Find me a nice picture to print an 8x10 with

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Anubis

so to print a photo qiality 20x30 i need a 50mp camera?

i think not

If you want it printed at 20x30 with no pixelation, blurriness, and sharp as it would be with film, then yeah. there IS a noticable difference between 150 dpi and 300 dpi.

Well, you're not going to get a super sharp 20x30 from a 35mm camera - and probably not from a professional medium format camera (60mm) either. You'd really need to use a land camera with 4x5" or even 10x8" film. Why do you think that pro photographers doing massive group photos (like university graduation photos) use such massive 'old-fashioned' cameras? Nothing can beat the resolution of a massive piece of film.

Modern 35mm digital sensors (like in Canon's 16.7 MP digicam) approach, or even exceed the quality of conventional medium format film cameras.

If you want higher still then you could buy a digital attachment ('back') for your medium format camera - these are available up to 22 MP. The major selling point of these sensors is that 16 MP is the 'magic' number needed for print publishing - at 16 MP you can print a double page spread at ''photographic' quality; for a fashion or fine art publication, any visible pixelation is unacceptable.

However, for massive enlargements this isn't really enough, so these professional sensors have a clever trick - they include micromotors which can move then sensor precisely 1/2 a pixel so that 2 exposures can be combined for double resolution.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: Mark R

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Anubis

so to print a photo qiality 20x30 i need a 50mp camera?

i think not

If you want it printed at 20x30 with no pixelation, blurriness, and sharp as it would be with film, then yeah. there IS a noticable difference between 150 dpi and 300 dpi.

Well, you're not going to get a super sharp 20x30 from a 35mm camera - and probably not from a professional medium format camera (60mm) either. You'd really need to use a land camera with 4x5" or even 10x8" film. Why do you think that pro photographers doing massive group photos (like university graduation photos) use such massive 'old-fashioned' cameras? Nothing can beat the resolution of a massive piece of film.

Modern 35mm digital sensors (like in Canon's 16.7 MP digicam) approach, or even exceed the quality of conventional medium format film cameras.

If you want higher still then you could buy a digital attachment ('back') for your medium format camera - these are available up to 22 MP. The major selling point of these sensors is that 16 MP is the 'magic' number needed for print publishing - at 16 MP you can print a double page spread at ''photographic' quality; for a fashion or fine art publication, any visible pixelation is unacceptable.

However, for massive enlargements this isn't really enough, so these professional sensors have a clever trick - they include micromotors which can move then sensor precisely 1/2 a pixel so that 2 exposures can be combined for double resolution.

16.7 mp :Q

 

[Sketcher]

Oooof.

Lots of misinformation pointing at extremes to support an idea. Just stick to the basics. Here's a good starting point which addresses the 8x10 inquiry. ACD Systems Digital Print Rez Note that the article was written in '02 and it references "Pro Quality" 8x10 (optically resolved not interpolated) from a 4MP camera. In two years, a 4MP camera today is capable of producing a better quality image than a two year old 4MP (in most cases) due to improved optics, advances in sensor design and an improvement in rendering dynamic range.

There's always an exception to a rule, but to consistently and effectively paint an out_of_camera 8x10 digitally and compare it to film you're looking for 4MP or better (quality glass a given). There are many MANY examples of lower MP digicam and DSLR images producing impressive 8x10 results (especially once entering the realm of post-processing); but if a "Rule" were to be thrown around for when anyone asks for what Megapixel is needed for film quality 8x10 prints I would say the rule is near 4MP. And of course, once the rules of photography are established -> the challenge is to break them..

The "Digital vs Film" argument is different in a consumer forum than it is in an enthusiast/Pro forum. Why is that you ask!? I say that because in a Pro Forum the film discussions are in regards to Pro Film and they take into account the additional knowledge and expense in processing. In a consumer forum the argument is in regards to what's available from Kodak, Fuji etc. at your local Mart. So to answer a consumer question of digital vs film and use Pro film as the heavyweight answer is not relevant because not only are you NOT using specialty film but you are also not likely using the type of gear that would use that film effectively.

Bottom Line: If the Pro crowd regards 4MP from good optics to be reputable for non-interpolated 8x10 prints then the consumer crowd can let out a big sigh of relief and impress the hell out of family and friends with an affordable digicam.

That's my .02 pixels anyway.

Happy shooting

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Well, for a decent 8x10 when viewed from a distance, you would need about 150 dpi, or a photo from a 1.5 MP camera.

For an 8x10 that resembles a mid-grade film print, you would need about 300 dpi, or 7 MP.

so to print a photo qiality 20x30 i need a 50mp camera?

i think not

If you want it printed at 20x30 with no pixelation, blurriness, and sharp as it would be with film, then yeah. there IS a noticable difference between 150 dpi and 300 dpi.

i know that difference between 150 and 300 DPI

what Im argueing is that a 6mp will make a 20x30 @ 300 DPI Just fine with NO pixelation or Blurriness AND be tack sharp

if you dont beleive me send me 20$ and ill send you an example

it annoys teh crap outta me when i see things printed that say the biggest print you can make from a 6mp DSLR is like 8x12, because thats pure crap, the default pic size is 6x10 out of the camera, going to 16x20 is nothing, you dont even have to do any work to it, getting to 20x30 takes a simple resize in PS and some USM not exactly hard

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Well, for a decent 8x10 when viewed from a distance, you would need about 150 dpi, or a photo from a 1.5 MP camera.

For an 8x10 that resembles a mid-grade film print, you would need about 300 dpi, or 7 MP.

so to print a photo qiality 20x30 i need a 50mp camera?

i think not

If you want it printed at 20x30 with no pixelation, blurriness, and sharp as it would be with film, then yeah. there IS a noticable difference between 150 dpi and 300 dpi.

i know that difference between 150 and 300 DPI

what Im argueing is that a 6mp will make a 20x30 @ 300 DPI Just fine with NO pixelation or Blurriness AND be tack sharp

if you dont beleive me send me 20$ and ill send you an example

it annoys teh crap outta me when i see things printed that say the biggest print you can make from a 6mp DSLR is like 8x12, because thats pure crap, the default pic size is 6x10 out of the camera, going to 16x20 is nothing, you dont even have to do any work to it, getting to 20x30 takes a simple resize in PS and some USM not exactly hard

Calm down. Of course you can make prints larger than 8x10 with a 6MP camera. However, if you keep the DPI constant, then the printer (or computer) is just interpolating the pixels. Interpolation ALWAYS leads to a softer picture. Fortunately, most people will not notice this, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Mday]

go download some high res porn