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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 11, 2004, 10:35 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1
Default For 8x10's do I need more than 3.2 megapixals?

If the maximum I want to print is 8x10 and have them very clear, clean and perfect, do I need more than 3.2 megapixals.
chuckshots is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 11, 2004, 11:36 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 430
Default

If you are able to compose [nearly] what you want your final image to look like when you take the shot, you will not need more resolution from your sensor than 3.2 Mpxl. With this resolution however, you won't have too much leeway for cropping your shots afterwards and still yield good 8x10 prints, so a good optical zoom range on the camera will be a big help.
jawz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2004, 7:00 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 626
Default

No, you won't need more than 3.2 and depending on the camera's optics, you might get away with less than 3.2. I have a Panasonic FZ1, 2 MP that does AWESOME 8x10's, but it also has a Leica lens!

I haven't tried cropping and I haven't tried going above 8x10, so I don't know how it will handle things beyond that.
PrmseKpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2004, 1:14 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default Re: For 8x10's do I need more than 3.2 megapixals?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckshots
If the maximum I want to print is 8x10 and have them very clear, clean and perfect, do I need more than 3.2 megapixals.
I've got a 3.1 MP digital camera and the only shot I have printed at 8x10 was interestingly taken at 2 MP :lol: and came out soooooo good that I framed it. So to answer your question, you won't need more than 3.2 MP to print 8x10 with good results.
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2004, 1:59 PM   #5
AMG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 144
Default

I don't want to go against the popular word, but it depends how technical you want to get, If you assume that 300 is the optimal resolution for printing, then you need the pixel dimesnions of yuor file to be 2400 by 3000 which is actually 7 megapixels, but if you print at 200 dpi, then the file needs to be 1600 by 2000 which is about 3.2 megapixels. So your result is very good. I am only saying very good because if you hold the exact 2 pictures side by side, and you are very very close, you be able to tell the difference, but let's think of how often we look at an 8 by 10 from 6 inches away, never... So in conclusion, everyone here is right, I just thought if you knew a little bit more about the "why" you'd be more informed... and now you are. A wedding photographer for example would not use a camera of this resolution for an 8x10.
AMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2004, 2:29 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default

You nailed it right. We don't look at 8x10 at 6 inches. Not even 4x6 pictures. That's why 3.2 MP is more than enough for practical purposes at that size unless you are a pro photographer. Heck, my 3.1 MP camera is probably good enough to make a 40 ft billboard that will be seen from 500 feet away.
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2004, 2:55 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 162
Default

if you go over to http://www.megapixel.net they have an article that tackles this very question-

clikck on "Articles" on the left navbar, and choose 'Understanding resolution and prints' from the Camera Basics dropdown.
huckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2004, 5:40 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huckle
if you go over to http://www.megapixel.net they have an article that tackles this very question-

clikck on "Articles" on the left navbar, and choose 'Understanding resolution and prints' from the Camera Basics dropdown.
There is absolutely no reason for the large contrast difference between the images except that the writer was trying to make a point he had predetermined and wasnít working out to his misconception. The reason being that there isnít an inkjet on the market IMO that can see that much difference between the resolution of those last two images all other things being equal. Those other things being equal image compression in the camera, equal shooting and lighting, equal scanning technique and equal treatment in the image editor. If all of those things were equal the contrast would be equal and the whites (or the light magentas in his poor examples) would be just as white and the blacks just as black in all shots Ė especially the last two. If there were a difference it would show in resolution but not contrast. In short, they are faked to make a point I think the author believes but wasnít working out to his satisfaction. Either that or there was a lot of incompetence in the process to get such contrast difference.

What printer company recommends 403 PPI for their inkjet? And what competent person when dealing with inkjet prints refers to PPI as DPI? Sometimes PPI and DPI can be used interchangeably, but since printer DPI differs significantly from pixels Iíve never seen anyone competent allow confusion between DPI and PPI when discussing inkjets.

The input for the 3Mp image was over 190 PPI. Even under magnification it is hard to see any difference from my 4 picolitre photo printer over about 180 PPI. And those results are sufficiently absurd that there is obvious alteration somewhere in the process. You would have to blow the images up to the point of at least seeing aliasing to even start seeing resolution differences above 190 PPI input.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2004, 6:11 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 162
Default

Chill.....
huckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2004, 7:29 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
CastleDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huckle
Chill.....
Why should he.. slipe is right. People are really screwing up the whole resolution game. Some simple rules of thumb (based upon real world knowlege) for resolution:

300ppi Die Sub printer resolution about the best a normal photographer can expect. 6MP=8x10

240ppi Inkjet printer best a normal consumer can expect. 4.6 MP = 8x10. Paper/ink variations can make this up to 260ppi.

180ppi About the bottom before when you look at the picture and go "I need more resolution". 8x10= 2.5 MP

Pictures vary so if you are trying to read a street sign at a distance or show a field of grass you will notice resolution drop outs a lot more than the pictures where you are looking at a street or sidewalk. A low MP camera may even give you a better picture by getting rid of some facial blemishes on a person. I have gotten acceptable 8x10s (at an average viewing distance) with a 1.2MP camera in the past. I get a lot more acceptable 8x10s with my 4 and 5 MP cameras.

-----------------------
Back to the original question can you get a good picture with 3MP? IMHO yes not really a problem the issues will come in (as others have stated) when you want to crop or because the focal planes are usually not quite the 2/3 ratio.

So a 3MP camera (IMHO) would be classified as a sometimes 8x10 worthy but mostly 5x7 or less camera.

4MP is probably equally a 8x10 worthy and 5x7 camera.

A 5/6 MP camera would be classified as a sometimes 12x14 but mostly 8x10 camera.
CastleDude 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 8:54 AM.