V600 capable of higher resolution than assumed?

My impression here is that somehow contributors think all inkjet papers resolve detail equally. That is ridiculous.

Some inkjet papers resolve detail better than other inkjet papers.

In fact, even some matte inkjet papers resolve detail better than some glossy inkjet papers (equivalent to printing on Jello).

My usual preference is for Canon Pro Luster or Canon Pro Matte, both of which give the impression of greater sharpness than certain glossy stuff brands I won't name. fwiw I don't think Canon brand papers (made for them by hahnemuehle) are necessarily "better" than other good brands.

brbo said:

With a 2.000dpi consumer flatbed that's like 6x magnification. You never saw a print from 35mm film wider than 10"?



Oh, boy... They do make them wide. And looooong.

Click to expand...

I’m sorry I forgot to say 4x5 film.

There’s more resolution than you would ever need to print in a consumer flatbed scan of a 4x5 piece of medium grain ISO 400 film.

I forgot that I should specify because that’s all I’ve been shooting for a few years now. I have the LF brain rot apparently.

I used to work as a printer and photo printer and those 60 inch rolls are smaller than you think and have less resolution than they advertise.

You feed the printer a 300dpi file but the output is noticeably softer. I’d say they’re closer to 150 dpi all told than they are to 300.

jtk said:

My impression here is that somehow contributors think all inkjet papers resolve detail equally. That is ridiculous.

Some inkjet papers resolve detail better than other inkjet papers.

In fact, even some matte inkjet papers resolve detail better than some glossy inkjet papers (equivalent to printing on Jello).

My usual preference is for Canon Pro Luster or Canon Pro Matte, both of which give the impression of greater sharpness than certain glossy stuff brands I won't name. fwiw I don't think Canon brand papers (made for them by hahnemuehle) are necessarily "better" than other good brands.

Click to expand...

Now inkjet is a totally different story from RA-4. They advertise resolutions of 2400x1800dpi on the newer ones. There is a place where technology really has advanced.

What those newer printers can really achieve is dependent on the paper, like you say, but you’d need a loupe to see the difference between 600dpi and 1200dpi.

For a lot of people you probably need a loupe to see the difference between 300 and 600 dpi.

There’s a limit to the resolution the human eye can see and it’s not as high as you would think. 72dpi was the standard for screens for decades and nobody ever thought to complain that whole time.

_T_ said:

There’s a limit to the resolution the human eye can see and it’s not as high as you would think. 72dpi was the standard for screens for decades and nobody ever thought to complain that whole time.

Click to expand...

If you're far enough away from the display that you can't see the "screen door" effect, adding more pixel density doesn't make it look appreciably sharper. This is why it's diminishing returns from 2K to 4K displays in the home for most viewing distances with even the largest of displays. It's even smaller returns in the movie house because you're typically sitting even further away from the screen. The same principle applies for prints. If I had a print the size of my 65 inch 4K display hanging on my wall (which would be a pretty big print by pretty much any standard), it wouldn't make much difference if it was 8MP or 45MP when sitting in the room and looking at it. The 45MP version would look a lot sharper if you got up and walked up to the print and looked at it from a couple feet away, but as soon as you get more than 2-3 feet away, you'd be pretty hard pressed to see an appreciable difference.

The same goes for the movie theatre. That big screen up there is actually full of holes, and lots of them so that the speakers behind the screen can actually project their sound through the screen into the audience. It only looks like a solid screen from the audience position, it's not until you actually walk up to the screen and are standing right next to it that you realize that you can almost see what's behind it through the screen. If you manage to do that while a movie is actually being projected onto the screen, you then realize that the picture being reflected back to the audience at that distance is actually so soft it's hard to make anything out. It's not until you start backing back up that it starts to sharpen up and look like a picture again.