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

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,760
Re: On "gold standards" for printing ...

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Perhaps you could do that while I contemplate my answer to the other statements that you have made.

No rush -- take your time.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow