OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,157
Like?
Re: On "gold standards" for printing ...
In reply to John King, Jun 3, 2013

John King wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

John King wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

On the other hand, we can display the photo at any PPI we like by upsampling.  So, we could upsample both the 5 MP and 12 MP files to, such as 300 PPI (the "gold standard" of viewing resolution).

What exactly is the basis for your belief that 300 ppi is the "gold standard" of "viewing resolution"?
I also assume you mean "printing", or "print resolution" ... ?

Could you please explain precisely and succinctly why you understand this statement to be some kind of touchstone for printing of any kind?

Neither here nor there, actually.  The relevant point was that there is no more real detail in the photo than what is captured by the camera, and that by upsampling, we can get any PPI we want by introducing false detail.

That avoids my question, rather than answering it.

It directly answers the question.  The "gold standard" for resolution is often said to be 300 PPI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density

Good quality photographs usually require 300 pixels per inch, at 100% size, when printed onto coated paper stock, using a printing screen of 150 lines per inch (lpi). This delivers a quality factor of 2, which delivers optimum quality.

But, as I said, neither here nor there, since we can achieve any PPI we want through resampling.  What matters, in terms of resolution, is not PPI, but the actual amount of detail captured, and the point of this subthread is discovering why 5 MP produces no noticeable increase in resolution over 12 MP to the naked eye for prints up to 17 x 22 inches.

I again refer you to Smugmug and their comments about resolution, here:

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93359

And their requirements for their commercial printers as regards image file resolution, as per their graph on that page.

It merely echoes one of the points I was making:

Suppose your photo is 2000x3000 pixels and you expect your admirers to order anywhere from 6" prints to 40" prints. What should you do?

Our recommendation is to leave it alone. EZ Prints will upsample/downsample as needed and they can do it better than all but the most serious experts.

That is, they can get whatever PPI they want via resampling.  Rather irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is why 5 MP shows no visible resolution advantage over a 12 MP for a 17 x 22 inch print.

That is what I expected you to seize on.

Well, you gave me a link, did not quote any particular portion, so...

I take it you are referring to the statement:

We have only seen two prints in a million returned for too few pixels, and they were 400x600 pixel images from cheap consumer cameras, printed at 8x10.

Again, neither here nor there.  The fact that lack of resolution is rarely the reason for a returned print doesn't address the question as to why there is no visible difference in resolution between 5 MP and 12 MP for a 17 x 22 inch print.  All it says is that the vast majority are satisfied with the resolution that their prints show.

Also what I expected you to say.

I will give you a clue ...

How 'bout saying what you want to say rather than playing games, John?  One would have thought that in the two week lull since this "discussion" began before you rejoined it, you might have...

If you read what Smugmug have written on their site, you will find that they state that 80 dpi is sufficient resolution for a large print. At its native resolution, an E-1 is producing a file that is 2560 x 1920 pixels. That is to say, good for a 32 x 24 inch print, according to Smugmug and the printing services they choose to use. Perhaps that is why there is no discernible difference when printing at 21.51 x 16.14 inches (347 square inches)? i.e. less than half the practical maximum print area for the E-1 (768 square inches), according to Smugmug and their presumably expert commercial printers.

DPI, dots per inch put out by the printer, is, of course, very different from PPI, pixels per inch in the image file.

Regardless, are you saying that 80 DPI (or PPI) is "good enough" and that more resolution is not visible?  If not, please stop playing games and spell out what you are saying rather than giving "clues".

So when I up-sample the images, I am not actually "introducing false detail", as you put it.

Um, yes you are, John.  Upsampling introduces false detail -- end of story.

According to their printing algorithms, the E-510 and E-30 are therefore natively good enough for prints of 45.6 x 34.2 inches and 50.4 x 37.8 inches respectively.

E-1, E-510 and E-30 therefore have no reason to have "false detail" introduced into their files for printing at A2 size (actually 54.65 x 40.99 cms, after leaving a small border for mounting on the mat ... ).

For the record:  you are saying that more that 12 MP will produce no visible (to the naked eye) increase in resolution for prints up to 50 x 38 inches, and that more than 5 MP will produce no visible increase in resolution for prints up to 17 x 22 inches.

So, I would ask you:  would this not be clear argument against spending all that extra money for an SHG lens if resolution was not an issue?

No. The "discussion point" you are raising has nothing to do with anything that I have stated, and is a non sequitur from what you have stated.

This entire "discussion" comes from:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51474405

I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye between the printed images I have taken with my "antique" 5MP E-1 and those taken with my 10 MP E-510 or 12 MP E-30. And just BTW, any modern printer (since around the year 2000) has well over 100x the resolution of the very best display screens ...

So, you are saying, up to 17 x 22 inches, that there is no visible difference in resolution between 5 MP and 12 MP to the naked eye.  This was all I have asked.

The rest of your post (talking about lenses) is simply a sidetrack from the point.  That point, once again, is that you claim that there is no visible difference in a 17 x 22 inch print between 5 MP and 12 MP, all else equal.

Thus, the only point of more than 5 MP is to print larger or crop heavily.  Above you said that more than 12 MP will not produce a visible (to the naked eye) increase in resolution for prints up to 50 x 38 inches.

Here, let me make the matter unambiguously clear so that there is no confusion:  if Olympus produced two cameras, one with 12 MP, the other with 18 MP, that were otherwise identical (size, weight, price, frame rate, etc., etc., etc.), and you were never going to print larger than 50 x 38 inches or crop heavily, which camera would you choose?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Hmm.New
Yup!New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow