erik

[jerome_m]

I guess that the question may be a bit academic.

Not at all. The printers exist.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes, I know those printers exist. I am also among them who feel higher resolution is a good thing.

But, I know that we are using a physical device called human eye to look at prints, and I know that device has it's limitations.

It has been said that Anders Gursky shoots with 50 MP MFD, and I got the impression that his prints are OK. Are they OK? Would they be better with 400 MPix? Could you see the difference? I would guess that the folks doing the prints for him have a pretty good resizing and sharpening work flow.

But, yes, I do feel that something like 3 microns would be ideal for large sensors and a perhaps 2 microns for small sensors as there may be little reason to go below mean diffusion length for photons in silicon. And yes, that would limit optimum aperture to f/4 to f/5.6, but images would still get smoother and have less aliasing at smaller apertures.

Check this: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html

The part which I feel Ctein misses is sharpening. I would say sharpening is a bit of faking image quality, but it works. Let's put it this way, I would clearly suppose that a well sharpened image at say 180 lp/mm is probably superior to an unsharpened image at 360 or 720 PPI. It would not work if you look at the image trough a loupe, because you would see edge contras but no detail. Again, if you have extraordinary vision, your mileage may vary.

Best regards
Erik

Not at all. The printers exist.

[jerome_m]

It has been said that Anders Gursky shoots with 50 MP MFD, and I got the impression that his prints are OK.

Most of Andreas Gursky's work was shot on large format cameras and extensively manipulated digitally, including assembling several pictures, removing or adding elements, etc... In a sense, his works are stitched landscapes on steroids. The files sent to the printers certainly have more than the equivalent of 50 Mpixels.

[BernardLanguillier]

The object of this thread is to discuss 60" x 80" prints (150cm x 200cm) on fine art inkjets. The printers exist, they are readily available and cost less than the average MF camera (e.g. Canon imagePROGRAF iPF9400 or Epson Stylus Pro 11880). How are we going to feed them with adequate data? There is no adequate camera on the market today.

OK: we can stitch. That is cumbersome: how many individual pictures do we need from a lowly camera like an IQ280 to feed the printer?

As eronald noted, this post is satyre, but is based on truth. The printers exist. I believe that people like Andreas Gursky use them to great success. Actually, "Rhein II" is 190 cm × 360 cm (73" x 143") and is a chromogenic print (Lambda print), so it needs even more data. And there is a body of water right in the middle, which makes it extra difficult to stitch.

I have never seen Rhein II in person, but from the small versions I have seen on the web, I don't think it would be a particularly challenging stitch.

My opinion remains that the only thing impressive about it is the price at which it was sold.

Cheers,
Bernare

[JV]

My opinion remains that the only thing impressive about it is the price at which it was sold.

It still seems to top the list...:
http://shutyouraperture.com/the-top-5-most-expensive-photographs-ever-sold/

[Jim Kasson]

Only in that the 36x24mm format would require an f-stop of about f/2 or lower to control diffraction, while the 54x40mm could control diffraction equally at about f/3 and lower --- with each having the same pathetically shallow DOF when diffraction is equally controlled.

In my simulations, for a 24x36mm sensor, 2.4 um spacing offers substantial resolution advantages over 2.8 um with a simulated Otus 55 even at (actually, especially at) f/5.6. There's not a lot of benefit in going to 2 um at that f/stop, but there is a bit.

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5905

With a diffraction-limited lens at f/2.8, even 2 um is not at the point of diminishing returns.

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5887

Jim

[BJL]

But before we officially revert to customary LuLa dialogue ...

I'll settle for the 400 million f/2 pathetically OOF  .. sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts

Your image is only 0.4MP.  If a 430MP version were available, and printed large enough and viewed close enough as the OP envisions, the DOF would be vastly less: the perceived OOF effects and thus DOF (which parts of the image are detectably OOF vs which are not) depends on the apparent size of the image (size divided by viewing distance), not just features of the "file" itself.  (P. S. DOF scales on lenses are an anachronistic, misleading abomination.)

To put it another way, the pixel size for 430MP in 54x40mm format is about 2.3 microns, so the circle of confusion size to use in a DOF calculator would be about that, not the more traditional 30 or 40 microns, which was based on 7"x5" prints from 36x24mm format negatives viewed from 10" away.

[Chris Barrett]

I've been thinking a LOT about all of this lately, especially since I've just started making prints of my work again and thinking about exhibition.  Yesterday I was at the Museum of Contemporary Photography here in Chicago and there were a couple of 40x50 prints from Richard Mosse.  The images were shot on 8x10 Infrared Color Neg and they were exquisite.

I've also seen Sugimoto's big prints up close and they are beautiful too.  What I love about the experience of them is that I'm drawn in close to them so that the image fills my periphery. The size creates half of the experience.

So, I've been looking at how big you can go on inkjet (one of the beauties of it being that you can print on long rolls).  It also happens that I love shooting panoramic.  After thinking about how big my IQ250 could go (even with stitching) I've started shooting film again.  My drum scanner will do 4k dpi and the image fidelity of color neg is damn similar to the MFDBs.

Long story longer:  I just bought a 4x10 field camera and a set of wide glass with 8x10 coverage.  All just so I can print ridiculously large.  Will I ever actually print that big?  Will my images even warrant the investment?  Will they be better that big?  Who the hell knows, but I'm gonna have fun finding out!

Now, I just wish 8x10 Portriga wasn't $14 a sheet!

CB

[BernardLanguillier]

Chris,

I have 2m (80 inch) large prints made from stitches shot from D3x and Zeiss 100mm f2.0 where you can clearly distingish all the features of people that are 2-3 mm tall.

Those are 300 megapixels stitches.

I would try to stitch and print from your IQ280 with a sharp lens, IMHO a 10 images well perfomed stitch will completely destroy 4x10 scanned optimally.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Chris Barrett]

Absolutely, Bernard.  I've done a 14 panel stitch that a client had printed 10' wide and it was beautiful.  Stitching is just not a workflow that I'm personally interested in pursuing for the work I'm going to be doing.

100 ways to photograph a skinned cat.

[BernardLanguillier]

Absolutely, Bernard.  I've done a 14 panel stitch that a client had printed 10' wide and it was beautiful.  Stitching is just not a workflow that I'm personally interested in pursuing for the work I'm going to be doing.

100 ways to photograph a skinned cat.

Chris,

Ok, sure, I can understand that.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Please share your experience!

Just to mention, Tim Parkin had a great article comparing different formats to 8x10" at OnLandscape, I would post a link but it seems the site is not to be reached right now.

Here is the article:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

and here is the commentary:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/camera-test-editors-commentary/


Best regards
Erik

I've been thinking a LOT about all of this lately, especially since I've just started making prints of my work again and thinking about exhibition.  Yesterday I was at the Museum of Contemporary Photography here in Chicago and there were a couple of 40x50 prints from Richard Mosse.  The images were shot on 8x10 Infrared Color Neg and they were exquisite.

I've also seen Sugimoto's big prints up close and they are beautiful too.  What I love about the experience of them is that I'm drawn in close to them so that the image fills my periphery. The size creates half of the experience.

So, I've been looking at how big you can go on inkjet (one of the beauties of it being that you can print on long rolls).  It also happens that I love shooting panoramic.  After thinking about how big my IQ250 could go (even with stitching) I've started shooting film again.  My drum scanner will do 4k dpi and the image fidelity of color neg is damn similar to the MFDBs.

Long story longer:  I just bought a 4x10 field camera and a set of wide glass with 8x10 coverage.  All just so I can print ridiculously large.  Will I ever actually print that big?  Will my images even warrant the investment?  Will they be better that big?  Who the hell knows, but I'm gonna have fun finding out!

Now, I just wish 8x10 Portriga wasn't $14 a sheet!

CB

[torger]

Who was it that said "if you can't make it good, make it big!" ? It's actually quite smart, viewing a really large print of high technical quality is an experience of itself. Making it both good and big is even more awesome of course

Concerning sensors I think the long-term goal should be that the sensor should out-resolve the optical system, regardless how sharp optical system you have. I guess 500 megapixels or so would be suitable in digital MF. With the sensor outresolving any digital aliasing artifacts are history and you can print any size you want without (digital) artifacts, the only thing that happens when you get up close is that the image becomes as smooth and soft as the optical system has rendered it.

[nik]

Patrick, is that you?!

This thread is veering towards the [/tongue-in-cheek] mode: OFF.
But before we officially revert to customary LuLa dialogue ...

I'll settle for the 400 million f/2 pathetically OOF  .. sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts

[Manoli]

Patrick, is that you?!

No, silly boy ... that's Sasha !  Patrick was behind the camera ... [/still in tic mode]

[george2787]

This thread is veering towards the [/tongue-in-cheek] mode: OFF.
But before we officially revert to customary LuLa dialogue ...

I'll settle for the 400 million f/2 pathetically OOF  .. sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts

I'm lucky to have that pirelli just in front of me and I agree 

[jerome_m]

I've been thinking a LOT about all of this lately, especially since I've just started making prints of my work again and thinking about exhibition.  Yesterday I was at the Museum of Contemporary Photography here in Chicago and there were a couple of 40x50 prints from Richard Mosse.  The images were shot on 8x10 Infrared Color Neg and they were exquisite.

I've also seen Sugimoto's big prints up close and they are beautiful too.  What I love about the experience of them is that I'm drawn in close to them so that the image fills my periphery. The size creates half of the experience.

Exactly: part of my motivation with this tongue in cheek post came from a similar experience: when one has seen large prints, the idea that "a fixed resolution is all one need and the public should simply step back" seems absurd.

Long story longer:  I just bought a 4x10 field camera and a set of wide glass with 8x10 coverage.  All just so I can print ridiculously large.  Will I ever actually print that big?  Will my images even warrant the investment?  Will they be better that big?  Who the hell knows, but I'm gonna have fun finding out!

Now, that is the spirit!