Why 300 ppi is too little, print however large=nonsense

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Why 300 ppi is too little, print however large=nonsense
11 months ago

I'm incredibly fed up with the old yada yada about 300 dpi being the highest pixel density normal people can discern at a normal viewing distance, the old adage about people only being "suppos'ta" look at the print, the whole print and nothing but the print (not including partial prints which are inadmissible as evidence according to the high court of APA).

Someone linked this in the forum recently, I'll link it again: http://clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html

You're welcome to read the whole text. Tidbits:

How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.

74 MP to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity in a 20 x 13.3-inch print.

Note in a recent printer test I showed a 600 ppi print had more detail than a 300 ppi print on an HP1220C printer (1200x2400 print dots). I've conducted some blind tests where a viewer had to sort 4 photos (150, 300, 600 and 600 ppi prints). The two 600 ppi were printed at 1200x1200 and 1200x2400 dpi. So far all have gotten the correct order of highest to lowest ppi (includes people up to age 50). See: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/printer-ppi

Apparently everyone purporting this stuff is well over 80 with cataracts.

Can we get acceptable prints at 300 or even under? Sure. Does it mean people can't tell them from higher pixel density images? No, it doesn't. Does acceptable equal "best possible"? No, it doesn't. That's just a justification for not being able to shoot at a higher resolution. Personal justification does not a scientific fact make.

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
wowNew
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
???New
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
NoNew
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow