>>3565367>Yes, the calculator is showing you based on accepted standards for what 20/20 vision can resolve that 20MP resolution is enough that from 3 feet, a 50 inch print at 96 dpi will not have any discernible quality degradation.Nice sleight of hand there. The calculator says nothing about what is "acceptable quality", it just fills out the various fields based on user input.
96ppi has never, ever been considered "acceptable quality" for a print. At 3ft-5ft a human with healthy vision can easily see individual pixels in a 96ppi print or on a 96ppi display. At those distances 200ppi is considered the minimum for a "retina" or HiDPI display which is a display where humans cannot discern individual pixels. That would also be the minimum for a print.
Having actually displayed my work in exhibitions I consider 240ppi to be a minimum for good quality, with 360ppi being ideal. I'll drop to 180ppi for less critical work, but no lower. (360 ppi is based off the 720x720 half toning grid of Epson professional ink jets.)
This isn't even a mft vs FF issue. 20mp FF can't handle 50" prints either. If you print that large you need a Nikon D850, Canon 5Ds/sR, Panasonic SR1, or Sony A7r series camera. Or MF digital. In film you would want 6x7/9, 4x5, or 8x10.
>>3565352>I don't understand what you're highlighting here or why.It's just another bullshit thread by limpdick anon, a known liar and board mft shill who lies awake at night wondering if he bought the wrong camera. Then he spends the day trying to convince everyone else on /p/ that he did.
