-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How many pixels?
- Thread starter Cat110170
- Start date
I printed an 8x10 using 3p Fuji today. Turned out very well.
So the 16X20 using a 6p would be good I think ... and you are right on looking at D100.
So the 16X20 using a 6p would be good I think ... and you are right on looking at D100.
Andrew Harvey
Forum Enthusiast
There is no definitive answer to this one but check out this web page, it is one of the best theories I have seen on the subject.
About 16mp should do it...
Andy.
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
About 16mp should do it...
Andy.
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
Robert DeSonia
Forum Enthusiast
There is no definitive answer to that. Especially if you ask questions like, which kind of film - Kodachrome 25 slides or 100 ISO negative film? Also, since the noise characteristics of a digital camera is lower than a scanned film photo, is the perceived quality solely resolution-based?
I have many 16x20 prints from film. 35mm consumer-grade 100 ISO negative film at that size is decent, but the grain is starting to really show. As a guess, consider a minimum of 150dpi output for an equivalant quality print. At 16x20, that is a mere 7.2MPs; the current 6MPs are really close to this level. Use the more widely accepted 225dpi standard output and you need 16MPs of imagery, but my guess is that output would actually rival the best of the 35mm films out there.
Of course, If I was seriously aiming at big prints, I'd dust off my Mayima medium-format camera. Digital has a LONG ways before that level of performance is matched. Of course, the reason that that camera just collects dust is that it is a pain to use. Ease of use can be a powerful (de)motivator, I guess. Maybe I love digital so much, personally, 'cause I am lazy? Haven't thought of it that way before; digital is just way more fun despite its short comings!
-rdd
I have many 16x20 prints from film. 35mm consumer-grade 100 ISO negative film at that size is decent, but the grain is starting to really show. As a guess, consider a minimum of 150dpi output for an equivalant quality print. At 16x20, that is a mere 7.2MPs; the current 6MPs are really close to this level. Use the more widely accepted 225dpi standard output and you need 16MPs of imagery, but my guess is that output would actually rival the best of the 35mm films out there.
Of course, If I was seriously aiming at big prints, I'd dust off my Mayima medium-format camera. Digital has a LONG ways before that level of performance is matched. Of course, the reason that that camera just collects dust is that it is a pain to use. Ease of use can be a powerful (de)motivator, I guess. Maybe I love digital so much, personally, 'cause I am lazy? Haven't thought of it that way before; digital is just way more fun despite its short comings!
-rdd
Seetheus,
your thinking is all wrong. You print an 8x10 from a 3MP file and are satisfied with the results. If you want to print the same quality at 16x20 you would need a 12MP file, not a 6MP. The size would double in two directions.
I hope you don't scale 3d objects up and down...the problem is even worse ;-)
cheers.
your thinking is all wrong. You print an 8x10 from a 3MP file and are satisfied with the results. If you want to print the same quality at 16x20 you would need a 12MP file, not a 6MP. The size would double in two directions.
I hope you don't scale 3d objects up and down...the problem is even worse ;-)
cheers.
SeanU
Senior Member
Sandy Harris
New member
Your math is wrong. If you double both
dimensions, going from 8 by 10 to 16
by 20, then you have four times the
surface and need four times as many
pixels to get the same quality.
My understanding is that the best
digital cameras currently available
(6 mega pixels or so) are getting
close to 35 mm quality, but aren't
there yet.
JoePhoto
Veteran Member
If you "double" (2X), the size of the image ... (ala 8x10 to 16x20) .... you must have 4X the pixel count for the SAME QUALITY.
If ... you triple, (3X), the size ... (ala 8x10 to 24x30) ... you must have 9X the pixels for the same quality.
Thus .. if you are "satisfied" with the 3mps quality ... and want the exact same quality ... you would need 12mps for the EXACT same quality ... (and 27mps for the 24x30).
However ... keeping in mind that the larger the poster is .... the further away you normally view it ... so often we don't need the "exact" same quality.
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum