Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,052   Posts: 1,561,203   Online: 1029
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47
  1. #31
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,631
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    I'd estimate that my maximum resolution on film is with the Minox lens with microfilm. ...
    I believe it!

    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    ... My maximum resloution on paper totally depends on the enlargement size. ...
    Well, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    ... The theoretical maximum I can get is a reduction of 8x10 negative to 4x5 print. ...
    Yes, but it's questionable if your eyes can appreciate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    ... But the paper resolution is the limit there.
    Why do you think that? Paper resolution is >60 lp/mm. That's way beyond what your eyes are able to resolve. Or do you mean 'printed resolution'?
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    871
    Images
    24
    This entire thread has a ring to it. Does it remind anyone else of Barry Thorton's "Edge of Darkness?"

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Whatever it may remind you of, as long as resolution is measured in double digit number expressions of LPM, it's something to have sleepless nights over.

  4. #34
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,460
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    The ... viewing distance is ... the print diagonal.
    That's what I needed to know.

  5. #35
    A49
    A49 is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    That said, I don't think sharpness is the only criterium either, but I'm always turned off by images that are not as sharp as they could be when they could be improved by sharpness. I'm well aware, unsharpness can be a creative tool (many good examples in the APUG library of that), but that shouldn't become an excuse for sloppy craftsmanship.
    Thank you, Ralph. You wrote in short, what I think of the sharpness issue.

    The diagram that you posted was not absolutely new for me because I happily have got your great book (the 2011 edition) a few days before. So much compressed information! And many new facts for me although I´ve already read some bulky and some thin but specialized books on photography. Also for the things I know, your book and your contribution here in the forum is valuable when I try to bring them in a systematic order.

    Just one question regarding the diagram: Are the "actual resolution" curves derived from your own (chart) measurements or from theoretical considerations in combination with publicised charts?

    Best,
    Andreas

  6. #36
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    I have a side question about print resolution. I hope it is not off-topic, as it relates to how the "normal" human eye can appreciate high resolution in print.

    Kodak is making an industrial bet on their digital high-resolution printing technology. Until today, high-quality print as far as I know is made at 300 pixel per inch. It seems that very rarely recourse is made to 400 ppi printing. The new Kodak technology is supposed to deliver prints at 600 ppi (at high speed). Photographic paper resolution (darkroom) is > 60 lp/mm.

    So my doubts are:

    Which is the correlation between line pairs per millimetre and dot per inch? What would be the equivalent, in lp/mm, of a 600 ppi print?

    Is the higher quality of this higher resolution discernible by the average person?

    Are printed publications going to require, or sistematically adopt, in the future, a higher resolution?

    The answer to these questions might have side effects also on photographic prints (darkroom work). People might, with years, form different expectations about sharpness. A fine-art print that looks sharp on a gallery now, might look less sharp in twenty years time when people will have seen thousands of images printed in books at 600 ppi (if really Kodak succeeds in bringing forward this "revolutionary" technology).

    Maybe 600 ppi is in any case less than 60 lp/mm but the "visual resolution gap" between a book and a fine-art print will be reduced.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  7. #37
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,379
    Images
    20
    Print resolution has a lot to do with the paper surface, whether it's photographic paper, inkjet, or offset printing, and I don't think we're going to get to a point where all printed images will have to be on supergloss paper for maximum resolution, because that's been available for some time, and it's not always the most desirable aesthetic for every purpose.

    I think this guy gets pretty good resolution (which you can see if the Zoomify images are working properly)--

    http://collections.frick.org/THA98*1$236034*9885876
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  8. #38
    A49
    A49 is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    Which is the correlation between line pairs per millimetre and dot per inch? What would be the equivalent, in lp/mm, of a 600 ppi print?

    Is the higher quality of this higher resolution discernible by the average person?
    Yes it is off-topic.

    With 600 ppi you can resolve 300 lines, what means line pairs in the best case because you need 2 pixel two show two lines (one black pixel and one white pixel). So 300 line pairs per 1 inch = 25,4 mm. 300 line pairs / 25,4mm = 11,8 line pairs per millimeter (lpm). Much lower than the resolution capability of classic photographic paper (60 lpm). So most of the people should see a difference between a digital 300 ppi (about 6 lpm) and 600 ppi (about 12 lpm) print if they look carefully and maybe some would even see an advantage of the classic b/w print, if the digital or analogue source for printing is highly enough resolved.

    Andreas

  9. #39
    Marco B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,983
    Images
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    I have a side question about print resolution. I hope it is not off-topic, as it relates to how the "normal" human eye can appreciate high resolution in print.

    Kodak is making an industrial bet on their digital high-resolution printing technology. Until today, high-quality print as far as I know is made at 300 pixel per inch. It seems that very rarely recourse is made to 400 ppi printing. The new Kodak technology is supposed to deliver prints at 600 ppi (at high speed). Photographic paper resolution (darkroom) is > 60 lp/mm.
    This is an excellent question for the just launched DPUG forum. Become a member there and re-post it, for example in the "Printers" forum of DPUG. It does not belong on APUG.
    My website

    "The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.

    "I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978

    "Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"

  10. #40
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,631
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by A49 View Post
    ... Are the "actual resolution" curves derived from your own (chart) measurements or from theoretical considerations in combination with publicised charts? ...
    The 'actual resolution' data are averaged values from many measurements of high-quality lenses (Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad, Schneider) in combination with common film performance. They can be considered best 'typical' values. One can do slightly better with very fine grain films.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin