Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Uh, oh! Chuck agrees with you too. He told me so (quietly).
>
> Dr. Flash
>
Oh dear! So does Moose
- Anon
> Ken Norton wrote:
>
>> We are battling the sliding scale of acceptability. What was outstanding
>> yesterday is now garbage today. In reality, if I presented you a
>> reasonably-sized print which I told you was taken with the 5Dmk2, but
>> instead was taken with the E-1, there are few, if any, who will be able to
>> recognize that it' a lie.
>>
>> In his D3X review, Thom Hogan wrote:
>>
>> "Finally, a word about "size." One reason a lot of people get excited about
>> the 24mp number is that they envision "printing bigger." At the 360 dpi that
>> you would normally give an Epson inkjet printer (Canon's and HP's prefer 300
>> dpi, I believe), the maximum size of a D3x image before you have to start
>> resizing is ~11x17". On a D3, that number would be ~8x12"..."
>>
>> Oh, for crying out loud. I cannot believe that ANY reasonable thinker
>> honestly believes that you have to go 1:1 for a quality print and that you
>> need 24MP to print larger than 11x17". This is beyond moronic and doesn't
>> even come close to being scientifically defendable. Whether Thom personally
>> believes this garbage, I don't know, but his typing it has put credence to
>> it. Shame on you, Thom.
>>
>> I can scientifically prove that this 1/360 resolution requirement is bogus.
>> Anybody can prove that it's bogus if they just get their heads out of their
>> spec-sheet reading rear-ends.
>>
>> AG
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|