MF backdrop

>>3033280

>But I think I mostly was quite helpful though.

Ok

>Firstly, what resolution to scan should I look for? How much resolution is mf capable of? Some companies offer 4000dpi? Is that already very fine or meh-tier?

Resolution of the backdrop depends on how close and with which resolution you shoot the show in. If you do 1080 there should be no need to print in higher res because you will most likely never have the whole window in one frame.

>Secondly, I need a formular to calculate how far away the backdrop must stand and which size it therefore must have, so that the view on it is scaled 1:1 in regard to reality. It was shot on 80mm, so 40mm full frame equivalent. Focus was infinite, since the outside scenery are some city buildings about > 30m away. Do I need to know the size of the objects which were photographed, or can I calculate it based on the focal length and the distance the screen will have?

Do you know anything about triangulation? You got a diagonal angle of 55° with 80mm on what I guess is a 6x6cm frame(google angle lens calculator or similar). Now the size of your print only depends on the distance to the camera recording the show. If you do your calculations, you will get this:
diagonal=2*dist_cam_wall*tan(angle_of_view/2)
Which is basically the definition of the tangent function.
Math is really helpful in life btw.

>(pic unrelated. is for attention. clever.)

Worked for me

>>3033483
Thank you so far. Ofc the backdrop does not have to be printed in 600dpi. But from what I have seen, it does not make a huge difference in price if it is 96dpi, 48 or 32. So-spoken: you waste the 'tint' anyways.

In regard to the angel your message firstly let me notice an error in my thinking, MF is 0.7 crop, not 0.5. So 80mm equals 56mm FF, not 40. So for the angle we have
2atan(61.5/(2*80)) = 0.733 rad = 47°
horizontally and vertically.
For your formular this would mean:
2*10m*tan(47/2) = 322.45
322 what? meters? hardly. millimeters? like 32cm? wut? 322cm would sound like something wise, but how can cm be a result when I calculated in meters and degrees?
are you sure you're not being an ape-head again? "Math is really helpful in life btw." Hurr.

But you've been quite helpful though.

File: MN034.jpg (82KB, 1246x832px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1246x832px

some more clever

OP you seem pretty autistic and like an ass hole and I'm not just going to help you because you posted two photos of sexy women.

>>3033725
true, you don't help me because you can't.

>>3033686
this is nice

>>3033280
max rez I get from my Nikon Coolscan 8000ED and Fuji NPS / Hasselblad 80mm CF is about 2.5x2.5feet. could probably go super grainy and print 6x6 and it would still look fine as a backdrop.

a lot of the nasty grain will dissipate if you use a back lit duratran. Light jet printers are something like 150dpi at best.

File: 1488631428061.jpg (212KB, 832x1246px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 832x1246px

>>3033725
>not just going to help you because you posted two photos of sexy women.

OP cant send money over the interweb so sexy women are the best payment for help / advice

this was my 2 cents OP >>3033761, a 6 foot duratran would look great as a early/mid 90s talkshow background like old Conan or Letterman

also didn't see it at first, that ass was distracting me, but you have a nasty clone stamp here

Try these?:
https://toolstud.io/photo/dpi.php

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/1_calculators.htm

>>3033677
Set your calculator to degree not radian.

>>3033836
oh, well ... you can calculate it
322*(pi/180)=5.6

This would mean the screen would have to have a size of 5.6 meters when standing in 10m distance, to show a shot with 56mm FF equiv. in a 1:1 scale.

This sounds possible but also a bit larger than I expected... I have to counter-check this ...

thank you in every case.

>>3033865
Well you could crop that image

>>3033881
hm ... that is true as a matter of fact.