On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:47 AM, Bob W wrote: > This approach is the wrong way round really. > > The ideal size across the diagonal for a picture should be about half > the viewing distance. The recommended viewing distance for a computer > screen is about 30 inches (75cm). So the maximum size of your picture > should be about 15 inches (37cm) across the diagonal. This size means > you can take in the whole picture from the viewing distance without > having to 'scan' across it with your eyes (or scroll with your > viewer), but the picture is not so small that you start to lose > details and have to strain. > > So your picture (in 135 format) should be about 16x24" (40x60cm) for > this viewing distance. > > Assuming 90 dots per inch resolution and a 1:1 mapping, your picture > should be 1440x2160 = 31 megabytes. > > That rules out almost all monitors and line speeds for optimum > viewing.
Sure, fine theory. But the "recommended viewing distance" is hopeless for my eyesight and comfort ... I have my computer glasses tuned for a comfortable 23" viewing distance. Farther away than that and text on screen is hopeless unless I make it too big to be useful. > For optimum viewing therefore you need to decide for yourself > what is the target screen size and resolution, and make the largest > picture you can that fits, allowing the audience to take in the whole > thing without scanning or scrolling. The audience will just have to > lean a bit closer to appreciate the fine detail of the picture. Yup. What detail is visible anyway. An A3 print is so much nicer to examine closely. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
