• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Want a Confidence Booster? The best comparison video I have seen.

Robert Watcher

Active member
Are you totally confused by all of the Full Frame vs Micro 4/3 debates - most making you dissatisfied with your choice of the small sensor? If you were to listen to and believe all of the discussion and hype about the superiority of Full Frame, you may even draw the conclusion that it a waste of time to even take pictures using anything with a smaller sensor.

Of course photographers like myself who take pictures with our micro four thirds gear every day and who have actually created prints from the resulting files and sold them for serious cash, are not swayed by such nonsense. Our decisions and choices aren’t made by viewing our files at 200% or more on a computer monitor and micro analyzing every pixel to find imperfections and weaknesses. And they aren’t made based on thousands of internet experts repeating the mantra of everyone else. We are getting what we need out of our gear for all of the reasons we chose the format.

But what is wonderful about this video - something that I think is a first - is the method used to compare a top end Canon 5d mark 4 with top pro lens, against a top end Olympus E-M1 mark 2 with top pro lens, at 1/2 the size, half the price and 1/4 the sensor size —— and compare based on one of the biggest justifications of full frame, that you need that larger sensor to attain top quality big prints. Spoiler alert : that concept appears to be a fabrication.

Enjoy: https://youtu.be/OGn3yPl59ZM



—————
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Are you totally confused by all of the Full Frame vs Micro 4/3 debates - most making you dissatisfied with your choice of the small sensor? If you were to listen to and believe all of the discussion and hype about the superiority of Full Frame, you may even draw the conclusion that it a waste of time to even take pictures using anything with a smaller sensor.

Of course photographers like myself who take pictures with our micro four thirds gear every day and who have actually created prints from the resulting files and sold them for serious cash, are not swayed by such nonsense. Our decisions and choices aren’t made by viewing our files at 200% or more on a computer monitor and micro analyzing every pixel to find imperfections and weaknesses. And they aren’t made based on thousands of internet experts repeating the mantra of everyone else. We are getting what we need out of our gear for all of the reasons we chose the format.

But what is wonderful about this video - something that I think is a first - is the method used to compare a top end Canon 5d mark 4 with top pro lens, against a top end Olympus E-M1 mark 2 with top pro lens, at 1/2 the size, half the price and 1/4 the sensor size —— and compare based on one of the biggest justifications of full frame, that you need that larger sensor to attain top quality big prints. Spoiler alert : that concept appears to be a fabrication.

Enjoy: https://youtu.be/OGn3yPl59ZM



—————
I enjoyed it but skiplwdctge part where he talked about camera courses. If the second fellow printed the files, then he could know instantly by file sizecand name of the file which came from which camera. He is thanks for having printed all the images so unless he can’t read, he knew which files he printed on what paper as it will put that above each picture in Photoshop.

Still, apart from alleging he had no idea, which doesn’t make sense, I fully believe that the pictures have the same quality and feeling of reality as 1 meter required some magic creation of pixels by extrapolation, it is not, after all, 3 meters high when both sets of files might be stressed.

In any case, today with the latest pressing software with Artificial Intelligence and knowledge of tens of thousands of objects and textures, enlargement is going to be next to perfect anyway.

Before 2018, the Micro4/3 camera could compete with the full sized bigger brethren.

Now, the larger camera can only be justified if it has unique lens effects, greater dynamic range and fine contrast for extraordinary rendition of luxury goods or reproduction of artwork.

Asher
 

Robert Watcher

Active member
It was stated in the video that the fellow who did the print8ng was specifically asked not to look at the Exif data - so that he would not know which camera produced which file. Of course he could have cheated. But why would we presume that? If that was asked of me and I was curious to know if their was a difference - I would comply. I love surprises.

I guess the thing is that absolutely everyone online it seems - internet discussion participants and self-assigned YouTube pundits - debate to death the merits of systems and cameras based on technical and scientific methods —- and mostly just repeat or mimic what everyone else is saying. It’s all pretty useless and a waste of time to me. Photography has become secondary and probably more realistically, insignificant in these discussions.

I could care less about technical or scientific for the most part. This is one of the few videos I have seen that have nothing to do with anything other that printing photographs to as large a size as anyone would likely need to - and seeing if there is such a difference as is often claimed. To me this method was practical, real and of far more benefit to me. The facts are that I can print high quality large prints with either system and make choices of gear based on my comfort level rather than specs and scientific comparisons. Of course I have printed big 30 and 40 inch prints from my micro 4/3 files - even when heavily cropped - and so am already confident in the results. But I can only assume that there are some others who would benefit from this knowledge as well and having the support from the results shown in the video.

——-
 

James Lemon

Active member
I purchased E M1 for the wife and then traded up for the Mark 2 she has the Zuiko lenses and both are amazing cameras! She uses the Olympus software for the processing as well.
 

Doug Kerr

Active member
Hi, Robert,

That was very interesting. Thanks for that link.

It was stated in the video that the fellow who did the print8ng was specifically asked not to look at the Exif data - so that he would not know which camera produced which file.
I would think that as he set up for the printing he could hardly not notice that the files had different pixel dimensions. Of course, maybe they had been cropped by the photographer and that might have obscured the distinction.

I think none of this takes way from what was observed here, namely that a top-notch MFT camera rig is capable of extremely good work.

And that is good news.

Thanks again.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Robert,

The file Size will give away the source of the image. But perhaps the author equalized them and provided .Tiff or .psd so the printer had no clue!

In any case I do trust their impressions!

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Active member
Why would I want to watch a guy talking like a used car salesman for over 13 minutes, while I have already printed at that size and know the answer?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I already saw this lack of difference in going from a Sony A7 ~34MP camera to a rented 80MP Phase One under identical studio conditions.

The Sony print was easily as impressive as that from the Phase One, even at 6” from the print!

The hair strands on the Phase one portrait could be a tad better defined but not that any difference called attention to itself.

That is for a 700 mm wide print!

The more challenging stress test to demonstrate differences would be in low light at night with someone under a street light!

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Active member
I already saw this lack of difference in going from a Sony A7 ~34MP camera to a rented 80MP Phase One under identical studio conditions.

The Sony print was easily as impressive as that from the Phase One, even at 6” from the print!

The hair strands on the Phase one portrait could be a tad better defined but not that any difference called attention to itself.

That is for a 700 mm wide print!

The more challenging stress test to demonstrate differences would be in low light at night with someone under a street light!

Asher
The 34MP of the Sony are sufficient for a 700mm wide print. Also: the Phase One camera is pretty poor in low light. A comparison may be slightly more difficult that you realise.
 

James Lemon

Active member
The smallest droplets on the market are in the range of 1–10 picolitres for inkjet printers- small droplet size leads to sharp images.A larger print size does not automatically lead to a lower quality. Whats important is the receiving layers of the paper.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The smallest droplets on the market are in the range of 1–10 picolitres for inkjet printers- small droplet size leads to sharp images.A larger print size does not automatically lead to a lower quality. Whats important is the receiving layers of the paper.
Continue on this James,

I would be interested in you going further as this is not usually mentioned. Can you give examples and specifics to flesh out this further, this line of thought?

Asher
 

James Lemon

Active member
Continue on this James,

I would be interested in you going further as this is not usually mentioned. Can you give examples and specifics to flesh out this further, this line of thought?

Asher
Asher

""What Is DPI?
DPI is dots per inch, and although most photographers and designers use DPI to describe pixel density, it's technically supposed to represent the resolution of a printer. Many printers only have four colors: cyan, magenta, yellow, and black, but miraculously, they are able to produce the millions of colors in our photographs. To do this, the printer squirts out billions of microscopic drops of ink. Together, these drops (or "dots") are able to recreate the pixels that make up an entire image. Have you ever noticed that your photo printer has a draft, normal, and high-quality print setting? In most cases, these settings are changing the resolution of your printer. But let's assume that for all of your prints, your printer will be set to the highest quality. This means that regardless of the image that you are printing, the DPI or dots per inch will remain constant whether you are printing a high or low-resolution image.

Most photo printers these days are able to print at over 2,000 DPI which is far more resolution than the "average" photograph that is printed at 300 DPI and in most cases, more expensive printers can print with even more resolution. Some printers though, like billboard printers, print with much less resolution. On the billboard in the video above, the dots were so big we could actually see them with the naked eye.

See corresponding video at link below

https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239
 

James Lemon

Active member
My conclusion is that the quality of printer and the complexity of paper and how it holds ink and dyes is one key factor of the imaging chain.
 

James Lemon

Active member
My conclusion is that the quality of printer and the complexity of paper and how it holds ink and dyes is one key factor of the imaging chain.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
But there are distinct observable differences, my 8MP 1D Mark II lack obvious definition for the enlargements I wished for. The same with the 5D Mark files.

That’s where the Sony ~ 34MP files suddenly bought me freedom at 40” wide!

I never pixel-peeped. It was simply that the 5D and 5DII was limited for den prints to about 14” x 17” approx. Beyond that they looked too soft!

But for the 40” wide print, there is no obvious benefit for much more tab ~ 34 MP. So 50 MP should be about the worthwhile limit for prints to be observed close that can fit into most homes.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Active member
Most photo printers these days are able to print at over 2,000 DPI which is far more resolution than the "average" photograph that is printed at 300 DPI and in most cases, more expensive printers can print with even more resolution.
I think that the practical resolution of photo printers is more in the 300 dpi range. Inkjets can indeed use very small droplets, probably as many as 2000 an inch, but they need several droplets to emulate continuous tones with a fine raster.

Furthermore, human visual acuity has its limits. I enjoy above average vision, although I have been needing glasses for close vision since about 10 years. I would say that, even for someone with above average acuity, it becomes difficult to see differences on colour photographic subject above 200-300 dpi. It depends a bit on the kind of subject, but that can give us an indication of how many pixels are needed for large prints if these are to be examined close.

Then, please note that photographic quality inkjet printers which can use rolls as wide as 150cm (60") are readily available. Finding out the needed resolution for a 200 dpi print is left as an exercise to the reader, but it is larger than the one of any present digital camera.

Then again, we also know that "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"...
 

Jerome Marot

Active member
150dpi is the accepted standard for printing photographic quality images.

Printers usually refer to the number of rows or lines per inch (LPI). 150 lines per inch is simply 150 rows of 150 dots per inch. 150 LPI and 133 LPI have long been the established standards for the best quality reproduction of photographs in books and magazines.

A4 print that has been for a long time the standard for the presentation of high-quality photography.
May I suggest reading that article on the differences between lpi and dpi and the usual resolutions involved?

(That post should appear below the post it refers to. Probably, the server time is not accurate...)
 

James Lemon

Active member
I think that the practical resolution of photo printers is more in the 300 dpi range. Inkjets can indeed use very small droplets, probably as many as 2000 an inch, but they need several droplets to emulate continuous tones with a fine raster.

Furthermore, human visual acuity has its limits. I enjoy above average vision, although I have been needing glasses for close vision since about 10 years. I would say that, even for someone with above average acuity, it becomes difficult to see differences on colour photographic subject above 200-300 dpi. It depends a bit on the kind of subject, but that can give us an indication of how many pixels are needed for large prints if these are to be examined close.

Then, please note that photographic quality inkjet printers which can use rolls as wide as 150cm (60") are readily available. Finding out the needed resolution for a 200 dpi print is left as an exercise to the reader, but it is larger than the one of any present digital camera.

Then again, we also know that "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"...
150dpi is the accepted standard for printing photographic quality images.

Printers usually refer to the number of rows or lines per inch (LPI). 150 lines per inch is simply 150 rows of 150 dots per inch. 150 LPI and 133 LPI have long been the established standards for the best quality reproduction of photographs in books and magazines.

A4 print that has been for a long time the standard for the presentation of high-quality photography.
 

James Lemon

Active member
May I suggest reading that article on the differences between lpi and dpi and the usual resolutions involved?

(That post should appear below the post it refers to. Probably, the server time is not accurate...)
Thanks for the link!

Here is another that might help clear up the differences folk encounter.

There is bound to be some space between these dots, and this is what DPI measures: their density. For example, if you are printing a 150ppi image at 600dpi, each “pixel” will consist of 16 dots (600 dots/150 “pixels” = 4 rows of 4 dots per “pixel”).

https://99designs.ca/blog/tips/ppi-vs-dpi-whats-the-difference/

I am a photographer not a printer but have produced a number of high quality black and white prints.

For color I have had a couple of inkjet prints done with a reliable source. I am impressed with the quality and would highly recommend a Epson printer with a high quality paper.
 

Jerome Marot

Active member
There is bound to be some space between these dots, and this is what DPI measures: their density. For example, if you are printing a 150ppi image at 600dpi, each “pixel” will consist of 16 dots (600 dots/150 “pixels” = 4 rows of 4 dots per “pixel”).
Yes, but there is much confusion about these units. Maybe we should rather talk about "samples per inch", where each pixel on the camera would represent one sample. Then, on the final print, between 200 and 300 samples per inches are what we want (depending on content and final size).

Taking an example: a 24 mpix camera will have 6000 pixels on the long side. If we want 200 samples per inch, we can print 30 inches wide (6000/200).

For color I have had a couple of inkjet prints done with a reliable source. I am impressed with the quality and would highly recommend a Epson printer with a high quality paper.
I own an Epson 3880 and have access to a Canon IPF6300. Either one is a wonderful printer.
 

James Lemon

Active member
Yes, but there is much confusion about these units. Maybe we should rather talk about "samples per inch", where each pixel on the camera would represent one sample. Then, on the final print, between 200 and 300 samples per inches are what we want (depending on content and final size).

Taking an example: a 24 mpix camera will have 6000 pixels on the long side. If we want 200 samples per inch, we can print 30 inches wide (6000/200).



I own an Epson 3880 and have access to a Canon IPF6300. Either one is a wonderful printer.

Makes sense! From what I have understood is that most high quality printing is done @ 300ppi which equates to approximately 150 dpi.

I do wonder if images will be displayed more on digital displays going forward in different environments even galleries.

I have purchased a number of limited editions of digital images that can only be viewed on digital displays. For my own use and also trade them or sell them when the editions are sold out.
 
Top