resolution

Digital Matt · Dec 11, 2004

Morelos, if you want to print an 8x10, the dimensions are 8x10. That is 2400x3000 @ 300 PPI.

I have a 6.3 mp camera. For me 8x10s, or 8x12s are no problem. Like I said earlier, I printed 8x10s from a 2.1 mp digital camera also. There is an acceptable limit to which you can stretch your photos. You can preview this by viewing your pictures at print size in photoshop. Print size is actually about 38%, so reset your view to that. If the picture looks good, then it will print good. If you see too much distortion, then you shouldn't go so big.

You should check the box that says "Constrain Proportions" to prevent from chagning the aspect ratio of your image. If you want an 8x10 and you change one dimension to 8 and the other is 12, you will have to crop off 2 inches. I like to open a new document that is 8x10 and paste in my 8x12 and just move it around until I like the composition. To me, that's the most like taking the picture in the first place.

Morelos · Dec 12, 2004

ah, now everything is clear. (or at least clear enough for me to make good prints)

thanks to everyone

Morelos · Dec 12, 2004

ok ok, this is the LAST question, I promise, haha...

when I'm changing the image size... the default resolution is 72 ppi... I've been changing it to 300ppi ...

I took an image and left the resolution at 72 ppi and viewed the "print size" and it looks exactly the same as if chosen the 300ppi resolution...

can someone tell me something about that?

Digital Matt · Dec 12, 2004

I don't know Morelos. There is a big difference in print size between 72 PPI and 300 PPI. Were the pixel dimensions the same on both images when you compared?

Morelos · Dec 12, 2004

no, not the same... much larger on the first one (300) but the print size looked exactly the same

DocFrankenstein · Dec 12, 2004

Depends on what cam you're using. If you have a small sensor, you'll need at least 5 mp minimum.

If you have a large sensor, I think 3 mp would be a bit stretching it.

If you have a large 3 layer sensor with 3 layers instead of bayer pattern (sp?), 3 MP should be more than enough.

the more the better. DUH

Digital Matt · Dec 12, 2004

5mp for an 8x10? I've printed 8x10s from a 2.1mp that turned out great. It was an Olympus point and shoot, and I'm sure it didn't have a big sensor.

Morelos, I don't know what happened, but view them at 38%. They should be different sizes.

DocFrankenstein · Dec 12, 2004

You have a very elastic definition of great

Digital Matt · Dec 13, 2004

DocFrankenstein, the quality of the 8x10s I printed from 2.1mp were on par with prints I've seen enlarged from 35mm film. An 8x10 is not meant to be viewed with a magnifying glass. Film prints will look bad under that scrutiny as well.

If I could get, and I'll soften my words, "acceptable" 8x10s from a 2.1, then certainly a 3.2mp is plenty high enough quality. I wouldn't say 5mp is the minimum.

DocFrankenstein · Dec 13, 2004

I'm not trying to argue, but you basically equated 35mm film prints and 2.1 mp jpeg... :shock: :shock: :shock:

Free county. You can beleive in anything... even megapixels. :wink:

don't know what prints you've seen, but no 2 mp camera could match a 35/ISO 100 negative printed on a decent enlarger at 8*10 :?

Digital Matt · Dec 13, 2004

It all depends on the photo, the noise/grain. A nice clean image from a good sensor at 2.1 mp can be interpolated up to 8x10 through photoshop and, barring no noise or artifacts in the original, look as good as an 8x10 from 35mm film, in my opinion. Have you ever printed an 8x10 from a 2.1mp camera? I'm not talking about printing it on a lexmark printer at home either. I'm talking about sending it out and have it printed on high end printer at a lab, at 300 dpi. The results are quite amazing.

DocFrankenstein · Dec 13, 2004

Digital Matt said:
It all depends on the photo, the noise/grain. A nice clean image from a good sensor at 2.1 mp can be interpolated up to 8x10 through photoshop and, barring no noise or artifacts in the original, look as good as an 8x10 from 35mm film, in my opinion.

Well, you see... there are currently no 2 mp cameras with good sensors which can produce noiseless images. Sure, if you take sigma SD10 with it's large 3 layer sensor, then sure. 8*10 will look fine with it.

But when you have a 1700-1300 image, with grain, jpeg artifacts and NOISE from the small sensor, there isn't enough detail there to print at that size. 170 pixels per inch from a PS gives really soft results.

Have you ever printed an 8x10 from a 2.1mp camera? I'm not talking about printing it on a lexmark printer at home either.

No, I didn't print 2.1 mp. I went from 1.1 HP to 3.2 kodak digicams...

Just for the sake of it, I tried printing the 1.1 mp image...

Cleaned the noise up with ninja
Upsized it too 3000*2400
Printed at 5*4

It's a pic, but it's soft. I don't know what vision you have, but I can see lack of detail from about a meter :?

I also printed another one without the noise removal. A bit sharper bit now I can see the jpeg artifacts from a meter distance.

I'm talking about sending it out and have it printed on high end printer at a lab, at 300 dpi. The results are quite amazing.

I have i9900. It's not the lab, but quite close.

I don't know how you view your 8*10. I expect people to be 30 to maybe 70 cm apart from the print.

Digital Matt · Dec 13, 2004

DocFrankenstein said:
Well, you see... there are currently no 2 mp cameras with good sensors which can produce noiseless images. Sure, if you take sigma SD10 with it's large 3 layer sensor, then sure. 8*10 will look fine with it.
.

Really, none? That's funny. My Olympus D510, 2.1mp < $200 produced beautiful noise free images at ISO 100. I have sold prints from this camera.

I tend to view an 8x10 from 1-3 feet. (30-90cm) At this distance, my 2.1mp 8x10s look very good, with no artifacts or distortion visible.

I'm not familiar with your i9900. I wonder how your $500 printer compares to a $89,000 Fuji Frontier or a Noritisu. That's what I print on.

DocFrankenstein · Dec 13, 2004

Digital Matt said:
Really, none? That's funny. My Olympus D510, 2.1mp < $200 produced beautiful noise free images at ISO 100. I have sold prints from this camera.

Oh god, that's not an argument.

I tend to view an 8x10 from 1-3 feet. (30-90cm) At this distance, my 2.1mp 8x10s look very good, with no artifacts or distortion visible.

I am nowhere near perfect vision and I still see it from 1 meter away :? What's your vision?

I'm not familiar with your i9900. I wonder how your $500 printer compares to a $89,000 Fuji Frontier or a Noritisu. That's what I print on.

It can't print high volume and it can't process film. In term of print quality... I'd say it's better than the lab. Most of those who used it, say it's at least close.

Come on matt. You shoot digital you should know what 8 ink injets are capable of. Just as colorful as the lab. It's more than enough for sharpness tests... trust me

Digital Matt · Dec 13, 2004

Let's just agree to disagree. You've never seen my prints, so you can't comment on them. I'm sorry if you think that there's no good point and shoot cameras. Maybe you've just had a bad experience.