Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: My primes not as sharp as zooms, huh?!?  (Read 11328 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2007, 01:42:48 PM »
ReplyReply

With devices that have equal resolutions or DPI in both direction, yes, it is common to not repeat the equal vertical and horizontal numbers, but when the numbers are not equal, it is indeed common to give both. For example, the Epson R1800 has a resolution of 5760x1440DPI. If you increase image detail only on one axis, resolution increases linearly, proportional to the increase on the single axis. But when the resolution on both axes change equally, the overall resolution is the square of the resolution on either axis. 19MP is a significant, visually obvious improvement over 13MP when individual pixel quality is similar in both images.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #41 on: January 25, 2007, 06:06:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
19MP is a significant, visually obvious improvement over 13MP when individual pixel quality is similar in both images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I imagine so. When I'm out in the field next with an interesting static subject to shoot, I'll try and remember to take a single 5D shot with the 24TS, camera horizontal, and 3x20D shots from the same position, camera vertical, using shift to its maximum, and compare images.

The aspect ratios will not be exactly the same. The 20D stitched images should have marginally less height. However, depending on the required cropping, the resolution differences should be fairly similar to those when taking a single shot with each camera with identical lens and f stop, then cropping the 5D image to the same FoV as the 20D image.

However, I accept that such differences in resolution are probably not significant on smallish prints. But my printer is capable of producing a 24"x36" print from a single 35mm frame. The less interpolation the better.  
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2007, 04:23:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With devices that have equal resolutions or DPI in both direction, yes, it is common to not repeat the equal vertical and horizontal numbers, but when the numbers are not equal, it is indeed common to give both. For example, the Epson R1800 has a resolution of 5760x1440DPI. If you increase image detail only on one axis, resolution increases linearly, proportional to the increase on the single axis. But when the resolution on both axes change equally, the overall resolution is the square of the resolution on either axis.
No, that's not the "resolution", that's the total amount of "image information", if you will.

You won't resolve twice as much detail if you double what you call "resolution", you'll have to quadruple your "resolution" to get double the detail.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2007, 04:24:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, I accept that such differences in resolution are probably not significant on smallish prints. But my printer is capable of producing a 24"x36" print from a single 35mm frame. The less interpolation the better. 
I'd hesitate to call prints below 24x36 "smallish", though. 24x36 is big.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2007, 07:02:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'd hesitate to call prints below 24x36 "smallish", though. 24x36 is big.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I like my prints big. Standard 8x10" prints only became popular because of the limitations of the ubiquitous miniature 35mm film camera that was no good for anything bigger   .
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad