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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 20, 2004, 6:13 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41
Default what resolution setting is best for pics to print out

I have heard that once you go so big you can't even see a difference and sometimes if you go too big, it will actually make the pic look worse. So for a 4X6, 5X7 or 8X10 pic what is the max setting to have your camara on if you don't plan on doing any croping??

I also have heard that some people have taken pics with all the different resolution settings and at some point there is no difference, even on a 8X10. I'd really like to know what it is, to save memory on my CF and SM cards as get the best pic quality that I can. I know that all camaras are different based on the # of pixels, but what have people found?? IE-is 1700X1200 too much for a 5X7? etc...
rodH is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 20, 2004, 7:06 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Deiota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 105
Default

Hello!
I'll give you my idea of best resolution for one specific print. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my clear thought!
When I shoot a picture, no matter the subject, my goal is to get the best I can with the camera I have (that I've choosen to buy within my possibilities).
What I mean is that I shoot with the best resolution I can have, with the right file format. don't think that Tiff or SQH at its best is worth it, because you can't tell the difference, at least I cant!
Anyway I use the max reolution I got, I have a 4 MP camera.
It doesn't matter if I'll be printing the pict or not, or even which print size I'll use.
The main reason is because you'll never know what ts going to be worth the shot. Imagine a landscape with a couple of trees and a cat in between. I may onte to crop it and print only the cat, for some special reason, or just to print a tree or something.
If you shoot with a low resolution, you won't be able to crop and size with suficient quality to print a part of the whole picture (for instance, tha cat).
So, I use the max so I can crop and print anything I want (almost).
Did you get the idea?
As I've said, I have a 4P and I think it's quite enought for printing (even cropped ones), at least for me!
Of course if you don't want to crop a picture, you don't have to use that kind of resolution, but I think it's better to prevent becasue If somehting apears on the photo that calls your attention and decide to crop, afterall, you'll be messed up...
I have a 56Mb XD card and I think its a good card size, I can shoot about 300 photos with the max resolution.
Hope this helps!

Love, Andrea
Deiota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2004, 7:12 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deiota
Hello!
I'll give you my idea of best resolution for one specific print. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my clear thought!
When I shoot a picture, no matter the subject, my goal is to get the best I can with the camera I have (that I've choosen to buy within my possibilities).
What I mean is that I shoot with the best resolution I can have, with the right file format. don't think that Tiff or SQH at its best is worth it, because you can't tell the difference, at least I cant!
Anyway I use the max reolution I got, I have a 4 MP camera.
It doesn't matter if I'll be printing the pict or not, or even which print size I'll use.
The main reason is because you'll never know what ts going to be worth the shot. Imagine a landscape with a couple of trees and a cat in between. I may onte to crop it and print only the cat, for some special reason, or just to print a tree or something.
If you shoot with a low resolution, you won't be able to crop and size with suficient quality to print a part of the whole picture (for instance, tha cat).
So, I use the max so I can crop and print anything I want (almost).
Did you get the idea?
As I've said, I have a 4P and I think it's quite enought for printing (even cropped ones), at least for me!
Of course if you don't want to crop a picture, you don't have to use that kind of resolution, but I think it's better to prevent becasue If somehting apears on the photo that calls your attention and decide to crop, afterall, you'll be messed up...
I have a 56Mb XD card and I think its a good card size, I can shoot about 300 photos with the max resolution.
Hope this helps!

Love, Andrea
OK, so in theory what is the MAX???? (In other words if I take a pic of a subject and fill the frame and do NOT plan on cropping it or other objects in the pic)???
rodH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2004, 7:16 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Deiota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 105
Default

For me, the max is the max the camera can give you! If you want a more precise answer, just point a shoot with the variety of resolutions your cam can give you and test yourself. Perhaps a 1600x1200 is a good resolution, perhaps is even higher than necessary (I'm almost sure of it)
Love, Andrea
Deiota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2004, 7:17 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default Re: what resolution setting is best for pics to print out

Personally, I always shoot in the highest resolution my camera supports. You never know when you may want a larger print.

As far as too much resolution, I doubt you'd ever run into that problem. Heck, it takes 4 times the resolution just to double an image size (because you have to multipy width x height when computing resolution).

Anyway, it takes a 1500 x 2100 image size just to get 300 pixels per inch at 5x7" print size (you'd have to crop most images for an exact fit at 5x7"). With some dye sub printers, you need a full 300 pixels per inch.

With most inkjets, you can get by with much less (although I can see a noticeable increase in quality going from 150 to 200 pixels per inch on printers I've owned). After that, I really don't see any difference (but I don't own a newer 4800 dpi printer, either).

In any event, I've never heard of a problem sending too much resolution to a printer. Although, I have seen software like QImage Pro, designed to optimize output for a particular printer model.

Here is a chart that you may find useful:

http://www.cordcamera.com/products/d...ct_ratios.html

Here is another chart that shows Pixels Per Inch you'd be sending to a printer driver for popular print sizes and camera resolutions:

http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleed...tables.htm#ppi

Another benefit of shooting at higher resolutions for smaller images, is that noise and other image artificats tends to blend in better at smaller viewing/print sizes.

Many cameras may take a subset of the image when downsizing (versus a more advanced algorithm that averages the values based on adjacent pixels).

So, shooting at a higher resolution is also beneficial in this case, to help mask image quality flaws at smaller print or viewing sizes.

You can downsize the images yourself using software for on screen viewing, using better algorithms -- and it won't hurt to send too much resolution to a printer IMO.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2004, 8:53 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
ImKayd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,785
Default

In the photos in the camera review section (at least in the ones I've read) it appears Steve uses SHQ.
In the larger MP cameras this definately uses more card. You might try several different setting taking the same picture and see what you like or what works for you.

Kayd
ImKayd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2004, 5:38 AM   #7
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

Quote:
With most inkjets, you can get by with much less (although I can see a noticeable increase in quality going from 150 to 200 pixels per inch on printers I've owned). After that, I really don't see any difference (but I don't own a newer 4800 dpi printer, either).
300 DPI is reckoned to be the limit of the resolution of the human eye. higher DPI and your eye can't tell the difference. Lower than this and you can see a difference if you are close enough. It's the fact that larger pictures are generally viewed from further away that allows you to use a lower resolution.

As for the 4800 DPI printer this is actually a different measurement. This is the ability to lay down the 4 or 6 colours of ink in a pattern to create a dot of the colour in the photo.
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2004, 7:51 AM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagasaki
300 DPI is reckoned to be the limit of the resolution of the human eye. higher DPI and your eye can't tell the difference. Lower than this and you can see a difference if you are close enough. It's the fact that larger pictures are generally viewed from further away that allows you to use a lower resolution.

As for the 4800 DPI printer this is actually a different measurement. This is the ability to lay down the 4 or 6 colours of ink in a pattern to create a dot of the colour in the photo.
I'm well aware of how the printers work. The printer must have the ability to accurately represent the individual pixels via many dots for each pixel.

As far as 300 Pixels Per Inch being the limit the human eye can perceive, this is quite controversial, and may have more to do with the limitations of the test mediums, than the eyes ability to distinquish detail.

Most optical tests of the human eye's ability to perceive detail were based on line pairs/millimeter. However, there were inherent flaws in the tests, due to the limitations of the optics and medium used, too.

Other factors also come into play when viewing images (MTF ratings of the lenses, etc., which are also limiting factors).

In other words, the lens may not have the ability to resolve detail and contrast fine enough, so that the individual pixels vary enough in value for the human eye to see it. Lens technology is often based on old tests of the human eyes ability to perceive detail, given the limitation of printer, ink and paper technology at the time of the tests.

I've seen recent tests showing that high resolution images printed at 600 pixels per inch, were more detailed than the same images printed at 300 pixels per inch, on a printer capable of accurate representing detail at around 600 lines per inch.

BTW, one search person conducting a test (not even on the most high tech printer), was Dr. Roger N. Clark (who holds a Ph.D in Planetary Science from MIT).

Here are some quotes from him:

"The human eye, under best lighting conditions, can resolve objects slightly less than one arc minute (Blackwell, 1946..."

"...One arc-minute corresponds to 0.003 inch at a distance of 10 inches. The inverse of 0.003 = 344, but it takes at least two pixels to resolve something, so double this number and we get about 700 ppi as the resolution of the eye at one arc-minute. The eye can do a little better, so perhaps 1000 ppi is the limit."

Is his research flawed? Perhaps, perhaps not. That's why it's so controversial. You'll have to judge for yourself. You'll find some of this tests result and conclusions here:

http://clarkvision.com/

I've also seen comments from map makers indicate more detail up to about 360 pixels per inch on some printers (but no increase in detail above that). Again, the printer, ink, and paper can come into play (as well as the quality of the original image, which is limited by the quality of the lens, dynamic range of the photosites in the sensor, etc.).

So, yes, 300 Pixels Per inch is generally accepted as being the most the human eye can resolve at average viewing distances.

However, the tests that this was based on may be flawed (by the limitations of the original source the image was based on, and the limitations of the printers, ink and paper to try accurately represent the image).

Personally, I think that's why I'm seeing more new users of digital cameras complain about seeing grain in printed images. Printer, ink, and paper technology is getting better, so that printers are able to resolve finer detail, making defects like noise more visible from higher resolution cameras.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2004, 8:18 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

When I first started in digital cameras, memory cards were very expensive and it made sense to shoot in as low as resolution that would get the job done. Now cards are very affordable and I shoot the highest jpeg compression that my camera is capable. I will also at times shoot in Tiff or Raw if I have a special purpose for the pictures.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2004, 3:32 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I have no use for TIFF but I shoot raw in my camera that has it. I would use SHQ if I had it on the cameras without raw.

A 35mm shot taken with good consumer 100 ASA film has about the same resolution as a 6Mp DSLR shot. But you can see the difference even in an 8 X 10 between photos taken with 35mm and medium or large format with higher resolution. So I donít care what the theory says, the proof is in the pudding and higher resolution tends to give better prints.

Iím sure there is a limit Ė especially if you are printing on an inkjet. But some of the new inkjets are pretty spectacular.

You never know when you are going to get that great shot you want to blow up and hang on the wall. And you donít know where the future will take you. 5 years from now when you have a 9600 X 19200 DPI wide format printer you picked up for $150 you might regret having your earlier photos nearly useless. Buy a bigger card and take the pictures at best resolution. Those photos are your lifetime memories.
slipe 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 9:15 AM.