Resolution isn't coverage of an area, it's linear

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
AndreaV
Regular MemberPosts: 243
Like?
Re: On the other hand
In reply to PerL, 4 months ago

PerL wrote:

RichRMA wrote:

A lot of people seem to equate double the resolution with doubling the pixel count. It doesn't work that way. Want to double the resolution (resolve detail twice as small) with a camera? You have to double the pixel count in both x and y dimensions. So, if the camera has a 3000x2000 pixel array (6 megapixels), you need 6000x4000 or 24 megapixels to double resolution. To double that, you need 12000x8000 (96 megapixels). So, it's four times the pixels that allows doubling resolution. That is why (when you really look at an image) resolution gains going from say 24mp to 36mp are really not that impressive.

If you translate the figures to print sizes, hanging on your wall, you can see that there is a difference in impact.

Keeping a fixed ppi number in the printing your printed area increase as much as the number of pixels, and the width of the print as the square root of the number of pixels.

Anyway I print in A3+ (30x45cm) images shot with both my Canon 350D (8Mp) and Canon 1DmkIII (10Mp) and still you can't see a pixel even with a magnifier lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow