Thanks t
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pix [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 6:02 PM
> To: Pentax Discussion List
> Subject: Re: A3 prints from *istD
>
>
>
> Here's a handy reference that discusses the ISO paper sizes:
>
> <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html>
>
> Maybe more than you wanted, but the sizes in mm are there, too.
>
> t
>
> On 8/26/04 14:24, Don Sanderson wrote:
>
> > Jostein what's the size in MM (or inches) of A2/A3?
> >
> > Don
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:42 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: A3 prints from *istD
> >>
> >>
> >> Gang,
> >>
> >> A while ago, I questioned whether files from *istD would suffice for
> >> A3 enlargement. I put a full size version of this image online:
> >>
> >> http://www.oksne.net/paw/wintermarsh.html
> >>
> >> The image is so full of minute detail that I had my doubts it could be
> >> blown up larger than A4.
> >>
> >> Cotty and Paul Stenquist set out to prove me wrong. A couple of days
> >> later I received a print from Paul made on an Epson 2200 onto a
> >> radiant white watercolour paper. The quality was excellent, even to my
> >> prejudice mind. Cotty had printed on glossy paper with his Canon (I
> >> forget the model), and thus the two prints were hard to compare for
> >> differences among the printers. However, the two results clearly
> >> showed that A3 enlargements are well within reach with a 6 Mpix
> >> camera.
> >>
> >> So I got curious. I asked a pro-lab in Oslo to go as large as _they_
> >> considered reasonable quality, and told them the file was from a 6
> >> Mpix DSLR. They print on a Epson Pro 9600. What I got back was an A2
> >> enlargement. At this size, it was easy to spot the blurring of details
> >> less than 3 pixels across. The Pentax way of anti-aliasing made them
> >> blend together. There were no artificial coloring or moire, though.
> >> Another gripe was that contrast got a bit out of hand, so that dark
> >> detail became jagged edges or little squares, 2-3 pixels across. The
> >> ghosts of Nyquist came out and said boo... Still around the
> >> theoretical limit, I suppose.
> >>
> >> BUT! from a 50-60 cm viewing distance, even the A2 is passable for
> >> hanging on a wall. By my standards, of course. Ymmv, my expectations
> >> were that this was a no-go.
> >>
> >> I must say I'm puzzled, astonished and impressed with the result, and
> >> relieved to have been proven wrong in my suspicions.
> >>
> >> So now I'm seriously considering an A3 printer...:-)
> >>
> >> Jostein
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
