Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:37 PM -0500 2/22/04, Jonathan Borden wrote: >On Feb 22, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Frank Dernie wrote: > >>None of what you write here agrees with my practical experience. >>The grain on my scanned negative film is much uglier than digital - >>but scans of transparencies ar OK. I have certainly never used a >>photoshop grain filter - the idea that this would make a more >>pleasing image is at best a matter of opinion. > >I agree the appearance of film grain is a matter of opinion. >Nonetheless 1) people have gone to the trouble to write photoshop >filters that *add* grain to digital images 2) gaussian noise is much >more pleasing than pixelated noise at any given level of noise. The gaussian blur filter existed in Photoshop from a very early time, when it was intended to simulate photographs in drawings done on a computer, and other image softening effects. The digital photo market was a _very_ minor factor at that time, but scanned photos were becoming a significant factor, and gaussian blur was useful when compositing and drawing to blend photos which had grain and blur. >>There are certainly no visible "rectangular grains" in any of my >>pictures, but I have never owned a camera with fewer than 2.2 >>megapixels. This camera made reasonable 10x8 prints, considering it >>is a P&S camera. >That roughly corresponds to a printing resolution of 75 dpi. You >might find that acceptable. I am saying that many people would print >an 8x10 at 300 dpi which is four times that resolution. I think your math is a bit adrift. If 8x10 corresponds to 7.2 megapixels at 300 dpi, then 2.2 megapixels will result in an 8x10 at 166 dpi. This makes a huge difference from 75 dpi, although I agree that the quality is noticeably poorer. >>The earliest digital cameras did produce a mosaic effect and were >>unusable for normal photography. >>I have never heard 360 ppi quoted as a maximum resolution, > >The Imageprint RIP uses this as a maximal resolution (at least the >lite version). I personally can't see any significant increase in >print resolution (with my naked eye) beyond this. You can certainly >print at a higher resolution -- I am only suggesting that this may >not result in a better print. > >I *am* saying, however, that most people can see a difference >between 75 dpi and 300 dpi (8 megapixel for 8x10) or 360 dpi (10 >megapixel for 8x10). <snip> - -- * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html