What resolution do pictures need to be at to look as good as 35mm camera?

[Torghn]

I need to take some pcitres that will be prited at 5x7 and was wondering if my 2 Mega pixle Cannon powershot s330 would be good enough or if I need to borrow a different camera. I would like them to look at least as good as a standard 35mm camera.

 

[DurocShark]

Printed at 5x7? Your 2 megapixel camera will be fine.

I print 8x10's that look ok with my 2mp Kodak.

 

[TMPadmin]

I think I remember hearing somewhere that a 35mm photo is at 22 Mega Pixle. And HDTV is 3,000,000 Mega Pixle, and DVD is 1-2 Million (not positive).

I think I was wrong about the 22mp..

How do you figure out 3000x2000 into mp?

 

[Torghn]

Originally posted by: TMPadmin
I think I remember hearing somewhere that a 35mm photo is at 22 Mega Pixle. And HDTV is 3,000,000 Mega Pixle, and DVD is 1-2 Million (not positive).

Wow, that's really high. What resolution do they print out at?

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: TMPadmin
I think I remember hearing somewhere that a 35mm photo is at 22 Mega Pixle. And HDTV is 3,000,000 Mega Pixle, and DVD is 1-2 Million (not positive).

LoL... You mean "3,000,000" pixels, right?

Moving pictures can have lower resolutions and still look sharp.

A 35mm slide is at approx 22mp. I can resolve the film grain at about that size. However, for acceptable prints, digital actually scales up cleaner and nicer than film. So you can get away with lower resolution and still have a good looking print.

 

[0roo0roo]

I think I remember hearing somewhere that a 35mm photo is at 22 Mega Pixle. And HDTV is 3,000,000 Mega Pixle, and DVD is 1-2 Million (not positive).

wrong.

well mostly wrong. really good film has insane resolution, i've seen very high mega pix ratings for film too. hdtv is probably around 1megapixel at the most. dvd is rather pathetic at about a third of a megapixel.

you can get away with 2megapixels at 5x7, but its barely enough. its um.. barely acceptable in otherwords. pixel density is not enough. if you crop at all, you lose even more prescious pixels.

i'd say 3mpix is min for truely nice 5x7, course it depends on camera quality too, and printer quality.

digital slr cameras with 5+ mega pixels and their nicer large high quality lenses wipe the floor with the cheesy consumer cams. but the cost is very high.

if your really going for quality and can't afford digital slr, get a film camera for shots that matter.

 

[Torghn]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

I think I remember hearing somewhere that a 35mm photo is at 22 Mega Pixle. And HDTV is 3,000,000 Mega Pixle, and DVD is 1-2 Million (not positive).

wrong. well mostly wrong. really good film has insane resolution, i've seen very high mega pix ratings for film too. hdtv is probably around 1megapixel at the most. dvd is rather pathetic at about a third of a megapixel. you can get away with 2megapixels at 5x7, but its barely enough. its um.. barely acceptable in otherwords. pixel density is not enough. if you crop at all, you lose even more prescious pixels. i'd say 3mpix is min for truely nice 5x7, course it depends on camera quality too, and printer quality. digital slr cameras with 5+ mega pixels and their nicer large high quality lenses wipe the floor with the cheesy consumer cams. but the cost is very high. if your really going for quality and can't afford digital slr, get a film camera for shots that matter.

I think I may have to borrow another camera as I'd like these to look really nice.

So what resolution or DPI do they print normal pictures out at (say at some place like Sam's Club). They said the use the same printer for both digital and normal film.

 

[XZeroII]

I have a 3mp camera and the quality is far better than any film camera I've ever seen. Maybe I just have a good 3mp camera (Olympus)

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: Torghn
I need to take some pcitres that will be prited at 5x7 and was wondering if my 2 Mega pixle Cannon powershot s330 would be good enough or if I need to borrow a different camera. I would like them to look at least as good as a standard 35mm camera.

2mp = 1600 x 1200 / 180dpi = 8.8inch x 6.6inch... in short, you will be able to make decent 5x7s (or 7x5, if you will).

however, theres alot more factor that goes into it than just dots per inch... are we talking 35mm slide film or standard? what iso? different digital cameras have lenses and processors of varying quality as well... anyways, i had a s330, and it did 5x7 fine

 

[TMPadmin]

Just get yourself one of these.

 

[aircooled]

Film doesn't have pixels.

 

[Mr N8]

Text

I took these with a Canon S110 (2.1mp)

I had the black and white and the first color one printed out 8x10, and they look to be just as good as my 35mm would ever print.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

assuming you mean color negative, it's a tough comparison because both mediums degrade differently. 35mm color neg can be used to produce relatively sharp 40mb scans, *but* there's going to be a huge amount of grain. In contrast, Digital cameras (or digitally created pictures) natively output much smaller files (high end will get you 17mb files) but produce exponentially less grain. For small projects (up to 8x10) ~10mb files are sufficient.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
assuming you mean color negative, it's a tough comparison because both mediums degrade differently. 35mm color neg can be used to produce relatively sharp 40mb scans, *but* there's going to be a huge amount of grain. In contrast, Digital cameras (or digitally created pictures) natively output much smaller files (high end will get you 17mb files) but produce exponentially less grain. For small projects (up to 8x10) ~10mb files are sufficient.

Also, film is never truly "sharp" due to the nature of a chemical emulsion. The salts (grain) are not aligned in any meaningful way. They're distributed randomly over the plastic film. This means that it's only possible to get "apparent" sharpness.

Digital, on the other hand, has pixels that are aligned (normally x/y, but some hex patterns are out there) and each pixel is only one color. So the edge of something is truly the edge. This is why they enlarge better than film for a given resolution.

I use film for serious work. The best digital cannot compare to a high quality film image to a professional's eye. I shoot 35mm Velvia and Provia for slide work, Superia 100 for negatives, and Velvia and Provia 120 in my medium format scenic work. But for snapshots, and "emergency" shots? Digital. I'm currently using a 2mp Kodak camera that I just picked up on the FS/FT boards that is actually pretty impressive. The lens is great, and the color accuracy is surprisingly good.

 

[phantom309]

I've used the s330 and 5 x 7 prints will look great - better than most 35mm P&S cameras. Your camera has an excellent lens as digicams go and 5 x 7 is small enough for resolution not to be an issue. Like some others here, when I want absolute quality I shoot 35mm slide film and scan it at 4000dpi. But for what I think you want your digicam is fine.

 

[Papagayo]

I used Nikon 5700 and printed 8x10.. it's same as regular camera...

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: MogulMonster
Text

I took these with a Canon S110 (2.1mp)

I had the black and white and the first color one printed out 8x10, and they look to be just as good as my 35mm would ever print.

Sweet, I live in Waukesha. I go to Racine every now and then to visit some friends.

 

[Mr N8]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: MogulMonster
Text

I took these with a Canon S110 (2.1mp)

I had the black and white and the first color one printed out 8x10, and they look to be just as good as my 35mm would ever print.

Sweet, I live in Waukesha. I go to Racine every now and then to visit some friends.

When we move in Nov, that will almost be in our back yard.

 

[Torghn]

So, does any one know what resolution or DPI pictures are usualy printed at?

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Torghn
So, does any one know what resolution or DPI pictures are usualy printed at?

yes. standard practice is 300dpi (that's the file). in fact, even modern chemical-process photo labs print primarilly from machine scans of negs (rather than old school method of physically using the neg). Pragmatically, it's very difficult to tell the difference between 300 and 200 dpi. When you dip below 170, you can see a difference.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Torghn
So, does any one know what resolution or DPI pictures are usualy printed at?

Depends entirely upon the speed of the film. ASA 25 will have a LOT more grains than ASA 3200.

ZV

 

[420phisher]

2 mp to 8x10 printing

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: Torghn
So, does any one know what resolution or DPI pictures are usualy printed at?

high quality = 300
rougher prints = 180

or something

 

[Mickey21]

Just to add some information:

35mm photos rely on lots of factors, mainly :
the camera shooting the image
the conditions of the shot
the paper printed on
the machine or person processing the picture
the color correction process used in printing
the chemicals used in processing

But to give an average widely accepted would be an equivalent to about 11 Megapixels

Digital cameras also rely on a lot of factors, mainly:
the camera shooting the image
the conditions of the shot
the paper printed on
the machine AND person processing the picture
the color correction process used in the printing
the color correction process used in the camera taking the shots
the color correction process used in the photo capture/editor
the compression algorithms used in the camera
the compression algorithms used in the photo capture/editor

Just to name a few. As you can tell, there are lots of factors involved in good pictures as well as many others. As an avid user of both means, your images are only as good as your media of presentation. In other words, if you take a 6000X4000 pixel image, it wont matter much if you compress the image to the point that grain is completely evident as well as compression jaggies, and then print it out on a 6 year old hp color printer.

All things being semi equal, a 2-3MP camera printing 5X7 shots as mentioned above will produce satisfactory prints from a fairly modern color printer on very good photo printing paper. Paper makes a huge difference.
The type of printer also matters. Inkjet printers can only reach a certain amount of dots per inch but that is only half the story. If the paper you print to has minute pits and valleys in the paper that let these dots seep through, or sink well below the surface, that color and detail is lost. Also, untrue white background make the image look faded and worn out. Vibrance in color comes from truely bright white surfaces for greater contrast. Dont forget very good black inks help to maintain that contrast.

Printers from stores like Sam's, Wal-Mart, and other grocery stores use printers of the dye-sublimation type. These printers are specifically designed to print images and normally use fairly high resolutions as compared to digital images captured by cameras. Is is not hard to see these kinds of printers able to print up to 300 dots per inch and more. But dots per inch is not a very accurate way to measure these printers. Here is an article from one of my favorite websites, How Stuff Works.com:

"Dye-sublimation printers allow you to print photo-lab-quality pictures at home. As the price of these printers go down, more and more digital-camera owners are choosing to take advantage of this technology. In dye-sublimation printing, colors are not laid down as individual dots, as is done in inkjet printers. Individual dots can be distinguished at a relatively close distance, making digital pictures look less realistic.

If you looked inside a dye-sublimation printer, you would see a long roll of transparent film that resembles sheets of red, blue, yellow, and gray colored cellophane stuck together end to end. Embedded in this film are solid dyes corresponding to the four basic colors used in printing: cyan, magenta, yellow and black. The print head heats up as it passes over the film, causing the dyes to vaporize and permeate the glossy surface of the paper before they return to solid form.

So the main difference between this and other types of printing has to do with heat. The vaporized colors permeate the surface of the paper, creating a gentle gradation at the edges of each pixel, instead of the conspicuous border between dye and paper produced by inkjets. And because the color infuses the paper, it is also less vulnerable to fading and distortion over time."

 

[Budmantom]

I have taken pics with my fuji 2800 (2.1mp 10x optical) and I have had them printed into 8x10's and they look great!

It has a lot to do with the camera, not just the mp rating. When I had an hp 2.1mp it didn't look that great.

I have my pics developed at walmart they are cheap and fast. I did use my epson 785epx and it did produce great pics but eventually some of them did fade, despite what is advertised by epson.