POLL - How much resolution (lpm) you can achieve?

[ic-racer]

I'd estimate that my maximum resolution on film is with the Minox lens with microfilm. My maximum resloution on paper totally depends on the enlargement size. The theoretical maximum I can get is a reduction of 8x10 negative to 4x5 print. But the paper resolution is the limit there.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I resloved years ago to not bother myself with resolution, only results.

Well said.

I never am disappointed with the resolution of my Hasselblads, Speed Graphic or Graflex.

Steve

 

[2F/2F]

I find the info on the DX format particularly interesting. If I am understanding the chart correctly, a DX camera is just barely capable of meeting the minimum resolution required for a standard-quality print, and even then, only within a narrow range of f stops.

I agree that digital is lousy, to oversimplify heavily, but I am happy with the b/w prints I get from my 10D at 6x9 or 8x12 inches. They blend nicely with my film prints IMO. So resolution is obviously a very unimportant factor in the way I personally judge prints, I guess.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... I don't see the size of the print, maybe it's in the text?

The size of the print is of no consequence as long as your viewing distance is (or at least is never less than) the print diagonal. All depth-of-field calculations based on the circle of confusion (CoC) depend on that assumption.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I find the info on the DX format particularly interesting. If I am understanding the chart correctly, a DX camera is just barely capable of meeting the minimum resolution required for a standard-quality print, and even then, only within a narrow range of f stops.

I agree that digital is lousy, to oversimplify heavily, but I am happy with the b/w prints I get from my 10D at 6x9 or 8x12 inches. They blend nicely with my film prints IMO. So resolution is obviously a very unimportant factor in the way I personally judge prints, I guess.

Your interpretation of the graph in reference of DX performance is correct. The 'enlarged' performance of DX is sufficient to satisfy the resolution of our eyes at a comfortable minimum viewing distance of about 10 inches. Actually, the entire graph is only relevant for prints larger than 8x10. Even pinhole cameras can satisfy human viewing resolution if the print is small enough. With larger prints, our eyes get closer, relatively speaking (print diagonal), and at that point, DX is seriously challenged by 35mm film.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'd estimate that my maximum resolution on film is with the Minox lens with microfilm. ...

I believe it!

... My maximum resloution on paper totally depends on the enlargement size. ...

Well, of course.

... The theoretical maximum I can get is a reduction of 8x10 negative to 4x5 print. ...

Yes, but it's questionable if your eyes can appreciate it.

... But the paper resolution is the limit there.

Why do you think that? Paper resolution is >60 lp/mm. That's way beyond what your eyes are able to resolve. Or do you mean 'printed resolution'?

 

[Allen Friday]

This entire thread has a ring to it. Does it remind anyone else of Barry Thorton's "Edge of Darkness?"

 

[Q.G.]

Whatever it may remind you of, as long as resolution is measured in double digit number expressions of LPM, it's something to have sleepless nights over.

 

[Bill Burk]

The ... viewing distance is ... the print diagonal.

That's what I needed to know.

 

[A49]

That said, I don't think sharpness is the only criterium either, but I'm always turned off by images that are not as sharp as they could be when they could be improved by sharpness. I'm well aware, unsharpness can be a creative tool (many good examples in the APUG library of that), but that shouldn't become an excuse for sloppy craftsmanship.

Thank you, Ralph. You wrote in short, what I think of the sharpness issue.

The diagram that you posted was not absolutely new for me because I happily have got your great book (the 2011 edition) a few days before. So much compressed information! And many new facts for me although I´ve already read some bulky and some thin but specialized books on photography. Also for the things I know, your book and your contribution here in the forum is valuable when I try to bring them in a systematic order.

Just one question regarding the diagram: Are the "actual resolution" curves derived from your own (chart) measurements or from theoretical considerations in combination with publicised charts?

Best,
Andreas

 

[Diapositivo]

I have a side question about print resolution. I hope it is not off-topic, as it relates to how the "normal" human eye can appreciate high resolution in print.

Kodak is making an industrial bet on their digital high-resolution printing technology. Until today, high-quality print as far as I know is made at 300 pixel per inch. It seems that very rarely recourse is made to 400 ppi printing. The new Kodak technology is supposed to deliver prints at 600 ppi (at high speed). Photographic paper resolution (darkroom) is > 60 lp/mm.

So my doubts are:

Which is the correlation between line pairs per millimetre and dot per inch? What would be the equivalent, in lp/mm, of a 600 ppi print?

Is the higher quality of this higher resolution discernible by the average person?

Are printed publications going to require, or sistematically adopt, in the future, a higher resolution?

The answer to these questions might have side effects also on photographic prints (darkroom work). People might, with years, form different expectations about sharpness. A fine-art print that looks sharp on a gallery now, might look less sharp in twenty years time when people will have seen thousands of images printed in books at 600 ppi (if really Kodak succeeds in bringing forward this "revolutionary" technology).

Maybe 600 ppi is in any case less than 60 lp/mm but the "visual resolution gap" between a book and a fine-art print will be reduced.

Fabrizio

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Print resolution has a lot to do with the paper surface, whether it's photographic paper, inkjet, or offset printing, and I don't think we're going to get to a point where all printed images will have to be on supergloss paper for maximum resolution, because that's been available for some time, and it's not always the most desirable aesthetic for every purpose.

I think this guy gets pretty good resolution (which you can see if the Zoomify images are working properly)--

http://collections.frick.org/THA98*1$236034*9885876

 

[A49]

Which is the correlation between line pairs per millimetre and dot per inch? What would be the equivalent, in lp/mm, of a 600 ppi print?

Is the higher quality of this higher resolution discernible by the average person?

Yes it is off-topic.

With 600 ppi you can resolve 300 lines, what means line pairs in the best case because you need 2 pixel two show two lines (one black pixel and one white pixel). So 300 line pairs per 1 inch = 25,4 mm. 300 line pairs / 25,4mm = 11,8 line pairs per millimeter (lpm). Much lower than the resolution capability of classic photographic paper (60 lpm). So most of the people should see a difference between a digital 300 ppi (about 6 lpm) and 600 ppi (about 12 lpm) print if they look carefully and maybe some would even see an advantage of the classic b/w print, if the digital or analogue source for printing is highly enough resolved.

Andreas

 

[Marco B]

I have a side question about print resolution. I hope it is not off-topic, as it relates to how the "normal" human eye can appreciate high resolution in print.

Kodak is making an industrial bet on their digital high-resolution printing technology. Until today, high-quality print as far as I know is made at 300 pixel per inch. It seems that very rarely recourse is made to 400 ppi printing. The new Kodak technology is supposed to deliver prints at 600 ppi (at high speed). Photographic paper resolution (darkroom) is > 60 lp/mm.

This is an excellent question for the just launched DPUG forum. Become a member there and re-post it, for example in the "Printers" forum of DPUG. It does not belong on APUG.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... Are the "actual resolution" curves derived from your own (chart) measurements or from theoretical considerations in combination with publicised charts? ...

The 'actual resolution' data are averaged values from many measurements of high-quality lenses (Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad, Schneider) in combination with common film performance. They can be considered best 'typical' values. One can do slightly better with very fine grain films.

 

[Jim Jones]

That's all well and good, and many will agree with you. However, it seems to be important to the OP. So, let's deal with his question.

That said, I don't think sharpness is the only criterium either, but I'm always turned off by images that are not as sharp as they could be when they could be improved by sharpness. I'm well aware, unsharpness can be a creative tool (many good examples in the APUG library of that), but that shouldn't become an excuse for sloppy craftsmanship.

Very true. Even when unsharpness is necessary because of technical limitations, it need not be unpleasant. As I understand, Edward Weston had an iris modified for adequate DOF in his macrophotography. The contact prints were not be perfectly sharp. However, the subjects lacked the kind of detail that demanded critical sharpness. Optical limitation is just one of many factors we should always consider.

 

[Q.G.]

Yes.
And one of those limitations goes something like "adequate DoF in macro equals unsharp pictures".

 

[Diapositivo]

Thanks A49 for your quite clear answer. Yes the question was not really on-topic, but there are already two resolution-related threads on APUG (and at least one on DPUG I found out).

Marco, I did not post it on DPUG because it really was about resolution and its visual perception. If you just substitute PPI with the equivalent lp/mm my question remains the same.

Cheers
Fabrizio

 

[onnect17]

I'm one of those giving priority to the sharpness, not for other reason that it will give you an idea of how much you're are loosing from the original image in front of the camera. I believe the need for sharpening in PS is an indicator that something is wrong in the path.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Let's not forget that Photoshop's 'unsharp masking' command is a copy of a manual process, called 'unsharp masking' and has been used in analog photography decades before Photoshop was conceived.

http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/WBM2/TOC_files/UnsharpMaskingEd2.pdf

 

[onnect17]

Let's not forget that Photoshop's 'unsharp masking' command is a copy of a manual process, called 'unsharp masking' and has been used in analog photography decades before Photoshop was conceived.

http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/WBM2/TOC_files/UnsharpMaskingEd2.pdf

Ralph,
Thanks for the link to the chapter. Very interesting reading.
I would not use the word "copy" in comparing the manual process to the filter in PS. Perhaps the idea is the same but the dig*tal world is a different story. Once you start getting close to the sampling resolution the damage to the data is significant.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph,
Thanks for the link to the chapter. Very interesting reading.
I would not use the word "copy" in comparing the manual process to the filter in PS. Perhaps the idea is the same but the dig*tal world is a different story. Once you start getting close to the sampling resolution the damage to the data is significant.

Actually, the result may not be, but the underlying principle is exactly the same: increase edge contrast.