pixels and prints

I have been researching image sizes necessary to produce GOOD prints (I'm think photographic prints rather than inkjet prints). Does one require more megapixels than the other? I have read anywhere from 2+ and more will produce a good 8x10; how about larger? thanx

Dave Breen said:

I have been researching image sizes necessary to produce GOOD
prints (I'm think photographic prints rather than inkjet prints).
Does one require more megapixels than the other? I have read
anywhere from 2+ and more will produce a good 8x10; how about
larger? thanx

Click to expand...

Photo dye-sublimation printers typically have a resolution of around 300 pixels per inch. Each pixel is printed in cyan, yellow, and magenta. In theory, a camera needs 3 pixels for each printer pixel, since it records only red, green, or blue at each point. As a practical matter, however, an image with 300 independent RGB pixels per inch is about as good as you can get.

This means that a 2.7 Mpixel camera like the D1 or D1h will produce a 4x6 print of this quality. Again, as a practical matter, 150 pixels per inch is going to look as good as 300 if the image has been properly interpolated, smoothed and sharpened. This means a 2.7 Mpixel camera can support printing at 8x12 with essentially "perfect" visible resolution. Even going to 16x24 will still be quite acceptable (and comparable to most film) if done properly.

The problem is cropping. When you chop off part of the digital image, you naturally reduce the size to which it can be printed with acceptable quality. Then there is noise, which tends to become more apparent at large magnification and will be present in images recorded at higher ISO.

Good luck...Dan

Dave Breen said:

I have been researching image sizes necessary to produce GOOD
prints (I'm think photographic prints rather than inkjet prints).
Does one require more megapixels than the other? I have read
anywhere from 2+ and more will produce a good 8x10; how about
larger? thanx

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of good. Personally I see loss of some fine
detail when I make 8x10 prints from 4 megapixel camera (Canon G2).
I am comparing with prints made from scanned 35mm film. Otherwise
the print is ok.

Karri

Karri Hartonen said:

Depends on your definition of good. Personally I see loss of some fine
detail when I make 8x10 prints from 4 megapixel camera (Canon G2).
I am comparing with prints made from scanned 35mm film. Otherwise
the print is ok.

Karri

Click to expand...

We're approaching to kind of info I'm seeking. Scanning a 35mm neg at 2400 dpi yields 7+ mp (if my math is correct). How large a print will this do? To repeat, I'm talking about photographic prints, NOT inkjet -- does one medium require more/less mp than the other? thanx

Dave Breen said:

Karri Hartonen said:

Depends on your definition of good. Personally I see loss of some fine
detail when I make 8x10 prints from 4 megapixel camera (Canon G2).
I am comparing with prints made from scanned 35mm film. Otherwise
the print is ok.

Karri

Click to expand...

We're approaching to kind of info I'm seeking. Scanning a 35mm neg
at 2400 dpi yields 7+ mp (if my math is correct). How large a print
will this do? To repeat, I'm talking about photographic prints, NOT
inkjet -- does one medium require more/less mp than the other? thanx

Click to expand...

I guess the deciding factor is resolution of the photographic prints.
I am scanning using Nikon 4000ED and I'd say that I get about
3000x4500 useful pixels ~ 13mp from Provia100F film.

Now, my cost effective digilab reports that their laser equipment
is set to 254dpi, so maybe I can get upto 12x18 before every
pixel is used. Few people look at these sizes from so close distance
that they would notice, though...

By the way, in the 8x10 prints made from pictures below
http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/oma/khartone/tests.html#scan-reso
the fence present in scans is gone from G2 print.

Karri