Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Canon EOS dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-eos-dslr-41/)
-   -   Print size vs MP (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-eos-dslr/29706-print-size-vs-mp.html)

F1guy Jul 18, 2004 5:15 PM

I am curious if folks find the 6.3 MegaPixel files providesuper high qualityprints up to 11x14? I recognize that 8 or 11 MP would be better, but wonder if it is worth the cost for the print quality provided at this size?



Thanks

eric s Jul 18, 2004 6:56 PM

Technically, your definition of "super high quality" could be different than mine. I have used my 10D to produce 11x14s and I am very happy with the results. They look like they were taken with film and printed.

It also depends on how much you crop the pictures. If you don't a lot, then it is not hard to enlarge your pictures to around 300 DPI and print them at that size.

If you are goign to crop a lot, then you want the higher resolution because then you will still have more data left over to make the large print.

Eric

gibsonpd3620 Jul 18, 2004 6:57 PM

Yes, you will have high quality prints for 11X14 prints withf a 6.3 mp camera.

Wildman Jul 18, 2004 7:48 PM

In my not-so-humble opinion, trying to figure out print size based on camera megapixels aloneis a trap. The lens quality is an issue as well. I have many 13 X 19 prints taken with my Canon Pro90IS (2.6 MP) hanging in my home that look great. Printer and paper quality are at least as important.

I'll admit that I don't crop much once I press the shutter and I do often "rez up" sometimes using Genuine Fractals. A lot of camera manufacturers have stressed megapixels because it's a cheaper solution than providing a good lens. More pixels would give me more flexibility, but I'm not sure it would bethe answer to my prayers.

My next camera will be a DSLR, but I haven't found it necessary yet. My old Pro90 is slow to focus and doesn't do well in low light, but I've learned to cope. DSLRs offer less noise at higher ISO values and much reduced shutter lag. These are the main reason for my reasons to switch.

Railfire Jul 23, 2004 10:41 PM

To F1 Guy. I own the 300D/DRebel & had 3 - 16 X 20's made from the files & they are Tack Sharp! The lens I used was the Canon 28-135 IS with the IS 'on' & no tripod.I always shoot in theTV Mode & Prefer ISO 100 - if need be I switch to ISO 200 for most outdoors shots. 2 of these were shot at ISO 100 & the 3rd at ISO 200. All were shot outdoors. I had them printed by a Pro Lab. I have seen 24 X 30's shot with the 10D & D60 in a studio setting & they too were Razor sharp. So, 11 X 14's are no problem. I always shoot in the Largest Jpeg setting.

I hope this helps.

David



Greg Chappell Jul 24, 2004 12:45 AM

At 11x14 you are looking at just over 200 PPI (Pixels Per Inch) from a full sized file with no cropping, which is plenty to give first class results. Once the formula starts getting below around 150-180 PPI I start up-sizing the files, but that starts at 12x18. Since viewing distances should be further at the bigger print sizes you could probably get away with up to 13x19 or even 16x20 without any interpolation, though I have not yet tried.

8 Megapixels isn't enough to make that much of a difference. 6.3 will be plenty big enough until the 11-12 megapixel size camera is affordable for those of us that $1,000-$1,500 is the upper level of affordability.

barthold Jul 24, 2004 11:56 PM

The following is worth reading, especially the posts from Lin Evans:

Size vs Resolution discussion:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...ght=print+size

Resolution and printing discussion:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...ght=print+size


Barthold


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2