Pixel Density (Thread 6)

[cpw]

Just Kidding! (maybe next year for Rivers)

I would like to see the kid from Green Bay do well though...

Hey I just thought of something, you and the Packers have the same initials, GB, maybe that's an omen ...

 

[bobn2]

I was answering to KIM not YOU as is written i the subject of my answer, but I am glad you read my messages too, don't take this as an attack.

Not taking offence, but it seems kind of weird to post of a public forum if the question's just directed at one person. I mean, if you want a private conversation there's email or pm.

A small advise if you don't mind - please don't consider that people don't know something if they don't write about it. Not all of us need to write everything we know on these pages, why should we, is it that we have to prove something about us to ourselves?............

You posted on an open forum, I contributed, that's all there is to it.

But thanks for pasting this here - it might be useful to people.

Well, you are welcome, I hope it is.

What I didn't do is change the resolution to be 300DPI at A4 print size, but let the printer driver up-size the photo, which means that this brought the DPI down, thus making the result worse, compared to what I would get if I managed the size and DPI myself, as you do and as I usually do.

What I never quite know is what the printer driver does in these situations. I used 'ppi' advisedly, because (assuming an inkjet printer) the printer's DPI is much higher than that, it makes 'pixels' by overlaying dots, and the range of a 'dot' is quiite small, sometimes 0 or 1, there or not there. So maybe the printer driver is printing in the PPI that you specify and making those pixels out of different numbers of dots, or maybe its resampling to 300 (or 360) and constructing those pixels from dots. One never knows.

This was done to see how do such "fast" prints look if my wife has to print for example and she doesn't have the time to play with the image size.

Thanks!

You're welcome.
--
Bob

 

[Yanko Kitanov]

I was answering to KIM not YOU as is written i the subject of my answer, but I am glad you read my messages too, don't take this as an attack.

Not taking offence, but it seems kind of weird to post of a public forum if the question's just directed at one person. I mean, if you want a private conversation there's email or pm.

OK I agree, what I meant was that the message was a personal thanks for an interesting link - I don't read Thom's site quite much as I am far from Nikon, due to using loads of M42 glass.

A small advise if you don't mind - please don't consider that people don't know something if they don't write about it. Not all of us need to write everything we know on these pages, why should we, is it that we have to prove something about us to ourselves?............

You posted on an open forum, I contributed, that's all there is to it.

Presuming other people read this message this might be true.

But thanks for pasting this here - it might be useful to people.

Well, you are welcome, I hope it is.

Me too.

What I didn't do is change the resolution to be 300DPI at A4 print size, but let the printer driver up-size the photo, which means that this brought the DPI down, thus making the result worse, compared to what I would get if I managed the size and DPI myself, as you do and as I usually do.

What I never quite know is what the printer driver does in these situations. I used 'ppi' advisedly, because (assuming an inkjet printer) the printer's DPI is much higher than that, it makes 'pixels' by overlaying dots, and the range of a 'dot' is quiite small, sometimes 0 or 1, there or not there. So maybe the printer driver is printing in the PPI that you specify and making those pixels out of different numbers of dots, or maybe its resampling to 300 (or 360) and constructing those pixels from dots. One never knows.

I do - my Epson's driver shows the output DPI before printing, which is very useful sometimes.

Thanks!

You're welcome.

Thanks again!

--
Best Regards,
Yanko Kitanov

I am dreaming to enhance the sensitivity of my own visual perception and not the sensitivity of my camera's sensor...
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/yankokitanov

 

[Pete10]

Bob and others...

I appreciate this thread a lot. I've never understood why some people are so vigilant against higher pixel counts, given that more pixels means that you know better where the photon landed on the chip. Whether it is a BIG improvement, given camera and lens design is another issue of course. See camera's on mobile phones.

The only worries I have/had were

1. Companies that overdo NR to statisfy pixel peepers (and reviewers), making the overall picture worse

2. That sensors with more but smaller pixels have a lower QE, thus less photons are recorded. Microlenses were the way to circumvent this I assume?

It is apparently is not obvious that bigger sensors with big pixels have a higher QE from what I read here. Quite surprised about the low QE of some of the bigger sensors: it seems to me that doubling the QE would be roughly comparable to a full f-stop of the lens or doubling of ISO for the same quality, so it should be attractive, or am I making a mistake then?

Anyway thanks for the contributions,
Pete

 

[TurkThrust]

Billx08 wrote...........

Unlike some here, Marianne's opinions are impeccable and even when delving deeply into tech. details, she writes clearly and to the point, eschewing technobabble, obfuscation for its own sake and endless rehashes and red herring links.

Eloquent ~ and so spot on!! TT

 

[Kim Letkeman]

You never mentioned that you know the Wolverine ...
--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Yanko Kitanov]

I really didn't think about this one, although I had joked million times about his image. He is also a great Nikon fan and a pro photographer for the "Top Gear kind" of a magazine, no matter that he is just with the humble D40x in this shot.

Cheers!

You never mentioned that you know the Wolverine ...

--
Best Regards,
Yanko Kitanov

I am dreaming to enhance the sensitivity of my own visual perception and not the sensitivity of my camera's sensor...
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/yankokitanov

 

[Kim Letkeman]

I really didn't think about this one, although I had joked million times about his image. He is also a great Nikon fan and a pro photographer for the "Top Gear kind" of a magazine, no matter that he is just with the humble D40x in this shot.

Professional is in the mind ...

--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Yanko Kitanov]

Yes, the D40x with the humble kit lens produces photos just as nice as the magazine's expensive pro gear since it's not the cam but the one behind it. It's a cliche but he keeps seeing light not objects and he manages to make the shot and not to try take it.

Cheers!
--
Best Regards,
Yanko Kitanov

I am dreaming to enhance the sensitivity of my own visual perception and not the sensitivity of my camera's sensor...
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/yankokitanov