Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: 8R Photo with C2100

  1. #1

    Default 8R Photo with C2100

    Any C2100 user try developed their shoot in 8R before?

    How is the quality?

    Actually how far C2100 can go?

    Thansk advance.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Bedok, Singapore, Singapore
    Posts
    444

    Default Re: 8R Photo with C2100

    Originally posted by siewsphone
    Any C2100 user try developed their shoot in 8R before?

    How is the quality?

    Actually how far C2100 can go?

    Thansk advance.
    I don't think there's a problem printing a 2.1MPix photo on 8R. I think as long as the photo resolution width is above 1500, there shouldn't be any problem in printing to 8R. Note: The image has to be sharp!

  3. #3

    Default Re: 8R Photo with C2100

    Originally posted by siewsphone
    Any C2100 user try developed their shoot in 8R before?

    How is the quality?

    Actually how far C2100 can go?

    Thansk advance.
    I have not developed them to 8R only to 4R. But I've printed letter size (8.5 x 11inch). Got a whole album full. It looks good at this size. Tried printing on tabloid and it stretches. So I think 8R(8x12) is the limit.

  4. #4
    Midnight
    Guests

    Default Re: 8R Photo with C2100

    Originally posted by siewsphone
    Actually how far C2100 can go?
    It is very much a matter of taste (as well as the intended viewing distance from the print), but most people will agree that images printed at 150ppi to 300ppi are 'acceptable', and 300ppi and above is 'excellent' in terms of print "sharpness" or "smoothness".

    A 1200x1600 pixel ("2 megapixel") image will need to be cropped to 1200x1500 to fit the 8R (8"x10") aspect ratio. This in turn works out to a maximum of 1500/10 = 1200/8 = 150 ppi for an 8R print from a non-interpolated 2 megapixel image. As such, at least from the technical theoretical point of view, you ought to be able to get acceptably sharp 8R prints from 2 megapixel cameras such as the C-2100UZ, but generally I would advise against trying bigger prints unless you don't mind the quality tradeoff.

    (Note that for a 4R print, you will get a maximum of about 266 PPI from the same image, so no worries there.)

    Of course, this doesn't take into account how good the photo itself is in terms of aesthetics....

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks the replies. Really teach me something new

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    for a birthday party snapshot with flash, 8R (A4) is slightly pixellated... 3 mpix is better..
    6R (A5) is just nice
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    302

    Default

    Originally posted by denizenx
    for a birthday party snapshot with flash, 8R (A4) is slightly pixellated... 3 mpix is better..
    6R (A5) is just nice
    ....how about interpolating it up .... to a bigger size. will that help reduce the pixellation?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    yup but then it will look blur... hehe well the thing is if u hang it on a wall I think even 1.3 mpix will suffice... but a album browse might be a fine line... depends on person... for me I think 3.3 mpix is best for A4 (around 8R) (n(R) = width / 24mm). under scrutiny it still passes mostly...
    talking about everyday snaps here, other types like sunrise or smooth pics req more colour depth than resolution to solve gradient banding...
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  9. #9

    Default

    In general I will say that the 2.1MP is totally enough to do high quality prints on A4 and even at A3 , what counts is the quality of the printer .
    My HP 970 Cxi can do great work ,and above the average in quality prints .

    I also own the Olympus P-400 digital printer , the printing quality of it is just the top .
    And a little costly too ..

    ....how about interpolating it up ....
    Well the truth is that you can not fool one printer , but if you have one very small image ( crop of the original ) interpolating is one good alternative solution .
    Olympus C2100 X3 - E100RS - C220
    IS/L lenses ALL :-D

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    302

    Default

    Originally posted by denizenx
    yup but then it will look blur... hehe well the thing is if u hang it on a wall I think even 1.3 mpix will suffice... but a album browse might be a fine line... depends on person... for me I think 3.3 mpix is best for A4 (around 8R) (n(R) = width / 24mm). under scrutiny it still passes mostly...
    talking about everyday snaps here, other types like sunrise or smooth pics req more colour depth than resolution to solve gradient banding...
    ....hmmmm....whay will it look blur? if printing the original file produces pixellation, won't resampling it upwards (say to 200%) help reduce the pixellation? if you try it on screen, you will know what i mean

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    argh dun wanna argue, turning into a which camera is better argument.. ( deleted 3 big paras of arguments )

    for compare basis,
    ok I use:
    - canon bjc8200 6 inks (ie skys are light blue not white+blue dots)
    - canon hi-res paper (photo paper without the weight)
    - had a cp990, have a 2100uz have lots of shots from both, many prints from both too (canon not good for archival)
    - 19" VS monitor running at 1280x1024 or 1172x864, my yellow clubsnap smiley is around 4-5mm

    I find epson 740 grainy, I find fujifilm superia 200 grainy nightshot at 4R, and whatever pics I said above... but only if I bother. I find a large human height poster (the one at the film shop at adelphi) viewed from 2m ok.

    if u are similar to the specs above then you will accept my argument.

    bottomline is u have to see it urself to like it or not...

    PS: upsampling removes JAGGINESS but can't fill the new smoothness with details, will just be a rounder, bigger, smoother superpixel. (eg try upsampling a straightline and not get a ladder)
    capish
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •