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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 12, 2004, 10:15 PM   #11
hst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 182
Default Consider cropping and camera model.

The 3. megapix will print very good 8x10 as long as you get a good quality camera. but some things to consider would be:

3MP will only allow for limited cropping. If you tend to crop your images quite a bit, a larger MP will really make a big difference. I have taken some good shots and then it turned out something distraction was in them when I was ready to print the images. It was nice to be able to crop them down to get just what I wanted.

Camera quality matters a great deal. A cheap camera with poor optics or highly compressed files will show when printing at 8x10. Stick with a good name brand and do your research.

If your not wanting to jump to a larger MP camera you might want to even consider a 4MP. That gives you about 25% more resolution and there are some very good 4MP cameras on the market.
hst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2004, 10:26 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default Re: Consider cropping and camera model.

They also perpetrate a common misconception:
Quote:
Originally Posted by megapixel.net
The ppi value of 72 originates with the ppi of colour monitors. Most were limited to 72 pixels per linear inch. Nowadays most monitors have ppi values of 96, and many digital cameras record images with a higher ppi than 72.
Even in the days of straight text with 80 chars across the screen, it was still 80 chars on a 9" screen and 80chars the really huge 15" screen. There never has been a 72 ppi standard except (maybe) on some very early Macs. As soon as there was a choice of monitor size, not even the Macs a single standard. [/rant]

There are all kinds of opinions about how many pixels are needed to make an 8x10" print. Just keep in mind that there is more to a good photo than the pixel count. Composition and timing are near/at the top of the list.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2004, 10:30 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

I think this is getting out of hand LOL

Its already been posted above so I wont go into it again how much you need to produce a decent if not photo-quality 8x10.

But Ill be first in line for the Enthusiast Kit that has a 1GigaPixel Imager that captures 100/fps and comes with a 1Gig DPI dye sub printer that produces 8x10's in under a minute for less then $2000

hahahahahahahahahhahaha
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2004, 1:50 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 162
Default

The point has not to do with MONITORS my friends. the point of the matter is the PRINT that is produced.

So get off your high horses on the whole monitor shpeal because DPI A. Has nothing to DO with the physical display size, DPI is an exact measurement of a monitor's display capabilities. 80 chars on ANY size of screen, it doesn't matter. HOWEVER they WILL be displayed differently.

PPI is actually, considered a RESOLUTION. Example, 1024 * 768 is not a real resolution, it's just parameters that we deem a 'resolution' because the usual DPI of monitors is 96. They are actually 'Width' and 'Height'.

For example, my DSC-D770 is a 1.5MP camera, it takes images of 1344 * 1024 w/h in pixels, in a 72 PPI resolution. With that W/H and resolution it will produce a low quality, 18.6" * 14.2" print. To increase the quality, I can change the resolution to '100' PPI to produce a slightly better print, at 13.4" * 10.2". To make my print close to an 8" * 10" print, my resolution will have to be 130-135 PPI. However, Changing this so called 'resolution' or 'PPI' on the image will _not_ decrease it's size on the monitor. Because it is _still_ a picture with a W/H of 1344 * 1024 in monitor 'pixels'.

Edit: that DPI will still produce a crappy print with that resolution and image size.
huckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2004, 9:41 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Monitor "resolution" is normally stated in terms of dot pitch. That can range from .2 to .4 mm: it is not a constant value. It is not even a choice between only two values.

Doesn't matter how you look at it, the 72/96 numbers simply do not apply as standards for any part of digital photography, viewing on monitors, or printing except as an value to fill a space in the EXIF data. An arbitrary value with no more meaning than 83, 57, 193, or any other number.

I suspect that the origin of the 72 ppi is confusion with printer's measuring type size in "points" - about 72 points/inch. Along with Mac's early overhyped WYSIWYG claims.
BillDrew 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 1:15 AM.