I'm surprised there are so few UA-cam tutorials that take into account viewing distance. I've been printing "poster prints" for years at resolutions well below 100 ppi and never been disappointed.
Sorry to disappoint everybody but it was very obvious to me that the high dpi was on the left but I’ve been in photography for about 40 years plus so I think I have an edge ! Great video! Now you know why billboards don’t need higher dpi or resolution !
I have a question. Why does this matter? Why not just print in higher ppi? I have read that it doesn't use more ink. I'm a novice and just got a pixma pro 200 so I was just wondering.. Thanks! Great video!
How close do you want to crop, and how large do you want to print.? Given that 300DPI is about the limit of the human eye I suggest that 99% of all photographers needs can be met with a 24 MP camera. You can choose the model.
That's a great video. I have a 20x30" print hanging on my wall that I shot with a 20mp camera. At this size, it looks fantastic. I can be 2 feet away from it and it still looks great. That blew my mind because I didn't think I could be that close to a 180ppi image and not see pixelation or other aberrations within the image. Now, I understand why that's the case. BTW, I could tell right away that the right image was a lower resolution one. The higher resolution image had better tonal gradations on the fork of the bike. I don't know if it's because of the angle of the video camera or lighting or whatever, but it was obvious to me from the outset. In any event, even if that's the case bumping the resolution up to 100ppi or 120 ppi would most likely take care of that.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. ...I would not watch the 20" print from so far away as the D formula suggests (56") (if it would catch my interest I would get closer). I would take half of the calculated distance, so, basically only the diagonale of the print ...but even then, you said, it's hard to see the difference - still very interesting. Cheers😁👍
So... make yourself a spreadsheet where the print ratio is 16:9. Thus, given a height, you can determine the width, the diagonal, the distance, and the resolution. Multiply the resolution by the width to get the number of pixes you need for the width and multiply the resolution by the height to get the number of pixels you need for the height. With the "1.5 to 2 times" variable set to 1.5, you will discover that 1123 x 1998 pixels allows you to print at any and all sizes.
I made a 24x36 black and white on my Z3100 using Ilford GFS Baryta paper. The file was from an OG Canon 5D. It was of the last remaining Marsh Arch bridge on Route 66, Baxter Springs KS. I donated it to a 66 museum fundraiser in Kansas and it fetched $150 at auction, bare in a cardboard tube. In 2007. No one ever said it was shy on detail. Now, for original capture, especially in color? Foliage will tell on you. Every time. Distant foliage, like you get looking west from Sedona’s airport turns to green mush when captured/printed 24x36 at 12mp vs 40+mp. It tells, even viewed from three feet away. Which is in fact too close. But for images with high acutance, like an old bridge? You can spray those 12mp across 24x36 no sweat. Even 12 inches away, things look great.
But, I want to view the prints from 2" away so I can see all the little details. That's what makes prints cool... I get you're supposed to see it from a certain distance, but I like to look up close into the image to see the little details. I'm probably going to stick with 400ppi 😅
Just a little constructive criticism: you need to get to the point. I passed on your video because it was taking you too long to get to what I needed to know. This should not have taken 7:55 minutes. But thanks for taking the time to publish a nice-looking video.
I'm surprised there are so few UA-cam tutorials that take into account viewing distance. I've been printing "poster prints" for years at resolutions well below 100 ppi and never been disappointed.
Sorry to disappoint everybody but it was very obvious to me that the high dpi was on the left but I’ve been in photography for about 40 years plus so I think I have an edge ! Great video! Now you know why billboards don’t need higher dpi or resolution !
Wow! What a great bit of information! I am always worried about how big the photo can go and still look great! Thanks for the video! )))
Brilliant video again Matt.
thanks for the info, great video!
does this work with the metric system?
Matt - wow - I had been sticking to nothing less than 150 - 120 ppi.... This could be a game changer for me.
Great video man, you helped me a lot!
I have a question. Why does this matter? Why not just print in higher ppi? I have read that it doesn't use more ink. I'm a novice and just got a pixma pro 200 so I was just wondering.. Thanks! Great video!
How close do you want to crop, and how large do you want to print.? Given that 300DPI is about the limit of the human eye I suggest that 99% of all photographers needs can be met with a 24 MP camera. You can choose the model.
That's a great video. I have a 20x30" print hanging on my wall that I shot with a 20mp camera. At this size, it looks fantastic. I can be 2 feet away from it and it still looks great. That blew my mind because I didn't think I could be that close to a 180ppi image and not see pixelation or other aberrations within the image. Now, I understand why that's the case. BTW, I could tell right away that the right image was a lower resolution one. The higher resolution image had better tonal gradations on the fork of the bike. I don't know if it's because of the angle of the video camera or lighting or whatever, but it was obvious to me from the outset. In any event, even if that's the case bumping the resolution up to 100ppi or 120 ppi would most likely take care of that.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. ...I would not watch the 20" print from so far away as the D formula suggests (56") (if it would catch my interest I would get closer). I would take half of the calculated distance, so, basically only the diagonale of the print ...but even then, you said, it's hard to see the difference - still very interesting. Cheers😁👍
So... make yourself a spreadsheet where the print ratio is 16:9. Thus, given a height, you can determine the width, the diagonal, the distance, and the resolution. Multiply the resolution by the width to get the number of pixes you need for the width and multiply the resolution by the height to get the number of pixels you need for the height. With the "1.5 to 2 times" variable set to 1.5, you will discover that 1123 x 1998 pixels allows you to print at any and all sizes.
I made a 24x36 black and white on my Z3100 using Ilford GFS Baryta paper. The file was from an OG Canon 5D. It was of the last remaining Marsh Arch bridge on Route 66, Baxter Springs KS. I donated it to a 66 museum fundraiser in Kansas and it fetched $150 at auction, bare in a cardboard tube. In 2007. No one ever said it was shy on detail. Now, for original capture, especially in color? Foliage will tell on you. Every time. Distant foliage, like you get looking west from Sedona’s airport turns to green mush when captured/printed 24x36 at 12mp vs 40+mp. It tells, even viewed from three feet away. Which is in fact too close. But for images with high acutance, like an old bridge? You can spray those 12mp across 24x36 no sweat. Even 12 inches away, things look great.
But, I want to view the prints from 2" away so I can see all the little details. That's what makes prints cool... I get you're supposed to see it from a certain distance, but I like to look up close into the image to see the little details.
I'm probably going to stick with 400ppi 😅
why 3438, is there any scientific explanation?
Just a little constructive criticism: you need to get to the point. I passed on your video because it was taking you too long to get to what I needed to know. This should not have taken 7:55 minutes. But thanks for taking the time to publish a nice-looking video.
I appreciated the math and the explanation so I could understand the why and use the information for myself later.
Just the fact you are talking about PPI while actually meaning DPI makes this video completely useless