Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 25, 2004, 7:50 AM   #21
AMG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 144
Default

My avatar ??? I'm shocked, is anyone else getting a problem because of my presence ?
AMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2004, 8:11 AM   #22
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
know there is more information in a greater angle of view shot but, if all things are equal (field of view) between a telephoto shot and a wide angle shot (compromising the exact same spatial dimension and the subject is three dimensional) will there still not be more detail/data in the wide angle shot?

Lin, I would like to get your opinion about sending too much data to the printer. Specifically can you send too much resolution to a printer and if yes, what will the effects be?
The only factor which I can see which would cause more detail would be potential depth of focus differences and noise, if any. One way to test this would be to actually perform the experiment using identical jpg compression and see if the file sizes are identical. Assuming one uses identical ISO, aperture, and noise is not an issue, with the field of view being identical my assumption would be that the amount of detail in the image would theoretically be the same, but I would caution that at times practical experiments prove that theory may not always encompass all variables. In practical experiments I've noticed differences in telephoto and wide angle shots of similar fields of view which may have been caused by intervening atmospheric conditions. With more atmosphere between the lens and subject it's conceivable that some detail might be compromised. Of course all this is dependent on the unlikely assumption that lens characteristics differences are not a factor.

For all practical purposes I believe we could assume that the actual detail would be similar enough that we could call it identical.

As for sending excessive data to the printer - the print driver in inkjets which I'm familiar with will generally resample to get what it needs per selected print definition. This may not work for LightJet, Durst Lambda, Fuji Frontier, etc., because most commercial printers "require" the file to have the proper dimensions for the desired print size. Frankly I'm not sure what would happen if you were to send data in excess of requirements to one of these. Not having personal access to these printers, I've not had the opportunity to experiment. Perhaps someone who does commercial printing with them can comment. Next time I talk with our service bureau I'll ask.

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2004, 8:26 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lin Evans
... The more detail which is present within the captured frame, the more resolution is required to properly define the two dimensional boundaries of this detail ...
Very true, though that might or might not have much to do with the focal length of the lens. Landscapes are a fairly good example since they often have a fractal nature. Tree trunks, to branches to twigs to leaves to insects to insect wings to insect eyes to the smaller bugs on the bigger bugs to ... The more the subject is fractal (common in nature), the less important is the lens length or distance to subject in determining required resolution. (I know I am misusing the term "fractal", but can't think of better short description.)

Seems to come down to the standard photographic mantra: use the right equipment for the specific job.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2004, 8:42 AM   #24
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Yes, and you are using the term "fractal" correctly here in that these objects can easily be represented (as can most in nature) with fractal algorithms - which makes products like Genuine Fractals so useful.

The other side of this coin is that when detail is so distant, even marker pixels can be accepted by our senses as suitable replacements for true detail. Artists who paint with oils have no problems at all making us believe that a few brush strokes are "pine needles" or "waves" in the ocean.

The problem definitely arises when we enlarge to the point where we are forced to admit the deception. The more true resolution we have available for defining these known features, the longer we can maintain the illusion.

Absolutely - the right tool for the job.....

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 PM.