Re: Area 51 Panoramic

Message posted by lone wolf on October 31, 2005 at 13:17:38 PST:

I didn't say the poster wouldn't be good if 3ft tall. I haven't seen the raw image. For instance, Trevor Paglen has been doing digital shots with his camera rotated as a portrait, so it will get the base, the mountains in the distance, the hills in the foreground. That is art. Geeks just want detail on the base.

Figure a EOS 20D was used in portrait mode, so you have 36 inches divided by 3600, or 0.01 inch per pixel if the pixels were "real", but use a factor of 3 since the digital camera pixels are R,G, or B. So we have .03 inch per pixel. [Remember, the high end printers I mentioned are a true gamut per pixel, but the camera is either red, green, or blue at each pixel.] Generally the size of a human hair is about 50 um, call it two mils or .002 inch. So the pixel would be 15 human hairs wide. And this analysis assumes the resolution of the image is good to the last pixel.

I hope that explains why I think 12 inches high is already pushing it IF:
1) the image is limited to the buildings up to the tower
2) you want the image to look sharp close up

In Reply to: Re: Area 51 Panoramic posted by David Strickler on October 31, 2005 at 12:39:34 PST:


[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]