1. Is there any proof that 360 ppi is really needed?
2. Is there any proof that current printers actually have a brick-wall response all the way up to 360 ppi for each color channel separately?
I think it's interesting we're talking prints in a digital world that's moving to mobile, handheld and lcd viewing, whether it's in publishing, in-store display, outdoor display or any form of image distribution, still or moving.
8 years ago our studios printing costs in paper and ink went from $45,000 to almost double that when you factor in drives, dvds, cds and hard copy delivery.
Now I doubt seriously if it's a 1/10th of that, probably less for actually more images produced.
Right now were in post production from a project where we are retouching 36 images that will run from outdoor to small web view and cutting 6 videos, (two are already finished).
From initial display, corrections, markups, client changes . . . back and forth, to final delivery there will never be one single print made, as we do it all electronically.
It's not unusual for us to finish a project that has over three dozen web galleries for client review due to post production changes and corrections.
Most of these images will end up in print, though if I polled most ad agencies and clients I would imagine actual high quality print on paper is probably less than 30% of their marketing effort or concern.
The print lasts about 6 months to a year, the online marketing seems to go on for years.
So knowing this I'm camera brand and format agnostic, which is a strange comment from someone that owns phase, canon, nikon, leica, RED, canon video and panasonic.
I've gone through the cutting edge of digital, been an unintended beta tester for a lot of brands and have come to the conclusion that the best camera for our studio is the one that is the most transparent camera, or in other words the system I don't have to think about or worry about, from on set to delivery.
I know a lot of people on this forum either love their brands, or have some relationship with the makers or dealers, which I think is fine because it's a form of commerce for them and I'm all for open commerce.
What I do find is that when it comes to making a purchase decision for my studios, 20% more detail or 5% more lens sharpness doesn't concern me. Ease of use, a tested system, fast repairs, rentals in most markets and most importantly workflow mean a lot more to me than anything else, including costs.
I don't change still cameras quickly because I don't' have clients asking for any different file sizes, though with motion the 4k buzz is now taking over and that has become a request.
I will change computers quicker than any piece of equipment because nothing effects our day more than a slow computers and most of the software programs have become so heavy it takes a lot of computing power to run them.
BTW: This is the minimum of what it takes to work with RED footage on set
Anyway, if I was (and may be) buying into another medium format system I'd only look two ways, or make that 1 and 1/2 ways.
I'd look at the IQ series with a Hasselblad H mount, only because of the higher resolution screen and an the fact the H camera is the medium format standard of our industry. (especially in rentals).
And I'd look at the H4d 40 because I understand it does the cleanest 800 iso of any of the cameras at full rez and good skin tones.
When time permits I'll test both.
IMO