The (in)significance of resolution

Started Apr 15, 2013 | Discussions thread
Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,728
Re: You haven't increased the resolution....

DMillier wrote:


This exercise was motivated purely as a practice exercise following the instructions in the Oopoomoo ebook "The tilt shift lens advantage" so there was no rigour in the process.

What I did was set my camera up in landscape orientation and made three images one shifted up, one centred and one shifted down.  When this was stitched is made a tallish portrait image with approximately 3x the pixel count of a single frame.  I then cropped this image to roughly the field of view of the single image made with a moderate wide angle.

The end result was very roughly a 42MP stitch that approximated the view of the 16MP single frame. All very rough and ready but good enough to make the point.

I have been at some photo exhibitions where they show very big prints. Like maybe 2x3 meters. Those prints are very seldom sharp, even if you walk away some steps. For many prints, thats OK. But, for some prints .. e.g. landscape and cityscape I dont think its OK.

2x3 meters, thats 6 million square mm. So, a 6 MP camera has 1 mm pixels. I would say that 4 pixels per mm is the minimum to make a sharp image. So, if you want your 2x3 meter print sharp, you need 64 MP, make that 100 MP if you use Bayer.

Now, of course, you also have to find a lens to match. I don't know if its possible, or if you have to stitch.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow