i took the center portion and scrutinized at *various* distances. my conclusion (nothing to do with math) is that the closest distance it looks ok is a couple of meters (give or take).
also: i am not arguing that 35mm would stand up to that kind of enlargement any better. i simply don't know. read my post again. and finally, back to the "math calisthenics". like someone here mentioned before, math is good. i did this experiment, to check whether it is good indeed. and, not too surprisingly, it is. i've got what i expected: a print that resolves a couple of lines per mm. i am not saying it is bad. i am not saying it is good. i am saying, it is 2 lpmm, it is mushy (yes, it is), and whether it's good or bad depends on your acceptance standards. and your eyesight. best, mishka On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:19:38 -0800, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill, > > From his previous posts, I get the feeling that he is a strong film > advocate who is trying to prove that digital (DSLR -35mm) isn't good > enough yet. Seems that I remember that he doesn't have a DSLR yet and > is going through the math calisthenics like many others. > > I can say, that I am having better luck blowing up *istD shots of > portraits, families and weddings than I ever had shooting 35mm with > equivalent best glass from Pentax. My clients are plenty happy with > the last eleven 20X30's that I have delivered. > > Bruce > > Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 7:08:27 PM, you wrote: > > WR> ----- Original Message ----- > WR> From: "Paul Stenquist" > WR> Subject: Re: 20x30" from 6MP? > > > >> How large was the file you used? it should have been interpolated > >> to 72 megabytes in the RAW converter. Then you should probably have > >> upsized it to 20x30 at 360 dpi. > > WR> Paul, he took the center portion of the image and scrutinized it, > WR> probably at a normal distance for an 8x10 (less than arms length). > WR> I doubt very much if the istD images would stand that sort of > WR> scrutiny, no matter how they were processed. > WR> OTOH, I know that 35mm film wouldn't stand it either, so I'm not > WR> quite certain what he is saying. > > WR> William Robb > >
