Digital BW, The Print

Anthony, Anthony, you cannot come out ahead in an argument with austin.
It simply cannot be done. The first person to win one gets an 8x10 photo
of my incredibly beautiful cat. Printed at 1440 DPI. on an Epson
Printer. VM inks, with Enhanced Generations blacks. Printed with Paul's
curve of your choice. On really nice paper. Ready for matting and
framing. Goes great on the walls of your root cellar or nursery.
Sent Priority Mail. In plain brown Envelope.
Jerry 

Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/