. Here's a nice Zeiss assessment of screen viewing of digitally captured images, extended quote: CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf Viewing conditions Most likely you are viewing the images provided as examples on a computer monitor. This gives us reason to look a little more closely at how the monitor properties may influence our perception of the images. Image size The 12MP digital camera used here has a Nyquist frequency of approx. 1400 line pairs per image height (image height being the short side of the 24x36 format; think of a picture in landscape format). It takes at least two pixels to display a line pair made up of a bright and a dark line. The camera has exactly 2832 pixels (2x1416) on 24 mm of image height. The monitor would have to have at least as many pixels to be able to display this image information free of losses. However we will usually have to be satisfied with a lesser monitor performance, e.g. 1600 x 1200 pixels. The monitor can therefore only display parts of the full image without losses. If one runs Photoshop on a monitor with 1200 pixels in the vertical direction, some of these pixels are taken up by the menu bars and the net number of pixels seen is, for example, only 1036 pixels. In the 100% view, in which each pixel of the data file is represented by a monitor pixel, only approx. one third of the image with a height of 2832 pixels is seen, which corresponds to approx. 13% of the area of the image. If the monitor diagonal is for example 21" = 54 cm, the size of the whole camera image in the 100% view is 76 x 114 cm. Even if our demonstration images are smaller in absolute units (in order not to let the file sizes grow towards infinity!) you should always be aware that you are looking at parts of a poster-sized image. Viewing distance If the monitor has 1200 pixels distributed over an image height of 32.4 cm, it has 3.7 pixels per millimeter. Thus the resolution of the monitor screen is approx. 2 Lp/mm. In the (nearly) loss-free 100% view, this also corresponds to the camera sensor performance: the image with a height of 76 cm is magnified 31-fold as compared to the camera image with a height of 24 mm. The sensor's resolution limit (Nyquist) that is determined by the number of pixels is just less than 60 Lp/mm. Magnified 31-fold, this also corresponds to approx. 2 Lp/mm. Viewing the image on the monitor from a distance of 50 cm, the maximum resolving power of the eye at this distance is approx. 4 Lp/mm. In simple terms, this is about twice as good as the monitor image. For this reason, images in 100% view will never appear perfectly sharp to our eye. Both the performance limits of the monitor and the giant magnification of the image for the small viewing distance give rise to a certain degree of softness of the image. Viewing a 100% view from a distance of 50 cm is a very critical view of the image. For a more realistic assessment, the viewed distance can be doubled, for instance. ---------- Hmm ... a measured analysis -- cool! .
Message
Re: Prints versus screen images.
2009-04-09 by Peter Blaise Monahon
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.