4 ms·

Agreed, with a 12 megapixel camera I never felt printing anything over 16 x 20 was acceptable, even with my 22 megapixel 5dmk2 I don't go much larger than 20 x

Agreed, with a 12 megapixel camera I never felt printing anything over 16 x 20 was acceptable, even with my 22 megapixel 5dmk2 I don't go much larger than 20 x 30.

jonah 16y ago
It all depends on how closely you're viewing them. We have a bunch of photos shot with a 5D (12MP) printed about four feet tall. They look great from a normal viewing distance. Of course, when you put your face six inches away, you can start to see some digital artifacts (stair stepping, etc.) but that's not a problem. The maximum necessary resolution is related to the intended viewing distance. "The standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc." From that the maximum resolvable dot size can be calculated for a given viewing distance. http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Introduction/visualacuity.htm http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Pe... http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html (Sidenote: billboards usually printed at around 20-30ppi)
- stan_rogers 16y ago
  20/20 is actually pretty bad eyesight. It's "normal vision", not perfect vision, and when my eyes are "corrected" to 20/20, they're about a quarter-diopter shy of maximal acuity. There is a huge difference to my eyes between pictures printed at a 200-line screen and one printed at a 150-line screen (all other things, like stock and varnish being equal) at a distance of more than one metre (from head-height on a couch to the magazine at the far end of a coffee table). If I were printing from a 12MP original at about four feet tall, I'd certainly run the source through something like Genuine Fractals Print Pro (even a good giclee pattern can't make up for squared-off curves). At four feet in the long dimension (giving a realistic viewing distance of about six feet) I'd notice raggedness at a glance at less than about 80ppi -- but then the dye clouds from a 4x5 negative printed at that size would drive me batty as well.
gaius 16y ago
When you go to the cinema, you're looking at an image only 2000 pixels across.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

Agreed, with a 12 megapixel camera I never felt printing anything over 16 x 20 was acceptable, even with my 22 megapixel 5dmk2 I don't go much larger than 20 x 30.

jonah 16y ago

It all depends on how closely you're viewing them. We have a bunch of photos shot with a 5D (12MP) printed about four feet tall. They look great from a normal viewing distance. Of course, when you put your face six inches away, you can start to see some digital artifacts (stair stepping, etc.) but that's not a problem. The maximum necessary resolution is related to the intended viewing distance. "The standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc." From that the maximum resolvable dot size can be calculated for a given viewing distance. http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Introduction/visualacuity.htm http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Pe... http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html (Sidenote: billboards usually printed at around 20-30ppi)

stan_rogers 16y ago
20/20 is actually pretty bad eyesight. It's "normal vision", not perfect vision, and when my eyes are "corrected" to 20/20, they're about a quarter-diopter shy of maximal acuity. There is a huge difference to my eyes between pictures printed at a 200-line screen and one printed at a 150-line screen (all other things, like stock and varnish being equal) at a distance of more than one metre (from head-height on a couch to the magazine at the far end of a coffee table). If I were printing from a 12MP original at about four feet tall, I'd certainly run the source through something like Genuine Fractals Print Pro (even a good giclee pattern can't make up for squared-off curves). At four feet in the long dimension (giving a realistic viewing distance of about six feet) I'd notice raggedness at a glance at less than about 80ppi -- but then the dye clouds from a 4x5 negative printed at that size would drive me batty as well.

gaius 16y ago

When you go to the cinema, you're looking at an image only 2000 pixels across.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]