[robgski]

Have you ever watched the entire video? It was the bomb back in the day.

Yes, but I sat very close to the TV screen and the detail was terrible, just lines of red, green, blue, and black.

[biz-engineer]

If an image is good enough for screen viewing when viewed at 100%, it will be good enough to be printed by a reputable printer at 300 ppi.

I can't see the whole image when zoomed in on my display, so I can't really appreciate how the whole picture will render (between focus plane areas and oof areas) as full size print.

---------- Post added 08-12-21 at 22:45 ----------

Don’t confuse Dof with dpi... you could be printing the photo, looking through the viewfinder and viewing it on a screen and still think the focus range is different.

There is the Dof preview through the OVF and in LV , but the OVF and LV display are small , what seems to be in focus when looking at the camera when the photo is taken, appears to not be in focus on the A1 prints.

---------- Post added 08-12-21 at 22:49 ----------

If your goal is printing A1 then that should be your goal for both cameras and go from there.

Equivalence formulas work for same size prints, that's what I wasn't sure about. So now I know that if I print larger , it is also necessary to stop down the lens further so that image areas that looks reasonably focused on a small print also look reasonably in focus on a larger print.

---------- Post added 08-12-21 at 22:58 ----------

The automatic coc in the calculator (.03 for FF and .02 for apsc) is intended to make up for the fact the FF image doesn't have to be enlarged so much.

and possibly based on 8x10 print size viewed from 15", regardless the camera format used to take pictures. This makes no sense nowadays (for me) I wouldn't see the point to carry an large format camera to make 8x10 prints that can easily be made from images taken by a much smaller digital camera.

---------- Post added 08-12-21 at 23:00 ----------

By printing larger you needed this stay the same.

Thanks. Yes, that's it. Keep same CoC based on print size and viewing distance, regardless camera format.

[GUB]

This makes no sense nowadays (for me) I wouldn't see the point to carry an large format camera to make 8x10 prints that can easily be made from images taken by a much smaller digital camera.

It is after-all just intended as a baseline.

I find the "How much Blur" is a far better calculator to visualise what is going down .

http://howmuchblur.dekoning.nl/#compare-1x-200mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-35mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

The beauty of it is that the blur disc (which I take to be the CoC) is expressed as a % of the image width. So it doesn't matter what your print size is.
Now - hitting the calculator - (someone check my figures!) a .02 CoC on APSC and .03 on FF come out at just over .08% of image width.
So you can slide the bottom slider back to the left until this value (.08) comes up on the vertical axis. You are now looking at the standard DoFs of your entered lenses. (below the .08 line)
In these screenshots I have compared two very unequivalent setups but with a common f2.8
As you can see they have a very similar DoF but radically different background blur. I think we often confuse these two (and they are part of the same optical formula) when we get surprising results in our images.

[luftfluss]

Yes, but I sat very close to the TV screen and the detail was terrible, just lines of red, green, blue, and black.

My mom wouldn't let me sit close to the TV. It was a 19" Zenith.

[pschlute]

I can't see the whole image when zoomed in on my display, so I can't really appreciate how the whole picture will render (between focus plane areas and oof areas) as full size print.

You do not need to see the whole image on a single monitor at 100% in order to evaluate sharpness. You move the image around, while viewing at 100% and look at what you expect to be sharp, and if it is not you go out and take the photo again.

I regularly print at 24x16 inches with K-1 files. I can see which images will work and which will not.

The other thing to remember is to sharpen for print. This usually means applying double the amount of sharpness you would do for a screen image.

[ramseybuckeye]

I already have well over six posts in this cycle, just here to watch the dead horse beating.

[GUB]

Why - nothing the OP has said is outrageous.
It is all about terms of reference.
His perfectly valid and practical approach involves printing the larger format to a larger print to fully utilise its greater resolution. (my first post was because I didn't understand this.)
This of course is at odds with the calculator which applies the .02 coc for APSC and .03 FF on the presumption that the prints will be the same size.
The difference of DoF from doing this jumped up and bit him and it makes a very valid and interesting post.

[biz-engineer]

I already have well over six posts in this cycle, just here to watch the dead horse beating.

Maybe a dead horse for a lot of people here. It wasn't clear for me because calculators do not clearly state the assumptions being used.

---------- Post added 09-12-21 at 12:02 ----------

The other thing to remember is to sharpen for print. This usually means applying double the amount of sharpness you would do for a screen image.

The de-focus blur looked just acceptable on my display, once out on the print it looks softer. I can't re-shot those pictures because they were shot years ago in Japan.

[UncleVanya]

Maybe a dead horse for a lot of people here. It wasn't clear for me because calculators do not clearly state the assumptions being used.

---------- Post added 09-12-21 at 12:02 ----------


The de-focus blur looked just acceptable on my display, once out on the print it looks softer. I can't re-shot those pictures because they were shot years ago in Japan.

You might try the Gigapixel AI or Sharpen AI from Topaz. I haven’t used it yet but they have good reputations.

[biz-engineer]

You might try the Gigapixel AI or Sharpen AI from Topaz. I haven’t used it yet but they have good reputations.

I use Topaz Sharpen AI, the worse job it does is for recovering out of focus sharpness. In areas that are blurred but still contain enough details for accentuation it doesn't use AI textures, and as the de-focus increases (lacking sufficient detail for classic sharpening) it switches to artificial textures, the result is just ugly.

[pschlute]

The de-focus blur looked just acceptable on my display, once out on the print it looks softer

How are you sharpening for print versus sharpening for screen ?

[phat_bog]

In this year's A1 print set received from the lab, two of the prints showed out of focus areas that were looking fine on my (smaller) display.g

So you had this issue with 2 prints out of how many? because if the issue is not on other prints, i don't see the relationship with dof.
It could be a printer related problem, also sometimes accentuated out of focus can be caused by color paletes involved in printing process in particular color schemes , pixel data / areas transmitted and processed vs screen view.
I would look more into the color data differencies between your 2 prints and the other ones.
or,even more simple: just test the 2 images in B&W, grayscale whatever and print em B&W grayscale. I'm 99,9 % sure you'll realize it's not about dof.

[biz-engineer]

How are you sharpening for print versus sharpening for screen ?

I am sharpening for print, but I don't know how much sharpening is best for print because I haven't done any hard proofing with various amounts of sharpening. C prints are softer than display, but it's not necessarily unwanted, once on print the surface looks more natural, not as sharp as display but not soft... I don't know , it's different, I'm afraid of sharpening too much for prints but every when image look crazy sharp on display they just look really good on paper prints. And all the large size prints I've done are mat finish, I have no idea if they'd look sharper on glossy, I make a test image with various amounts of sharpening printed on mat and glossy.

---------- Post added 09-12-21 at 18:39 ----------

So you had this issue with 2 prints out of how many?

I printed 12 x A1. Two prints aren't very good due to depth of field and autofocus. One print I don't know what happened, the camera took the shot without having locked focus (in AFS) I don't know how this was possible but the lens wasn't focused on the subject. For the other print I shot hand held trying to preserve noise, so I used a too wide lens aperture but it looked sharp on the back of the camera display, I spent lots of time to sharpen it until acceptable on display, but didn't come out quite as good on the print.

---------- Post added 09-12-21 at 18:44 ----------

because if the issue is not on other prints, i don't see the relationship with dof.

Other prints were shot on tripod, long exposures or distant subject, or with more light, the lens aperture was set to f8 - f16, everything was in focus. Subject distance plays a role. For example I shot the distant dolomites with a 200 mm lens f8, I made ~300 Mpixels stitch, everything is tack sharp down to the pixel, all over the frame.

[pschlute]

I spent lots of time to sharpen it until acceptable on display, but didn't come out quite as good on the print.

Generally, sharpening an image until it is just acceptable on a monitor display (viewed at 100%) will not be sharp enough for a print. My rule of thumb is to double the amount of sharpening. It will look over-sharpened on the screen, but will be correct for the print.

[GUB]

It wasn't clear for me because calculators do not clearly state the assumptions being used.

That is what I mean by "terms of reference".
The "How much Blur" calculator has it's own assumption - that you wish to fill your frame with a given subject. A very practical assumption.
But this means a given lens on different formats is at different subject distances and therefore differing subject magnification.
And that is how we tend to use a lens in practise.