A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #591  
Old June 20th 04, 01:15 AM
Elemental
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:07:34 -0500, one_of_many wrote:

In article , Elemental
wrote:

A print that is 300dpi in is at most 300dpi out, regardless of the ppi
output of the printer. By going to 1440 ppi output, you give the
printer more room to do its dithering, and thereby produce a print that
is closer to 300 dpi in output resolution (at 1440 ppi printing output,
say).


Your confidence in the downsampling built into the printers firmware is
rather optomistic. 1440 - 300 is just too much, IMHO.


You are confused, or perhaps my writing is not 2x4-in-the-head clear.
There is no downsampling involved here.

To re-iterate, the image is 300dpi in. The resulting print is 300dpi out.
The 1440 ppi output of the printer has no effect on this. The image does
not become a 1440 dpi print just because the printer is putting 1440 ppi
dots on the paper. Is this clearer?


  #592  
Old June 20th 04, 01:37 AM
Fernando
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MF scanner upscaling? MF future? ideal cameras?

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:35:38 -0400, Stacey wrote:

The "problem" with the vega 120 isn't the resolution (which it performs
quite well), it's the bokeh. About as ugly as I've ever seen from any short
tele lens! IMHO the 80mm arsat with a 1.4X converter is a much better
option and cheaper. The 120mm biometar outperforms either.


Yes, if bokeh is more important for you than resolution and contrast;
I think it really depends of the type of photography one prefers.
I shoot mainly architecturals, and for me the superior (I'd say
"impressive") resolution and contrast of the Vega are more important
than bokeh; but of course for portraits, certain type of landscapes,
wildlife and the likes, a good bokeh is much more important than
resolving power.
This is the nice thing about having both the Vega 120 MC and the Arsat
80 MC + 1.4x MC teleconverter! And, they're so cheap! :-D

Fernando
  #593  
Old June 20th 04, 01:56 AM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better

Recently, Bill Hilton posted:

From: Elemental lid


A print that is 300dpi in is at most 300dpi out, regardless of the
ppi output of the printer.


You are confusing the input file resolution (which is *not* dpi, it's
ppi) with the printer's output resolution. They are two different
things.

Yes, and no (your're right that the image is more appropriately described
as "pixels per inch" (ppi), though common usage equates "dots" (d) with
"pixels", and considering the image alone, it isn't confusing). While,
they *are* two different things; in the case of the image, it defines the
number of pixels in an inch, and each pixel can only contain one color; in
the case of the printer, it *should* describe the ability to place a "dot"
of ink, though that isn't always the case.

Carry home concept: you cannot get more resolution (detail) out
than you put in.


Look at a LightJet print and compare it directly to a wet print ...

The Océ LightJet® is not an inkjet printer. It is a laser imaging device
that outputs to photographic film. So, its output *is* a "wet print".

From Océ's site:
"No other printer can match the Océ LightJet® 430's combination of speed,
quality and affordability. The Océ LightJet® 430 wide format photo laser
printer images up to 40 m² (430 ft²) per hour. Even at this speed, the Océ
LightJet® 430 does not compromise on quality, maintaining an apparent
resolution of 4,000 dpi. The Océ LightJet 430® has won more awards for
quality output than any other wide format photo laser printer."

There is nothing new about high-resolution laser and PMT devices that
write to film. They can be *very* high resolution; I commonly get PMT film
recorder output at 15,000 lpi. However, the basic point is getting lost:
the original image resolution doesn't change. What you're describing is
the ability of an inkjet to more closely emulate the color of a pixel by
dithering, but this doesn't affect resolution at all.

What is telling is that the inkjet manufacturers stay away from the
printing press usage of "lines per inch" (lpi), which is a measure of
resolution, just as in photography. So, a line screen of 200 lpi *will* be
exactly that on a decent press. If you have a vector line imaged at that
resolution, one *can* print a sharp 200 lpi resolution on paper. I have
yet to see the inkjet that can do that.

Neil


  #594  
Old June 20th 04, 03:34 AM
one_of_many
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better

In article , Elemental
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:07:34 -0500, one_of_many wrote:


Your confidence in the downsampling built into the printers firmware is
rather optomistic. 1440 - 300 is just too much, IMHO.


You are confused, or perhaps my writing is not 2x4-in-the-head clear.
There is no downsampling involved here.

To re-iterate, the image is 300dpi in. The resulting print is 300dpi out.
The 1440 ppi output of the printer has no effect on this. The image does
not become a 1440 dpi print just because the printer is putting 1440 ppi
dots on the paper. Is this clearer?


First, there is no such thing as 'DPI' in a digital image until it's laid
on paper and measured. And of course, I understand that the rest of your
assertion is total nonsense.

Is this clear?
  #595  
Old June 20th 04, 11:08 AM
Q.G. de Bakker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better

one_of_many wrote:

First, there is no such thing as 'DPI' in a digital image until it's laid
on paper and measured. And of course, I understand that the rest of your
assertion is total nonsense.


Is this your attempt to look as foolish as can possibly be? ;-)

When an image is recorded, there's a limit to the detail in it. That limit
is set by both lens, magnification and sensor or film.
If, for instance, you record a subject 1 inch wide using a sensor that has
300 sensor elements (let's forget about bayer patterns etc.) the finest
detail that can be recorded is no less than 1/300" of an inch in size.

Now take the image produced, and print it on a printer that breaks down
every one of those 300 image elements into 1,000,000 blobs of ink of
assorted colours, and still the finest detail that can be reproduced is no
less than 1/300 of an inch in size.
When you're not printing 1:1 these image elements are enlarged or reduced in
size on paper), yet the finest detail... etc.

The number of blobs of ink a printer uses may have an effect on how well
every one of those information bearing image elements wil look, but still
the finest detail ... etc.

Now if the printer was able to reconstruct the detail in the subject not
originally recorded because of the nature of the sensor and use those extra
blobs to convey these too.
But when was the last time (or first time) you saw a printer that would
actually see something?

Is that clearer?


  #596  
Old June 20th 04, 12:33 PM
Fil Ament
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better

In article ,
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Is that clearer?


I would say not,...... more obtuse.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.
  #597  
Old June 20th 04, 05:45 PM
one_of_many
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better

In article , "Q.G. de
Bakker" wrote:

one_of_many wrote:

First, there is no such thing as 'DPI' in a digital image until it's laid
on paper and measured. And of course, I understand that the rest of your
assertion is total nonsense.


Is this your attempt to look as foolish as can possibly be? ;-)

When an image is recorded, there's a limit to the detail in it. That limit
is set by both lens, magnification and sensor or film.
If, for instance, you record a subject 1 inch wide using a sensor that has
300 sensor elements (let's forget about bayer patterns etc.) the finest
detail that can be recorded is no less than 1/300" of an inch in size.

Now take the image produced, and print it on a printer that breaks down
every one of those 300 image elements into 1,000,000 blobs of ink of
assorted colours, and still the finest detail that can be reproduced is no
less than 1/300 of an inch in size.
When you're not printing 1:1 these image elements are enlarged or reduced in
size on paper), yet the finest detail... etc.

The number of blobs of ink a printer uses may have an effect on how well
every one of those information bearing image elements wil look, but still
the finest detail ... etc.

Now if the printer was able to reconstruct the detail in the subject not
originally recorded because of the nature of the sensor and use those extra
blobs to convey these too.
But when was the last time (or first time) you saw a printer that would
actually see something?

Is that clearer?


Your explantion simply affirmed what I said. Said another way, "A digital
image is pixels and the only concise metric is the pixel count and
bit-depth (and sometimes pixel shape).

A digitally made print is something else entirely. Assigning 'DPI' to a
digital image might be a handy metric, but its meaning depends upon all
the factors you mention in your post above, so 'DPI' is, at best,
tentative and specific to the output device.
  #598  
Old June 20th 04, 06:22 PM
Elemental
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:33:07 +0000, Fil Ament wrote:

In article ,
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Is that clearer?


I would say not,...... more obtuse.


I apparently left several assumptions unstated in my original post, which
is not a good thing. Also, it seems some people are unable to grasp the
simplist concept, which is now out of context. Also, not a good thing.

As for me seeing an optical color print, not likely. I had enough of
Cibachrome already and won't touch it again. Most of the labs nearby
are all digital output, even nearby mail order. Maybe B&W prints will
have another chance, if I stop reading here.


  #599  
Old June 20th 04, 06:52 PM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better

Bill Hilton posted:

Look at a LightJet print and compare it directly to a wet print ...


From: "Neil Gould"

The Océ LightJet® is not an inkjet printer. It is a laser imaging device
that outputs to photographic film. So, its output *is* a "wet print".


Hi Neil,

The one I got to work with at Calypso printed on photo paper, not film,
specifically Fuji Crystal Archive paper.

You're right that it's a "wet print" but I thought we were discussing whether
or not a digital file with 300 ppi rez contained enough information to make an
excellent print. Since the LJ takes EXACTLY 300 ppi (on the newer Anglicized
models) or 304.8 ppi (on the earlier rez 12 metric models like the 5000) I
thought it was the perfect example to show that yes, you can get a great print
from 300 ppi.

So it seems like you are at least coming around to the idea that 300 ppi isn't
such a bad number after all? Which is what I was trying to show to Bob.

As for the inkjets, the Epson professional series produces output that looks
very close to the LightJet. One of the reasons LJ prints dropped from $70 to
$30 was because so many pros bought their own Epson 9600 and 7600 models a
couple of years ago and LJ print volume dropped off. A pro doing his own
prints can afford the $5,000 or $3,000 that the Epsons cost while the LJ was
out of range at $150,000.

I know you doubt that the Epson 9600 prints (or any inkjet prints) are
comparable to LJ prints, but you can get free samples of the same image from
WCI (or least you could, if they thought you were a potential customer) and
compare them for yourself. To me in a blind shuffle-the-deck and
arrange-the-prints-in-order test the LJ on semi-gloss looks very slightly
better than the best 9600 print, for example. That's why I have a 4000 on
order (prints 17x22" with the same print engine).

As another indication of the print quality of the Epsons, Calypso Labs has both
a LightJet 5000 (calibrated by Bill Atkinson) and an Epson 9600 ... prints from
their LJ cost LESS to the customer than Epson prints, ie, $9 sq/ft from the LJ
and $10 sq/ft from the Epson. If the LJ prints were night-and-day better than
the Epson prints then why would someone spend more money on the lesser print?
http://www.calypsoinc.com/

Bill


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Formula for pre-focusing Steve Yeatts Large Format Photography Equipment 9 June 22nd 04 02:55 AM
zone system test with filter on lens? Phil Lamerton In The Darkroom 35 June 4th 04 02:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.