Except that this argument ignores what can be accomplished through high-quality interpolation. I had no intention of going digital at 6 megapixels until a Canon pro showed me what could be done with a 6 megapixel RAW image and the PSCS RAW Converter's interpolation capability. It was an eye opener, and it has made all the difference. Paul On Jun 25, 2006, at 9:00 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> So obviously the quality isn't as high as they think it is... > Heck, most digital prints lack a certain amount of detail when compared > to wet prints of a similar size. However when viewed from a distance > they look smoother which people tend to prefer. > > Bob W wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've been doing some calculations of print sizes and megapixels, and >> found something I don't understand. >> >> If we assume the correct viewing distance for a print hanging on the >> wall is about 90cm, and we accept that the maximum size of the >> diagonal of the print should be half the viewing distance, then for >> the 4:3rds system the print should be 36x27cm, giving a diagonal of >> 45cm. This fits comfortably on A3 paper (29.7x42.0cm, about 11x16" in >> American). >> >> Printers generally seem to print at about 300 dots per inch, which is >> 118 dots per cm, as near as makes no difference. >> >> So for the printed area we need (27x118)x(36x118) = 13,534,128 pixels. >> >> Yet I'm sure I read about people making high quality 20x16" prints >> from 6 - 10 megapixel cameras. >> >> What gives? >> >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout). > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
