Part II

ILL-INFORMATION pg[2]

Answered (2).... Larger format printing is purely subjective..

OK .... But the following detail would enlighten – more on the subject. 

I wish there has a mention to be made, that the technology, of digital is almost based, on a cleaver way deception, i.e., by capitalising the limitation of our visual and auditory perception.

It would mean that a laser print, written at resolution of 300 lines per inch is just sufficient, a minuteness, that beyond which our eye may not able to detect an enhancement to feel a major visual impact, by an unaided eye.  It could be expressed in other wards, an eye will not able to detect a difference between a detail of 1/10^th of an mm, whet6her it is as sharp as a 'point' and an image detail of similar size but 'diffused', viewed  from 25cm a distance of arm-stretch .

          i.e., An 'Inch' would have space for 250 such points / dots of detail.    The 25 cm is a distance (that we may choose involuntarily) is a proven age old standard, at which an A4 size page or a picture of 8"x10" could be viewed comfortably.  At that distance the print could be seen at proper perspective (the relative size of objects in space, as-that-of that we would remember to have, had seen in the actual world with our bare eyes).

This criterion of 0.1 mm is expressed by a rather confusing terminology called C.O.C (circle of confusion). Therefore as per the minimum 250 dots, an 8"x10" should have, 2000 x 2500 dots (that we call as 'pixels' or picture element). How surprising It is almost numerically equivalent to 6 MB. We have been talking all the time, in digital; it’s undeniable that pixels are counted in the stringent stingy world of digital photography.

Spec: Refers that 6 MB spec of cameras would have pixels of almost 2100 x 2800 in number. Therefore the much needed, 6MB a fraction ahead of, the basic bare-bone standard.

Now if a print is to be made to a size for e.g. 16"x20" then we are going to view the print from a greater distance for Natural comfort ness. we also tends to say that an enlarged print of 16 "x20" has, as good a clarity as that of 8"x10", even-though the former would possess same amount of detail or dots i.e., 2000 x 2500 dots.

Both film and Digital photography make used of such idea which is fairly an old concept.  It not only the digital capture that capitalize on this bare minimum criterion (i.e., 6 MB of detail)  but also the laser- printer as-well . The laser printing claims to have a writing power (resolution) of 300 dpi (dots per inch).

Therefore if a 6 MB is the bare minimum for an 8X10, then a 16"x20" print would be requiring 4 time that of an 8"x10" (i.e., 4 prints of 8"x10" makes a 16"x20").  But a printer could manage with 6 MB of dots, by synthesizing those 4 fold of dots .It is like regeneration of cells by cell-division (learned in Biology classes).  The intelligence of software and the precise writing power is made use of, to do the trick of improved resolution; it is called as interpolation in computing parlance that creates a 24 MB image file (4200 x 5600 dots) generated out of the 6MB.  Our eye is not capable of, and such an analytical instrument. Therefore it would not be able to detect the occurrence of a cheating.  In fact this trick could be repeated to many folds to create a poster size print.  This is perhaps the reason; the author has chosen the word 'Subjective' with relevance to inject printers. Otherwise a question like that has to be answered like an essay type (like this).  In the analogue capture / printing, not much of a correction is possible, but in Digital world, there is a possibility, that each of these deficiencies due to optical or physical property could be rectified / improved, by dedicated software.

On the Appreciating part of Digital-Blow ups

          As per earlier derived value of 210 MB with a future 36 x 24 mm CCD chip, then we could be appreciating a 8"x10" Pint 6 times more than what we are just now satisfied with a 6MB, or we would be able to print 36 times as large as that of 8”x10” = 65” x 43” = 5.2feet x 3.5feet print. A huge print @ true 300 dpi don’t be surprised, it is only little bigger than 60’’X 40’, we have already done with 35mm.neg.

Our technical Book on visual perception says that appreciation is quantifiable, It says, visual improvement happens in a logarithmic fashion. Whereas the enlargements is linear in function.

 We know (out of our photographic experience) we know a excellent 30”x40” print could be made from a 6 x 8 cm neg., Therefore a 35mm film is capable of a 16X20 print, whereas these futuristic image capture the size of a 35mmfilm with 210 MB would be able to print approx 60” X40” in 10 years of time from now.

We arithmetically say a 24 MB file is sufficient for a good quality 16X20”Print.

Repeat: A 16’’X20’’ print out of details in a 24MB digital file.

But remember these details will be represented by 311 MB of capable grains of a 35 mm film.

Look!...The film with 311 MB capable grains means, a 16”x20” is printable @1000dpi could be printable with those 311MB details (accommodated in a 35 mm film which we  already possess ,right-now ).

Then why should we compare a 24MB Digital capability as against a file size of 311MB of film in terms content of details, any Logic?.

The assumed digital capture of 216 MB power, in the far future could just do that t but at 600dpi. i.e; 16X20 @600dpi

But the economics of Digital will kill the film very soon than as any-one could have anticipated, so the future is Only A Digital.

About scanning a TP at 2500 dpi or lpi

A standard Book on Duplication says, if a 35mm Trans has to be duplicated or an inter neg, to be made out of it, firstly it is copied usually on a specialised film, which should be on larger format of 3 x factor than the original. For a 35mm it is (5’x4’) or simply put it 4 numbers of grains of dupe medium has to be dedicated to capture, a single detail or a single grain of the TP original.  Hence 5’x4” sheet of film with a resolving power of 100 Lpi will have 4 x 25 x 100 = 10000 Lines capacity at its 4” side that would be assigned to copy the 24mm side of a 35mm, what it in attempt to say is a scanning, at 10,000 dpi, in digital parlance.  But at 2500 dpi you have mentioned a scanner would be gasping for breadth and generate a noise a lot of –as per the is saying of the author .

          Scanning @ 10,000! Dpi Do you mean scanning, or a scanner that is fuming?

So it is the deficiency of scanner that we would not able to fully realize a scanned file of film to it’s glory  with better image quality than direct image capture by a Digital camera.

Suppose we apply the same kind of argument if it happens in film based photography, for e.g., if a lens could do a100 lpi, but a film, could capture 50 lpi only whom do we blame? 

The scanning a TP is a similar affair. what else a reason could be attributed to, precision lens makers of Germany taking liberty to make a mighty zoom range of  lenses like 35 – 420 mm or 28 – 420mm.

That too The Leica or schneider doing that!.

Are they destined to promote wild life photography or is it perhaps designing a lens for Digital is easier with a lower standards of Resolution is required, than to manufacture for a film based camera.  Don’t you remember those 400mm @ 3.5 f prime lenses, at the sports field, for it’s hugeness and perfection.

1.      TP and a Digital capture is 1^st generation

2.      A print from digital capture is 2^nd generation

3.      Scanning & then printing is a  3^rd generation