The Gigapxl Camera

Any thoughts about this? http://www.gigapxl.org/

Dnia 3 Sep 2006 22:09:31 -0700, One4All napisa³(a):

Any thoughts about this? http://www.gigapxl.org/

It's nice project. But impractical for me - where I make such big prints
to see this quality? All what I need is HQ A4 (8x10") - this I have
from 4x5" for reasonable costs. And I also don't need to know how many
bricks are in house wall - too many details distract (and on small prints
will not be visible).

Greetings,
Henry

Henry (k) wrote:
Dnia 3 Sep 2006 22:09:31 -0700, One4All napisa³(a):

Any thoughts about this? http://www.gigapxl.org/

It's nice project. But impractical for me - where I make such big prints
to see this quality? All what I need is HQ A4 (8x10") - this I have
from 4x5" for reasonable costs. And I also don't need to know how many
bricks are in house wall - too many details distract (and on small prints
will not be visible).
Well first off I agree that for the average photographer the camera is
more then a little over kill and not needed.

But I have to take issue with your statement that too much detail is
distracting, a comment I have heard from others as well. I think many
people miss the point of getting very high resolution when making
larger print. What bothers me when prints don't have enough
resolution isn't that I can count pinecones on the trees or read the
street signs with a magnifying glass but rather that many surfaces that
should have texture are missing it. A sand beach just looks flat and
dull, grass becomes a green blur.

Not ever photo benefits from having enough detail to see the texture of
surfaces but in many photos they definitely do. I was in a store and
saw some poster sized print of photos taken at Arches National Park,
whey looked very nice from 20 feet away but when you go up to them the
rock had not texture to it, just all soft. The photos were missing an
important dimension IMO because of this

Scott

Dnia 15 Sep 2006 07:57:18 -0700, Scott W napisa³(a):

But I have to take issue with your statement that too much detail is
distracting, a comment I have heard from others as well. I think many
people miss the point of getting very high resolution when making
larger print. What bothers me when prints don't have enough
resolution isn't that I can count pinecones on the trees or read the
street signs with a magnifying glass but rather that many surfaces that
should have texture are missing it. A sand beach just looks flat and
dull, grass becomes a green blur.

Of course you are right - this is why I left 35mm and now I make 6x9cm
and 4x5" :-) Textures are a must. But with "to many details" I mean
objects on photo. If you photograph a city then it's nice to see all
buildings. But are you able to look in details at all of them? I prefer
to see only a few - this I can reach with separate photos - so "overview"
photo don't need so many details.

Greetings,
Henry

In article ,
"Henry (k)" wrote:

Dnia 15 Sep 2006 07:57:18 -0700, Scott W napisa³(a):

But I have to take issue with your statement that too much detail is
distracting, a comment I have heard from others as well. I think many
people miss the point of getting very high resolution when making
larger print. What bothers me when prints don't have enough
resolution isn't that I can count pinecones on the trees or read the
street signs with a magnifying glass but rather that many surfaces that
should have texture are missing it. A sand beach just looks flat and
dull, grass becomes a green blur.

Of course you are right - this is why I left 35mm and now I make 6x9cm
and 4x5" :-) Textures are a must. But with "to many details" I mean
objects on photo. If you photograph a city then it's nice to see all
buildings. But are you able to look in details at all of them? I prefer
to see only a few - this I can reach with separate photos - so "overview"
photo don't need so many details.

Greetings,
Henry

I think relative contrast also plays a part - for that matter having
sharpness in some areas and not others can be nice, people always
marvel at 4x5, I have a few 8x10 negatives printed to 16x20 that beat
the crap out of 4x5.

(I am also curious how fonts get changed mid thread) This your post seem
to go to a sans serif font versus my normal tomes roman.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Greg \"_\" wrote:

In article ,
"Henry (k)" wrote:

Dnia 15 Sep 2006 07:57:18 -0700, Scott W napisa3(a):

But I have to take issue with your statement that too much detail is
distracting, a comment I have heard from others as well. I think many
people miss the point of getting very high resolution when making
larger print. What bothers me when prints don't have enough
resolution isn't that I can count pinecones on the trees or read the
street signs with a magnifying glass but rather that many surfaces that
should have texture are missing it. A sand beach just looks flat and
dull, grass becomes a green blur.

Of course you are right - this is why I left 35mm and now I make 6x9cm
and 4x5" :-) Textures are a must. But with "to many details" I mean
objects on photo. If you photograph a city then it's nice to see all
buildings. But are you able to look in details at all of them? I prefer
to see only a few - this I can reach with separate photos - so "overview"
photo don't need so many details.

Greetings,
Henry

I think relative contrast also plays a part - for that matter having
sharpness in some areas and not others can be nice, people always
marvel at 4x5, I have a few 8x10 negatives printed to 16x20 that beat
the crap out of 4x5.

8x10 offers greater detail. But I don't think
one can have too much detail. The detail and
resolution become evident in the enlargement.
I once did a large print of a skyline for a
client. He was impressed with the transparency
(4x5) but was even more impressed when after
it was enlarged to 50+ inches he could see
people and office furniture in skyscraper windows...

Greg "_" wrote:
I think relative contrast also plays a part - for that matter having

sharpness in some areas and not others can be nice, people always
marvel at 4x5, I have a few 8x10 negatives printed to 16x20 that beat
the crap out of 4x5.
I am a bit surprised by this since 16 x 20 is only a 4X enlargement in
which case the film size should not be limiting the print sharpness.
Is it possible that you have better optics on the 8 x 10 camera, or
that the enlarger used for making the print from the 8 x 10 was better?
This would be somewhat like saying a 4 x 6 print from a MF would beat
the crap out of a 4x6 print from a 35mm camera.

(I am also curious how fonts get changed mid thread) This your post seem
to go to a sans serif font versus my normal tomes roman.
Odd, I don't see a font change.

Scott

Scott W wrote:

Greg "_" wrote:
I think relative contrast also plays a part - for that matter having

sharpness in some areas and not others can be nice, people always
marvel at 4x5, I have a few 8x10 negatives printed to 16x20 that beat
the crap out of 4x5.
I am a bit surprised by this since 16 x 20 is only a 4X enlargement in
which case the film size should not be limiting the print sharpness.

"Sharpness" is a very subjective term and
relatively meaningless. Resolution is a
far better way to describe the differences
and any 8x10 (using same film, developer,
subject matter, etc.) has greater resolution
than 4x5...

Is it possible that you have better optics on the 8 x 10 camera,

The issue is format size. The bigger the
format the greater the detail captured.
With 16x20 you could (possibly) notice a
significant difference between 4x5 and
8x10 negs. Or maybe not. Resolution depends
on a number of factors, including the film
type, speed, developer, enlargement, and MTF
of the camera system being used. Also sometimes
the subject matter.

or
that the enlarger used for making the print from the 8 x 10 was better?

Insignificant...

This would be somewhat like saying a 4 x 6 print from a MF would beat
the crap out of a 4x6 print from a 35mm camera.

Again depends on the above factors...

In article om,
"Scott W" wrote:

Greg "_" wrote:
I think relative contrast also plays a part - for that matter having

sharpness in some areas and not others can be nice, people always
marvel at 4x5, I have a few 8x10 negatives printed to 16x20 that beat
the crap out of 4x5.
I am a bit surprised by this since 16 x 20 is only a 4X enlargement in
which case the film size should not be limiting the print sharpness.
Is it possible that you have better optics on the 8 x 10 camera, or
that the enlarger used for making the print from the 8 x 10 was better?
This would be somewhat like saying a 4 x 6 print from a MF would beat
the crap out of a 4x6 print from a 35mm camera.

16x20 is only a 2x enlargement versus 4x for 4x5. One would expect all
images in the 8x10 format to be sharper (not always so), but with a 8x10
camera the film plane must be aligned very perfectly- the bigger the
camera the more a problem and if enlarging so true of the enlarger.

I think my optics are relatively good, all modern lenses, I have
schneider's and rodenstock on the 4x5 camera and the 8x10 enlarger
and Fujinon on the 8x10 camera.

(I am also curious how fonts get changed mid thread) This your post seem
to go to a sans serif font versus my normal tomes roman.
Odd, I don't see a font change.

Scott

Most be computer related because I went back to my reply and the font
had changed back strange :^
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Greg "_" wrote:
16x20 is only a 2x enlargement versus 4x for 4x5. One would expect all
images in the 8x10 format to be sharper (not always so), but with a 8x10
camera the film plane must be aligned very perfectly- the bigger the
camera the more a problem and if enlarging so true of the enlarger.

Sure the 8 x 10 would be expected to be sharper but given the low
enlargement needed for the 4x6 shot I was surprised that there would be
a dramatic difference in the prints. I would have guessed that the
difference between a 2X and 4X enlargement would have taken a very
close look to see any difference.

I could see if you were using something like an 400 ISO print film that
there could be a big difference, but I don't believe you would use a
film like that.

Scott