Minimum Resolution for 10R digital prints?


Status
Not open for further replies.

eug

New Member
Oct 23, 2002
446
0
0
Buangkok
Visit site
#1
Anybody actually printed digital 10R prints at the photo labs?
What resolution do you use?
 

Azure

Deregistered
Mar 16, 2003
2,775
0
0
ClubSNAP community
www.clubsnap.org
#2
Yup, I do.

So far, I've been quite comfy with 3Mp res.

A year ago, when I was still using my 2Mp Coolpix950, I've printed up to 8"x12" (Super8R).

:D
 

eug

New Member
Oct 23, 2002
446
0
0
Buangkok
Visit site
#3
so ... 3MP gives you a very good 10R print can't see (pixel like) grains?
 

Azure

Deregistered
Mar 16, 2003
2,775
0
0
ClubSNAP community
www.clubsnap.org
#4
If well taken I guess should not.

Several month back I printed a couple of 2.7Mp shots on Zeropix prints, with a size of 20"x15". Very sharp leh. Last week I sent 4 shots for 10"x12" prints at Miao Lann Color (Bt Batok) - turned out really well too.

But then again, I will only print at Fuji FDI labs. Their Frontiers are the best! Maybe you may want to try them out. Insist on Crystal Archive Supreme paper, lor.

:)
 

nhyone

New Member
Mar 22, 2002
177
0
0
17
Singapore
web.singnet.com.sg
#5
Originally posted by Azure
Several month back I printed a couple of 2.7Mp shots on Zeropix prints, with a size of 20"x15". Very sharp leh
What about shooting something with lots of details; foilage, cluttered desk or something. Do they stand up to enlargement?
 

ckiang

Senior Member
#6
With a good, clean image, a 3mp file from a camera like the EOS D30 can easily to 10x15" without noticeable noise/grain. With the current crop of 6mp DSLRs you can probably go even bigger. Even with the prosumer digicams, you can get decent large prints at the lower ISOs. I've always printed images from Coolpix 950 (2mp) at 8x10 without any problems. They always blow people away when I told them it's a 2mp image.

Regards
CK
 

eug

New Member
Oct 23, 2002
446
0
0
Buangkok
Visit site
#7
I am aware that 2.1MP can be used for Super 8R. I just want to check if 3.2MP can achieve a good 10R Blowup. Deciding how many MP to get.
 

eug

New Member
Oct 23, 2002
446
0
0
Buangkok
Visit site
#9
hehe ... but I don't want too spend too much ... at the same time I don't want to buy and regret. I think I'll look for 4MP.
 

Feb 24, 2003
119
0
0
Visit site
#10
Originally posted by ckiang
With a good, clean image, a 3mp file from a camera like the EOS D30 can easily to 10x15" without noticeable noise/grain. With the current crop of 6mp DSLRs you can probably go even bigger. Even with the prosumer digicams, you can get decent large prints at the lower ISOs. I've always printed images from Coolpix 950 (2mp) at 8x10 without any problems. They always blow people away when I told them it's a 2mp image.

Regards
CK
Hi CKiang,
when you mean 2mp, does it mean in TIF? or best resolution in JPEG will do?
 

eug

New Member
Oct 23, 2002
446
0
0
Buangkok
Visit site
#11
TIF and JPEG difference is in the no. of colors and file size, I don't think JPEG will induce any noise or grain.
 

roygoh

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
5,011
0
0
Northwest
Visit site
#12
Originally posted by eug
TIF and JPEG difference is in the no. of colors and file size, I don't think JPEG will induce any noise or grain.
JPEG format is a lossy compression of the original image. There will be some artifacts induced compared with TIFF which is either uncompressed or losslessly compressed.

The level of artifacts introduced by the JPEG compression is dependent on the quality setting.

Most reviewers indicate that the difference between TIFF and JPEF FINE (or high quality setting) in digicams are either not noticable or not significant.

At lower quality setting (JPEF normal or lower) the artifacts will be more noticeable. The artifacts are different from random CCD noise or grain. CCD noise and film grain are generally less annoying than obvious JPEG artifacts.

- Roy
 

jasonpgc

New Member
Jan 20, 2002
453
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#15
Originally posted by ckiang
JPEG FINE. It's crazy to shoot TIFFs as there is no difference between printing from a TIFF file and JPEG FINE file.

Regards
CK
There's a huge different somewhere, with tiff or raw it takes up 3 times the file size than jpeg. Many will protest, but I think its really unnecessary to waste the memory shooting raw if you don't know how to use it :devil:
 

#16
Originally posted by jasonpgc
There's a huge different somewhere, with tiff or raw it takes up 3 times the file size than jpeg. Many will protest, but I think its really unnecessary to waste the memory shooting raw if you don't know how to use it :devil:
That I 100% agree. Shooting RAW without the requisite skills to properly process them is a waste of time and memory space. Shooting TIFF is just crazy. ;)

Regards
CK
 

munfai

New Member
Apr 19, 2002
1,354
0
0
39
#17
Nowadays it's pointless to shoot TIFF if your camera can do RAW, right? Is there any digicam out there that can do both?
 

nhyone

New Member
Mar 22, 2002
177
0
0
17
Singapore
web.singnet.com.sg
#18
Originally posted by ckiang
Shooting RAW without the requisite skills to properly process them is a waste of time and memory space.
Ah, but you can always learn the skills in the future. Once JPEQ, always JPEQ. :D
 

roygoh

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
5,011
0
0
Northwest
Visit site
#19
Originally posted by nhyone
Ah, but you can always learn the skills in the future. Once JPEQ, always JPEQ. :D
Without the necessary skills to process RAW and converting it to a generic readable form like JPEG, then there is no picture!:D

So your reasoning only work if you can wait to only see your pictures in the future after you have the skills to handle RAW.
 

roygoh

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
5,011
0
0
Northwest
Visit site
#20
I think we are going off topic with the discussion on file formats.

To answer eug's original question, I feel that the bare minimum number of pixels required per inch of print to get respectable results is 150. 72 ppi works for on-screen but may be a little too coarse for prints.

The print quality improves as the ppi increases from 150 to 300. Beyond 300, the improvements will not be as obvious.

So depending on the size of the print, the required resolution would then be numer of inces of print X 150 pixels.

For a 10 inch wide print, the minimum resolution would be 1500 pixels in that direction. With a 4X3 asect ration, the total pixels is 1500 x 1125 = approximately 1.6 mega pixels.

To get really good results, the resolution should be 3000 pixels. Which means that a 6MP resolution is required.

This has not taken into account upsampling. A low resolution picture can always yield pretty good results for large prints if the resolution is up-sampled by software, especially if there is not much fine details in the picture.

That would be a different discussion though.

- Roy
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom