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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 1, 2004, 1:07 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 46
Default

sorry for asking this but if i want 4x6 prints witout blowing up

am i worth puttin my $ in a 2 mill pix panasoinc fz1 or say somthing

like a canon 4 mill pix cam thank you i no the size diff but that donnt worry me
hotdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 1, 2004, 1:59 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14
Default

This PDF should be helpful in determining the megapixel rating that you'd need for various print sizes:

http://www.rec.udel.edu/Staff/dey/handout.pdf

Given that, just about any digital camera currently on the market should be able to give you a nice looking 4x6 print. It's all about personal preference at that size.
The_Spectre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 2:36 PM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

IMO, that handout is way off base. It even claims acceptable 4x6" prints from a 320x240 resolution camera. Yea, right. Absurd!

This only works out to around 53 pixels per inch after needing cropping for this print size (240 pixels/4 inches = 60 pixels per inch; 320 pixels/6 inches = 53.3 pixels per inch).

If you want them to resemble a good quality photo at closer viewing distances with most printers, I'd recommend sticking to 150 pixels per inch or more. With anything much under around 135 Pixels Per Inch, you'll start to see pixelation (square blocks, jaggies, etc.) on someprinters (because you'll start seeing the individual pixels).

Some printers do automatically interpolate the images for printing, but this only adds pixels (based on the values of adjacent pixels), and can't increase detail. 4x6" prints from a 320x240 resolution image are going to be awful.

I'd recommend a minimum resolution of 900 x 600 pixels for a 4x6" print (150 pixels per inch). However, you'll see a noticeable increase in quality going to 200 pixels per inch (1200 x 800 pixels resolution).

To answer your question,yes 2 Megapixels is plenty for a 4x6" print.I've even printedgood looking 8x10" prints from 2 Megapixel Camers (which works out to 150 Pixels Per Inch). Although, I can see a noticeable increase in qualitygoing to a 3Megapixel Image at 8x10" print size.

What you can run into is that a higher resolution (top of the line, newer model), may have more advanced metering, image processing, better optics, etc. So, it may (or may not) produce better images. However, you won't see any increased detail at a smaller print size due to a higher megapixel count once you get to a certain point.

So, when choosing a camera, even if you're only going to be printing at 4x6" size, make sure you look at all other aspects of image quality, too.

Also, keep in mind thathigher megapixels can come in handy if you want to crop. You can't really crop as much as you think. Because resolution is computed by multiplying width x height, if you crop a photo to make it look like you used twice as much optical zoom, you end up with an image with only 1/4 the original resolution.

Here is a handy chart. Personally, I don't think anybody can see any increase in quality above about 200 Pixels per Inch on most printers, at most viewing sizes. Although, I have seen arguments that an improvement going to 240 is visibleon some of the newer printers. Viewing distance and subject type come into play. If you are viewing a print from further away (as with larger prints), or if your subject does not contain a lot of detail, then this chart is not valid in my opinion.

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

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 2:54 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14
Default

Good points, on all counts.

I merely searched for one that gave a good Megapixel : Print Size overview. I hadn't even considered the effect of ppi.
The_Spectre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 3:19 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The_Spectre wrote:
Quote:
Good points, on all counts.

I merely searched for one that gave a good Megapixel : Print Size overview. I hadn't even considered the effect of ppi.
Perhaps the person that developed the chart needed new glasses (or they had a lot of low resolution cameras they were trying to get rid of at the time).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2004, 4:18 PM   #6
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

I just checked that site and saw nothing that you mention. The chart I saw is quite accurate. Where did you get the figure of 320 x 240? I really didn't see it.

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2004, 11:44 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

DBB wrote:
Quote:
I just checked that site and saw nothing that you mention. The chart I saw is quite accurate. Where did you get the figure of 320 x 240? I really didn't see it.
On page one of that document, under the words "Capture Resolution"...gives 4x5/4x6 as "acceptable".

As for being "Off Base" (further up the thread), it says "acceptable"...it doesn't say "excellent" or "photo quality".
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2004, 11:57 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
KCan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,625
Default

Theory aside, I used and still use my 2MP Coolpix 950, occasionally blow some good pics to 8x10 and I am very pleased with the result. Of course, the appreciation of a print out is always very subjective IMO.
IMHO, 2MP is plenty for 4x6.
KCan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2004, 10:33 AM   #9
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

STILL can't see it. I'm using Netscape, maybe it doesn't show up? I really can't see any such figures.

Ahh, facinating. You are referring to a PDF file, yet MY browser went to hear:

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


I wonder why?

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2004, 10:41 AM   #10
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

My mistake. I went to the site that was meant as a corrective.

However let me say something. My first camera was an Apple Quicktake 2.

Before I describe this machine - They just don't make em this good anymore!

At any rate, it took wonderful images. All 16 of the 640x480 or 32 of the 320x240.

All the images had this pastel/watercolor feel to them that was simply beautiful (maybe not a photograph for all you so PICKY posters - but beautiful). I'm sorry I gave it away!

However I printed em out as large as 8 x 10. They looked just fine after interpolating them up to about 50 Megs! Looked more or less the way they looked on screen - A gorgeous watercolor! :lol:

Sure you guys can whine about artifacts - But truth to be told, artifacts was the inherent design of this camera. Sign. I wish I still had it...



Dave
DBB 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 3:25 PM.