Resolution vs. print size vs. reading distance

[Darren Young]

I have found that what matters the most are the "pixels" that are captured....

I'm with you on that, Rich -- and the noise idea is a good point, too.

Perhaps a large part of the equation is whatever Oly has "built" into the UZI firmware to interpret what the CCD picks up; I've seen prints from different 2.xMP cameras, and there is a discernable difference sometimes. Maybe we're just lucky, and hopefully Olympus will "stay the course", so to speak, on their future product development.

ANYway -- I just figured that, for 19 clams, it was cheap enough for me to prove to myself that the reading distance factor would apply well to making a big print from our "dinky" 2.1mp cameras. And, as I said, the results surpassed my expectations. I just wish there was a way to somehow post the 20x30 here on the site so everybody could check out the concept; heck, I can't even figure out how to attach a JPG image to my messages here on this Forum... {

Darren

'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -- Hunter S. Thompson

 

[RichO]

Hi Darren,

If your image can be accessed by a browser then all you have to do is paste the link to the page or the image itself into the message.

If you only want the link to show up then just append a semicolon ';' to the end of the link and only the link will appear.

Many here use http://www.pbase.com to host our images and then just paste the link that is in the browser address bar into the message like this...

http://www.pbase.com/image/2688173/large

To get the image to appear in the message you have to make sure the image file name is in the link and that the server where your image is will allow it to be accessed that way. Pbase.com supporters can link directly to their images others who have free accounts there can only put the link in as above.



--
RichO
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'

 

[Tom K.]

Darren, I have a question. Did you send the file to be printed as shot, that is at 1200x1600? Or did you upsize it with Photoshop or something similar?

I did a similar experiment with a picture of the Space Needle in Seattle except I got prints that were 24x36. I sent in two files - one that was as shot, 1200x1600 (with a Canon S100, not the Olympus 2100 which I also have) and one that I had resized to double that, 2400x3200. At that size the poster is being printed at 50 pixels per inch for the 1200x1600 and 100 ppi at 2400x3600.

When we're accustomed to being told that you have to print at 300 dpi to get anything decent those numbers sound pretty poor, but at normal poster-viewing distance I couldn't tell the two prints apart and they looked pretty darn good. If I got my face up close and looked at diagonal lines I could see "jaggies" pretty readily in the 50 ppi print, and the same area in the 100 ppi print just looked softer and not so blocky. Still, I had to get close. And granted, this was an object with not a lot of fine detail to examine.

The upshot is that (depending on your subject of course) poster-size prints are readily obtainable with a lousy 2MP camera such as the 2100, or even the tiny S100. Just don't expect it to look like an art gallery print.

By the way, consider what it takes to make a camera that is double the resolution of a 2MP camera and obtain files that are 2400x3600. That's an 8.64MP camera folks! Going up to the current crop of 5MP cameras just increases your resolution by 60% for a 1920x2560 file. Do a little cropping and you're back down to the filesize of an Olympus 2100 pretty quick, so don't get the mistaken notion (that so many people have) that megapixels are a good substitute for optical zoom.

 

[Wayne Mayo]

Hi Darren,

If your image can be accessed by a browser then all you have to do
is paste the link to the page or the image itself into the message.

If you only want the link to show up then just append a semicolon
';' to the end of the link and only the link will appear.

Many here use http://www.pbase.com to host our images and then just paste
the link that is in the browser address bar into the message like
this...

http://www.pbase.com/image/2688173/large

To get the image to appear in the message you have to make sure the
image file name is in the link and that the server where your image
is will allow it to be accessed that way. Pbase.com supporters can
link directly to their images others who have free accounts there
can only put the link in as above.



--
RichO
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'

 

[Wayne Mayo]

Don't forget to append ".jpg" to the link, to have it work.

 

[Darren Young]

Don't forget to append ".jpg" to the link, to have it work.

OK, so, from what I understand from your suggestions above, I have to load the pics onto a website or PBase kinda thing in order for them to be attachable to messages in this forum, right?

Isn't there a way to "attach" a jpg to a message here just like you do with an email message? I read an implication somewhere here on dpreview (I think in some of the posting instructions?) that there's a way to do it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it.

I don't have any strong reason to do the whole "gallery" deal, really; just want to stick an occasional shot into a message now & then....

Darren

'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -- Hunter S. Thompson

 

[davidadner]

I don't have any strong reason to do the whole "gallery" deal,
really; just want to stick an occasional shot into a message now &
then....

pbase is extremely simple to use; you just upload and the gallery is created automatically. You can leave it as simple as that if you want.

--

http://www.pbase.com/nimbus (supporter)
Olympus C700UZ

 

[Darren Young]

Darren, I have a question. Did you send the file to be printed as
shot, that is at 1200x1600? Or did you upsize it with Photoshop or
something similar?

I downloaded it just as it came out of the camera, Tom; didn't do anything to it as far as postprocessing. I used Ofoto (amazon.com's photo service) and cropped to the 20x30 aspect ratio using their software. Pretty much used it full-frame, just hacked a bit off the bottom to fit that a.r. Since I'd never used them before for enlargements past 4x6's, I had no idea if Ofoto even knew what they were doing; but I gotta tell ya, the prints were almost a dead-ringer for the files as viewed on my iMac's screen. Side by side, the 8x10 has a little more apparent contrast than the 20x30, but that's normal for enlargements from film, too.

Your observation about the jaggies/detail/etc. is essentially what I was trying to get across with this little experiment of mine -- that is, a "poster" size print is designed to be seen from a longer distance than an 8x10, so the percieved sharpness will remain pretty much the same. Y'don't normally go looking at a poster from 16" away...

Darren

'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -- Hunter S. Thompson

 

[Darren Young]

pbase is extremely simple to use; you just upload and the gallery
is created automatically. You can leave it as simple as that if
you want.

oh, okay, OKAY, I'll set myself up on pbase!!! ) LOL. I guess that's really the best way to do the posting deal after all.

Thanks to everyone for patiently convincing me to get offa my rear and do the dastardly deed. Once I have my "gallery" up & running, I'll post the original picture (that went 20x30) here on this thread, or a link to it, or whatever works out best. But don't start holding your breath yet, I gotta go eat dinner first...

Darren

'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -- Hunter S. Thompson

 

[Chuck Forsberg]

I made a 14 inch long (plus margins) print of a short eared owl.

UZI was set to soft/SHQ. Cropped, level equalized, and sharpened with Photo-Paint, and printed on "super white" inkjet paper with an Epson C80.

At three feet there is visible grain, but at six feet viewing distance it looks great. I think a 16 x 20 on glossy would look as good.

As has been mentioned, some scenes require a zillion pixels. Didn't Ansel Adams use a 4x5 for his landscapes?

Other subjects, including this owl portrait seem to get by with fewer pixels.

The "Cleo" picture posted the other day is of the same bird.

 

[Daniella68313]

however, that is a minimum resolution. It does not mean that everything will look good printed at 20 x 24 at that resolution. Maybe some portrait will look ok, but the lack of details in landscape will probably be apparent. I think for printing a landscape poster, the higher the resolution and the better it look. I can personaly see the difference between 4mp and 2mp printed on a 10 x 8.

Here's a good one to consider: A while back I came across a "guide"
to the necessary megapixel resolution for a given print size (I
think it was posted on Ophoto's page) that had some interesting
numbers. The chart started out at 640x480 as minimum for a good
4"x6" print, and went up to 1560x1280 or something like that (I
don't have the chart with me right now) for an 8"x10" print. So
far, so good. But then the chart continues to 11x14, 16x20 and
20x24 -- and the minimum resolution stays at the 1560x1280.....

Didn't make sense until I remembered something from art school
called "reading distance", meaning the normal distance at which one
would view anything from a magazine page to a billboard. For
example, a poster looks pretty good from across the room; but walk
up to it and look at a 4x6 section of it and the quality ain't too
thrilling. However, that's not how you would look at ("view")
posters -- they're designed to be looked at from that far of a
reading distance. So now back to our hero with his trusty Uzi; he
shoots a really great picture that he wants to blow up to 16x20 or
whatever and hang on the wall -- is that why the resolution #'s on
the chart stayed the same past 8x10, which, coincidentally, is
usually the biggest image a person can comfortably take in at
normal reading distance (as in reading a piece of paper)? Might be
the reason our everyday typing paper is universally around
8.5"x11", and that's usually used vertically, i.e. the normal human
reading distance. I tried playing around with some regular photo
prints, and found that, lo & behold, when I was looking at an
11x14, I started holding it at arms' length. Pretty interesting,
try it out for yourselves and see what happens.

So here's the $64K question: How do you experienced digital
shooters out there feel about this resolution system? I've heard a
lot of comments on this forum about a 2.1mp Oly being great for
prints "up to 8x10", but has anyone got experience with going past
that? Whaddya all think about the reading distance factor?

(This should be good for about 10,000 responses! )...)
Thanks in advance > > Darren

--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C700 FORUM: http://www.c700uz.com

 

[albau]

This leads me to another, certainly naive , question. All agree that 2.1MP is more than enough for high quality 4x6 prints. But does this mean that same scene under same conditions shot by the same camera (i.e. c3020) but at 3.1MP will yield no better 4x6 print?

My gut feeling is that the more pixels you have the easier it would be for scaling algorithm to decide which insignificant pixels to throw away, right or wrong?

Btw, everybody talk here about UZI but what's this if not an Israeli machine gun?

Here's a good one to consider: A while back I came across a "guide"
to the necessary megapixel resolution for a given print size (I
think it was posted on Ophoto's page) that had some interesting
numbers. The chart started out at 640x480 as minimum for a good
4"x6" print, and went up to 1560x1280 or something like that (I
don't have the chart with me right now) for an 8"x10" print. So
far, so good. But then the chart continues to 11x14, 16x20 and
20x24 -- and the minimum resolution stays at the 1560x1280.....

Didn't make sense until I remembered something from art school
called "reading distance", meaning the normal distance at which one
would view anything from a magazine page to a billboard. For
example, a poster looks pretty good from across the room; but walk
up to it and look at a 4x6 section of it and the quality ain't too
thrilling. However, that's not how you would look at ("view")
posters -- they're designed to be looked at from that far of a
reading distance. So now back to our hero with his trusty Uzi; he
shoots a really great picture that he wants to blow up to 16x20 or
whatever and hang on the wall -- is that why the resolution #'s on
the chart stayed the same past 8x10, which, coincidentally, is
usually the biggest image a person can comfortably take in at
normal reading distance (as in reading a piece of paper)? Might be
the reason our everyday typing paper is universally around
8.5"x11", and that's usually used vertically, i.e. the normal human
reading distance. I tried playing around with some regular photo
prints, and found that, lo & behold, when I was looking at an
11x14, I started holding it at arms' length. Pretty interesting,
try it out for yourselves and see what happens.

So here's the $64K question: How do you experienced digital
shooters out there feel about this resolution system? I've heard a
lot of comments on this forum about a 2.1mp Oly being great for
prints "up to 8x10", but has anyone got experience with going past
that? Whaddya all think about the reading distance factor?

(This should be good for about 10,000 responses! )...)
Thanks in advance > > Darren

 

[Darren Young]

Btw, everybody talk here about UZI but what's this if not an
Israeli machine gun?

Albau -- Can't help you with the algorithm question (I'll leave that to the people who know that stuff), but to answer your curiousity about the UZI name -- it comes from the C2100UZ and C700UZ cameras, picking up the "UZ" (for Ultra Zoom) and translating it into the "UZI" nickname as a play on the "big gun" aspect of the long 10:1 zoom lens.

Somewhere 'way back on the Forum is a whole thread on this subject, if you're REALLY interested in all the variations on the theme!

Darren

'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -- Hunter S. Thompson

 

[Brian]

at 4X6 2.1MP will be printed at 266dpi without any scaling. of course the c3020 with 3.1MP will print at a slightly higher dpi.

Most experts agree that the human eye can't see better than 250dpi for color photos. I agree with this. I get sharper 4X6 prints with my 2.1MP camera than I ever got with my 35MM camera. I don't think you would get any better results at this print size with a 3.1MP camera.

My gut feeling is that the more pixels you have the easier it would
be for scaling algorithm to decide which insignificant pixels to
throw away, right or wrong?

Btw, everybody talk here about UZI but what's this if not an
Israeli machine gun?

Here's a good one to consider: A while back I came across a "guide"
to the necessary megapixel resolution for a given print size (I
think it was posted on Ophoto's page) that had some interesting
numbers. The chart started out at 640x480 as minimum for a good
4"x6" print, and went up to 1560x1280 or something like that (I
don't have the chart with me right now) for an 8"x10" print. So
far, so good. But then the chart continues to 11x14, 16x20 and
20x24 -- and the minimum resolution stays at the 1560x1280.....

Didn't make sense until I remembered something from art school
called "reading distance", meaning the normal distance at which one
would view anything from a magazine page to a billboard. For
example, a poster looks pretty good from across the room; but walk
up to it and look at a 4x6 section of it and the quality ain't too
thrilling. However, that's not how you would look at ("view")
posters -- they're designed to be looked at from that far of a
reading distance. So now back to our hero with his trusty Uzi; he
shoots a really great picture that he wants to blow up to 16x20 or
whatever and hang on the wall -- is that why the resolution #'s on
the chart stayed the same past 8x10, which, coincidentally, is
usually the biggest image a person can comfortably take in at
normal reading distance (as in reading a piece of paper)? Might be
the reason our everyday typing paper is universally around
8.5"x11", and that's usually used vertically, i.e. the normal human
reading distance. I tried playing around with some regular photo
prints, and found that, lo & behold, when I was looking at an
11x14, I started holding it at arms' length. Pretty interesting,
try it out for yourselves and see what happens.

So here's the $64K question: How do you experienced digital
shooters out there feel about this resolution system? I've heard a
lot of comments on this forum about a 2.1mp Oly being great for
prints "up to 8x10", but has anyone got experience with going past
that? Whaddya all think about the reading distance factor?

(This should be good for about 10,000 responses! )...)
Thanks in advance > > Darren

 

[Roxie Killian]

shooters out there feel about this resolution system? I've heard a
lot of comments on this forum about a 2.1mp Oly being great for
prints "up to 8x10", but has anyone got experience with going past
that? Whaddya all think about the reading distance factor?>

Good question Brian, I have a number of photos that were shot with my UZI that I take up to 16 x 20 and sell. They are all scenic shots but they are high contrast sharp images - as good as what I use to sell from 35 mm, and I did that for nearly 40 years. Everyone utters amazement that they are 1. digital and 2. shot with a 2.1 mp camera....even some pro wedding photogrpher friends of mine.

--
Ken
C-3030Z, C-2100UZ
. )

 

[Daniella68313]

I have noticed that its not only a matter of higher res, but to what program you use to rescale down. I have noticed lots of jaggy and poor level of detail when i use any of the 3 algorithms that Photoshop 6, a so-called "pro" software, so generously provides.

I have found that Lanczos algorithm is doing a much much better job but unfortunatly, with the program that have this available, acdsee, i loose my exif datas.

I think that infraview also have this available, and its doing a great job in resizing down. Here is an example of Photoshop vs lanczos algorithm:

Photoshop:



and lanczos:



Another thing that can make a difference i think, but i am not sure about this..is the percentage that you are rescaling to. I have read that some percentage rescale better than other...but i am not sure which.

I think that if you take both 2.1 and 3.1 mp and print them on 4 x 6, you might see some difference in subject like landscapes and photos where the level of details is high. for portrait, you will probably not see any difference. that's my conclusion after seing prints from my c700 and the c4040, of the same subject. In landscape shots..yes it makes a difference. but agian, i think its also dependant on the .jpg compression of each photos. I cannot see difference between the higher res but more compressed HQ mode of the c4040 and my C700 SHQ mode, even if they are 2.1mp vs 4mp.

when i use the HQ mode on the c4040, i am loosing a lot of details because ot the .jpg compression.

My gut feeling is that the more pixels you have the easier it would
be for scaling algorithm to decide which insignificant pixels to
throw away, right or wrong?

Btw, everybody talk here about UZI but what's this if not an
Israeli machine gun?

Here's a good one to consider: A while back I came across a "guide"
to the necessary megapixel resolution for a given print size (I
think it was posted on Ophoto's page) that had some interesting
numbers. The chart started out at 640x480 as minimum for a good
4"x6" print, and went up to 1560x1280 or something like that (I
don't have the chart with me right now) for an 8"x10" print. So
far, so good. But then the chart continues to 11x14, 16x20 and
20x24 -- and the minimum resolution stays at the 1560x1280.....

Didn't make sense until I remembered something from art school
called "reading distance", meaning the normal distance at which one
would view anything from a magazine page to a billboard. For
example, a poster looks pretty good from across the room; but walk
up to it and look at a 4x6 section of it and the quality ain't too
thrilling. However, that's not how you would look at ("view")
posters -- they're designed to be looked at from that far of a
reading distance. So now back to our hero with his trusty Uzi; he
shoots a really great picture that he wants to blow up to 16x20 or
whatever and hang on the wall -- is that why the resolution #'s on
the chart stayed the same past 8x10, which, coincidentally, is
usually the biggest image a person can comfortably take in at
normal reading distance (as in reading a piece of paper)? Might be
the reason our everyday typing paper is universally around
8.5"x11", and that's usually used vertically, i.e. the normal human
reading distance. I tried playing around with some regular photo
prints, and found that, lo & behold, when I was looking at an
11x14, I started holding it at arms' length. Pretty interesting,
try it out for yourselves and see what happens.

So here's the $64K question: How do you experienced digital
shooters out there feel about this resolution system? I've heard a
lot of comments on this forum about a 2.1mp Oly being great for
prints "up to 8x10", but has anyone got experience with going past
that? Whaddya all think about the reading distance factor?

(This should be good for about 10,000 responses! )...)
Thanks in advance > > Darren

--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C700 FORUM: http://www.c700uz.com

 

[Darren Young]

Darren

'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -- Hunter S. Thompson

 

[yote102388]

Clearly a better resize in diagonal lines. Interesting news about PS.

I have found that Lanczos algorithm is doing a much much better job
but unfortunatly, with the program that have this available,
acdsee, i loose my exif datas.

I think that infraview also have this available, and its doing a
great job in resizing down. Here is an example of Photoshop vs
lanczos algorithm:

Photoshop:



and lanczos:



Another thing that can make a difference i think, but i am not sure
about this..is the percentage that you are rescaling to. I have
read that some percentage rescale better than other...but i am not
sure which.

I think that if you take both 2.1 and 3.1 mp and print them on 4 x
6, you might see some difference in subject like landscapes and
photos where the level of details is high. for portrait, you will
probably not see any difference. that's my conclusion after seing
prints from my c700 and the c4040, of the same subject. In
landscape shots..yes it makes a difference. but agian, i think its
also dependant on the .jpg compression of each photos. I cannot
see difference between the higher res but more compressed HQ mode
of the c4040 and my C700 SHQ mode, even if they are 2.1mp vs 4mp.

when i use the HQ mode on the c4040, i am loosing a lot of details
because ot the .jpg compression.

My gut feeling is that the more pixels you have the easier it would
be for scaling algorithm to decide which insignificant pixels to
throw away, right or wrong?

Btw, everybody talk here about UZI but what's this if not an
Israeli machine gun?

Here's a good one to consider: A while back I came across a "guide"
to the necessary megapixel resolution for a given print size (I
think it was posted on Ophoto's page) that had some interesting
numbers. The chart started out at 640x480 as minimum for a good
4"x6" print, and went up to 1560x1280 or something like that (I
don't have the chart with me right now) for an 8"x10" print. So
far, so good. But then the chart continues to 11x14, 16x20 and
20x24 -- and the minimum resolution stays at the 1560x1280.....

Didn't make sense until I remembered something from art school
called "reading distance", meaning the normal distance at which one
would view anything from a magazine page to a billboard. For
example, a poster looks pretty good from across the room; but walk
up to it and look at a 4x6 section of it and the quality ain't too
thrilling. However, that's not how you would look at ("view")
posters -- they're designed to be looked at from that far of a
reading distance. So now back to our hero with his trusty Uzi; he
shoots a really great picture that he wants to blow up to 16x20 or
whatever and hang on the wall -- is that why the resolution #'s on
the chart stayed the same past 8x10, which, coincidentally, is
usually the biggest image a person can comfortably take in at
normal reading distance (as in reading a piece of paper)? Might be
the reason our everyday typing paper is universally around
8.5"x11", and that's usually used vertically, i.e. the normal human
reading distance. I tried playing around with some regular photo
prints, and found that, lo & behold, when I was looking at an
11x14, I started holding it at arms' length. Pretty interesting,
try it out for yourselves and see what happens.

So here's the $64K question: How do you experienced digital
shooters out there feel about this resolution system? I've heard a
lot of comments on this forum about a 2.1mp Oly being great for
prints "up to 8x10", but has anyone got experience with going past
that? Whaddya all think about the reading distance factor?

(This should be good for about 10,000 responses! )...)
Thanks in advance > > Darren

--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C700 FORUM: http://www.c700uz.com

--
Yote
E100-RS, D7i
http://www.pbase.com/yote