Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 7, 2003, 10:58 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 50
Default Question about Megapixels

Hi,

I posted yesterday a poll about two cameras, the oly 740/750 agains the hp 850..


As I am a complete newbie in this area can someone please to me what size a resolution of 2.11 (oly c-700) a 3.2 (c-740) and 4m (hp 850) can print with optimum quality??

Thanks.
Hammerjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 7, 2003, 11:24 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,050
Default

Ideally pics should be 300 pixels per inch (PPI).

However you'll get away with 200-250ish if you're not too fussy.

So 2mp = 4x6
3mp 5x7 and 4mp 6x8

This is an ideal situation and I've seen 2mp at 10x8 look very good.

My old 2mp fuji was ok to about 1/2 A4 size but looked pixelly any bigger.

My 3.2mp Oly 730 is ok ish to A4 minus the border.

So for A4 size prints its 3.2 mp minimum.
steve6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2003, 8:01 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544
Default

Don't want to muddy the water, but...

The lens is a very important part of any camera. Many of the manufacturers are pushing the megapixel thing. I have a Canon Pro90 with a stabilized 38-380 stabilized lens. The camera can record "only" 2.6 megapixels. I regularly print beautiful 13 X 19 inch pictures. There's a lot more than the number of pixels a manufacturer claims. Photography of any kind is an art, including digital.

The printer you use is an issue to consider... I use and Epson 1270 (also from a generation ago). Don't get sucked into the "megapixel wars"...
Wildman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2003, 12:42 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default Re: Question about Megapixels

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerjoe
what size a resolution of 2.11 (oly c-700) a 3.2 (c-740) and 4m (hp 850) can print with optimum quality?
Another variable to add to megapixels and lens quality is the degree of sharpening added in the camera. It's difficult to compare like with like. The automatic settings and certain of the 'modes' on many cameras apply some degree of digital sharpening, which can make images look much more crisp.

If you're going to post-process on a computer, you can sharpen last thing before printing, and it's best to turn in-camera sharpening off. Images from the camera may then appear less sharp initially than those with fewer pixels, or a worse lens, but with in-camera sharpening already applied by default or unknowingly.

My friendly local digicam shop(www.wrexcam.com)maintains that you need to see the printed results to judge between cameras, and they keep books of specimen prints from each camera for customers to inspect.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2003, 8:43 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default Re: Question about Megapixels

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerjoe
size ... print with optimum quality??
For what purpose? For whose eye? Picture of?

If it is going to be on a bill-board at the side of a freeway, you can print many feet on each side since it is seen only briefly and from a distance. If it is going to be on the wall on the far side of a room that is viewed while drinking gin-and-tonics, poster size should work out very well. If someone is going to view it with a 10x loupe, you won't print very large at all.

If the photo is of a dreamy, foggy landscape you can print much larger than a shot of a butterfly.
_________
There is no single valid answer to the "how big a print can I make" question.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2003, 7:51 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 386
Default Re: Question about Megapixels

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillDrew

If the photo is of a dreamy, foggy landscape you can print much larger than a shot of a butterfly.
Most you say is o so true, however I don't agree that the size of print is determated by the subject. Think of it , a poster sized butterfly can be decorative.
Mathilde uP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2003, 10:22 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default Re: Question about Megapixels

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathilde uP
Most you say is o so true, however I don't agree that the size of print is determated by the subject. Think of it , a poster sized butterfly can be decorative.
True - however the butterfly does tempt a close inspection. All the way to using a 10x loupe to see the fine detail in the wing. In the same way that folks get up close to a group photo to look at the individual faces of their friends/relatives/co-workers/...
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2003, 12:52 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 50
Default

Does this mean I should avoid the 2.1megapixel at all cost??

I want to take pictures of everything I think is worth a picture.

I also want to take picture of all sorts of animals and yes I want the detail to be as good as it can be.


My budget is limited and the c-750 is out of question for me, considering that I would have to buy extras, like batteries, bigger card etc.

I can scrap for a c-740 but it already pushes the limits of my little budget and the c-700 can be found at a good bargain.

So I don't know... I'm lost as usual... :lol:
Hammerjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2003, 2:45 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

I've seen many High Def. and Super HD pics on monitors. If you're serious about what matters in res terms, a good picture will have a 'wow' factor which makes it stand out and you will want to get closer to enjoy more experience which detail brings. That's where JPEG compression artifacts can let things down. Your detail is limited by the 'dirty window' of compression.

Of course, if it's a poster there are often physical barriers to getting closer, but a print in your hand will be judged at arms length distance, and closer if it has the 'wow' factor. I think it was Bill that once said here that clean resolution gives a 3D look to 2D pictures, as the camera finds detail around edges. I've certainly found this on the HD screen pics I've tested.

I once read of somebody who did contact prints from large size cut film - until you've seen the best, apparently you don't appreciate how far there is still to go. VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2003, 8:59 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 50
Default

Can someone post two pictures of the same object, one made with a 2.11 camera and another with 3.3 camera?

The picture just needs to be the regular picture paper size.

Thanks
Hammerjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 AM.