In article <1gvdm2r.1rsrjsc1uobf9cN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
Why? Because it’s overkill. The viewing distance is such that 200 ppi is also quite enough.
That’s the standard doctrine, of course, and I’ve heard it many times: "All pictures over thus-and-such a size will always be viewed from thus-and-such a distance."
The argument is bunk; there is no way to predict the viewing distance for an object based only on its size. The general guidelines that are often used to try to make this prediction assume that the viewer will always be at such a distance that the entire object fits in his field of view, which is an assumption that’s not only untrue, it’s kind of silly.
Example 1: The wall-sized mural at my local airport. It dominates the entire wall, so naturally the designer assumed the viewing distance would be about fifteen feet or so and that he could get away with low resolution. But the line of people waiting to pass through security runs right along that same wall; the average viewing distance is more like six inches. From six inches, it looks like crap–and believe me, people notice.
Example 2: Free-standing trade show displays. These often flank a booth or are mounted in the aisle; they’re not always located behind the booth. People can and do come nose-to-nose with them. If they look poor when someone is standing right in front of them, again, people notice.
Example 3: Exhibit signage and graphics of the kind you see in art shows and museums. These often contain text explaining the exhibit as well as graphic material; they’re *intended* to be seen from a very close viewing distance. Making judgements about the resolution of the graphics based solely on the size of the piece is a big mistake.
Example 4: Large-format advertising materials, especially the kind used in bus stops and metro stations. These environments often do not *permit* viewing the material from a distance; the audience can reasonably be expected to be standing right next to the piece, because there ismply isn’t enough room to back up to the distance that the silly guidelines about viewing distance predict.
Example 5: Posters. The typical viewing distance for a poster has less to do with the size of the poster than it does with the location where the poster is mounted and the purpose of the poster. Mocvie one-sheets can, depending on where and how they’re mounted, have a typical viewing distance of anywhere from one foot to ten feet or more; free-standing movie displays, which are often placed along the areas where lines form, may have a viewing distance of less than one foot; posters placed in a home may have a viewing distance anywhere form nose-to-nose to six feet or more.
You can’t make predictions about viewing distance based only on the size of a piece, and the idea that you can, like the idea that the human brain uses only ten percent of its capacity, is an enduring myth.
Nor is there any need. Any reasonably modern personal computer, even a low-end Pentium or Mac machine, should be up to the task of dealing with a poster-sized image at high resolution. I’ve dealt with such images on antique computers far less capable than even a low-end Dell system.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html