>>3911177>>3911177>24 Megapixels?>Garbage. It's literally a tiny fraction of what the human eye can see.Let me guess: you are a "film is infinite!" retard, aren't you?
24mp is absolutely fine for 20"/24" prints with strong detail. Most people don't print larger than that, if they ever print that large. And this is coming from a pixel whore who shoots 50mp.
>100 Megapixels is decent but still garbage.>You retards think you have to "pixel peep" to see more than X amount of pixels because you're used to seeing low res fucking garbage on a 100 to 200 PPI display. A) I make big prints. B) 240 ppi, my target for Epson printers, is as sharp and detailed as any darkroom print I ever made or saw. Perhaps more so. Human beings can discern higher resolutions when the target is monochromatic line art. A photograph? You're reaching the limits by the mid 200's.
Taking into account half tone patterns, a modern pro Epson inkjet can faithfully reproduce a photograph with a native 360 ppi resolution (at the chosen print size). And when I compare 180, 240, 300, and 360 ppi files the only times I can see any difference at all is with detail that is very much like monochromatic line art. Shoot a model with black hair against a bright white backdrop and you can see some improved definition in strands of hair surrounded by the backdrop.
