Digital BW, The Print

Anthony,

> > What's your source for that claim?
>
> It's human physiology.

What is the source of the claim?

> The dimensions of the cone cells in the most densely-packed areas of the
> retina are about 30 seconds of arc in size.  Resolution is thus limited to
> 30 seconds of arc under IDEAL conditions.  Typically working
> figures are 2-4
> times lower (1-2 minutes of arc), given that conditions are so
> rarely ideal.

It's physiology that the human eye has variable resolution, with the highest
area being in the very center, so you can't extrapolate the real
"resolution" of the human field of view as you have.

> > What humans "need" for a "full-frame image" is entirely
> > different than what is needed for photographic imaging.
>
> Not if the photographs are intended for human viewing, which they almost
> invariably are.

That's not relevant to your comment.

> > Also, humans have variable resolution in their
> > sight...
>
> No, they do not.  The maximum resolution is set by physiology, as
> described
> above.  Some people have less; but nobody has more.

They do not what?  It's a physical fact that your eye has higher resolution
in the center, and decreased resolution around the periphery.

> > so how is that taken account with your claim?
>
> It's not a claim, it's a very well established fact.

Then, of course, you can point me to an established resource that supports
your claim?

> In case you haven't noticed, this is why the market always tends
> to converge
> on whatever technology provides the requisite number of pixels as
> described
> above.

That's simply foolish.  The number of pixels for a camera is ENTIRELY
UNRELATED to what the resolution of the human eye is.  It depends on what
size the resultant image is!

Austin