Minimum Resolution for 10R digital prints?
- Thread starter eug
- Start date
- Status
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).
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).
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.
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.
What about shooting something with lots of details; foilage, cluttered desk or something. Do they stand up to enlargement?
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
Regards
CK
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.
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.
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
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:
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
Originally posted by nhyone
Ah, but you can always learn the skills in the future. Once JPEQ, always JPEQ.
Without the necessary skills to process RAW and converting it to a generic readable form like JPEG, then there is no picture!
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.
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
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
Similar threads
