Timeline for How to create or take a large photograph for displays? Is it worth it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 18, 2015 at 12:31 | comment | added | Stan Rogers | 1000€ isn't even entry-level at this level. (It's not particularly expensive for a small-format camera, either, unless you're looking at a moderate-speed 50mm prime.) Both Schneider and Rodenstock make lenses that are much better than anything you could get at that price (at an order of magnitude greater cost), and the several of the Fujinons that Hasselblad uses in their H-series will easily use the full resolution of the 200MS backs at middling apertures. | |
| Aug 18, 2015 at 6:20 | comment | added | joojaa | i Want to point out that the current optics arent really up to the highest resolutions. Even my 1000€ lense can not resolve all pixels at times without hitting the noise limit. So in practice the 80 MP is mostly just better interpolation anyway. Unless your ready to get a lense that costs 100,000 or more | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 21:10 | comment | added | Stan Rogers | Medium format cameras (backs, actually) will allow a single-exposure capture of up to 80 MP at a 4:3 aspect ratio (the PhaseOne IQ series), which translates to about 93-ish PPI natively at the desired display size (modulo crop and bleed). Up-rezzing by a small amount (under 50%) using bicubic and deconvolving is essentially invisible. There's not much to gain going to film (up to 8x10, at least) - scanning will get you more pixels, but it won't get you more detail unless you're doing a process shot (true apochromat lens with no appreciable depth of field requirement). | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 20:33 | history | answered | DA01 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |