You're probably right, Cotty. But I think the Durst Lambda is reasonably high res. I imagine that what Pogue means is that the files were sized at 400 DPI for printing. I suspect the printer prints at much higher res than that. But it is a laser printer that's designed for pro labs. I don't know how it compares to the best inkjets in terms of detail and resolution. Perhaps Wheatfield knows. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 8/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: > > >David Pogue's column in today's NY Times takes on the megapixel > >controversy. He conducted tests in an effort to show that an increase in > >megapixels doesn't necessarily yield better results. The column is aimed > >at consumers and the heavy emphasis on megapixels in P&S marketing. His > >first test was with a 13 megapixel camera. He doesn't specify which one. > >He took a shot of a toddler, then downsized it to 8 megapixels and 5 > >megapixels in PhotoShop. he then had 16 x24 prints made. They were > >digital C prints, printed on a Durst Lambda at 400 dpi. He displayed the > >prints in Union Square and asked volunteers to try to determine which > >was which: lo-res, medium-res and hi-res. One of twelve viewers got it > >right. He published the results on his blog and received a number of > >angry letters that claimed the results invalid because the lo-res images > >were derived from the hi-res by downsizing, rather than being shot lo- > >res. So he devised another test. He reasoned, quite correctly in my > >opinion, th > >at he couldn't use different cameras, because the results would be > >skewed by other factors. A Canon pro came up with another method. He > >suggested using a Caonon 1DS 16.7 megapixel camera to take the picture > >and effectively reducing megapixels by zooming out and cropping. Pogue > >agreed and they repeated the test. They produced three shots at > >different focal lengths and cropped two of them to 10 and 7 megapixels > >respectively. The longest focal length image was kept at 16.7 > >megapixels. Again they made three 16 x 24 prints on the Durst Lambda. > >This time they displayed them in a library and had 50 people evaluate > >them. Only three could differentiate the various resolutions. Pogue > >ackowledges the value of higher resolution for cropping and understands > >that on a large sensor it can be a plus. But his point is that with tiny > >P&S sensors, 5 megapixels may well yield results equal to or better than > >8 megapixels. But we knew that. One has to wonder how many experienced > >photographers would be a > >ble to differentiate between the three prints? I guess we'll never know. > > Interesting, but doesn't this come back to what i was saying about the > limiting factor being the resolution of the printer? > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
