Do you guys know of any D-Slrs that shoot in 300DPI? I know 10D is about 180 DPI, what about 1DSor 1D? TIA. S
--
***
My photography site: http://www.shahram.info
--
***
My photography site: http://www.shahram.info
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
300 DPI Digital-SLR?
- Thread starter Maverick_
- Start date
Ed Halley
Senior Member
(Same response I gave on the 10D forum.)
The DPI numbers in a digital image file are completely IRRELEVANT. There are only overall pixel dimensions: 3072x2048 = 6.1 MP. More pixels is more fine resolution.
DPI is a printing term only, and stands for Dots Per Inch. The "Inch" they're measuring is how much paper you want to cover with a certain image. 3072 pixels over a 10 inch area is 307.2 DPI. The exact same 3072 pixels over a 30 inch area is only 102.4 DPI.
Unfortunately, this is a VERY common misconception. Some submission editors still think that the DPI field recorded in the digital image file directly translates to the quality of that image. It doesn't. Completely separate.
--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ] http://www.halley.cc/pix/
lrgfmt
Leading Member
not sure what you're asking. the capture is measured in raw resolution (something by something pixels). scanners are typically measured in dpi capture, but not cameras.
jim
jim
The reason I ask is that, many of my images are blown up poster size, and frankly a 10D shot can't really handle it. Here's a scenario:
I did two posters at 47X68" for a college just recently. I shot on film of course (Canon EOS). Scanned the prints at 600DPI and saved my final file with a print output of 300DPI in EPS. The results were more than I could ever hope for. One poster has an image at a full 47X50" (the rest is text).
How could have I have possibly done this with Canon SLR? Is it even possible? Thanks, S
***
My photography site: http://www.shahram.info
I did two posters at 47X68" for a college just recently. I shot on film of course (Canon EOS). Scanned the prints at 600DPI and saved my final file with a print output of 300DPI in EPS. The results were more than I could ever hope for. One poster has an image at a full 47X50" (the rest is text).
How could have I have possibly done this with Canon SLR? Is it even possible? Thanks, S
--
***
My photography site: http://www.shahram.info
How big of a print, in inches, do you want? Multiply those numbers by 300. That is the resolution of camera you'll need.
I see your schwartz is as big as mine.
--
I see your schwartz is as big as mine.
James32515
Active member
If you were happy with a scan from a 35mm neg, you would most likely be happy with an image from just about any DSLR. A 10d, with a properly exposed and prepared file, would easily best that scan.
James
http://www.studiocoburg.com
James
--
http://www.studiocoburg.com
Paul42
Forum Enthusiast
A good DSLR beats scanned film for any large blow up.
It has been shown time after time after time. The grain is the limiting point on the quality of a film scan / print. Digital does not have that problem.
Asking for a 300dpi digital camera is like asking for one that gets 20mpg. The question makes just about as much sense.
Paul Stout
http://www.pbase.com/paul42/renaissance_fairs
over 404,000 hits!
It has been shown time after time after time. The grain is the limiting point on the quality of a film scan / print. Digital does not have that problem.
Asking for a 300dpi digital camera is like asking for one that gets 20mpg. The question makes just about as much sense.
--
Paul Stout
http://www.pbase.com/paul42/renaissance_fairs
over 404,000 hits!
You know, before I had these 2, 47X68" posters printed I did some reseach and basically no digital D-Slr camera except maybe the 1DS could handle a image that large. What if I wanna go larger?
***
My photography site: http://www.shahram.info
***
My photography site: http://www.shahram.info
Masterdeath
Senior Member
I print a magazine and have a lot of printing exp, I will give you some idea here.. Everyone who posted before are right, most camera files defaut when opened to 72DPI because that is the screen standard (sometimes 96dpi) But as you notice when it opens at than you get something like a 30"x40" file.. I have a little less faith in the 10D looking better then perfectly processed and scanned low ISO film, but its real close, but also no grain.. Something like a 1ds would be PERFECT.. You can get a cheap 1mp camera what will work at 300 DPI if you image only needs to be 3" wide... 300 DPI just referes to printing resolutions and if you need to print something bigger then 300dpi, 6mp digital cameras will not give you TRUE 300DPI.. You will have to upsize
Pekka Saarinen
Senior Member
You can get pixel count of that image (apart from seeing it is PS) by calculating film size in inches and multiplying it by 600.
This means: each square inch on paper has 300x300 pixel area of the image.
You'll need to find out how many pixels (X and Y) you will need to have in order to print at dpi and print size you need.
If you have paper which is 30x20 inches, you will need (30*300) wide and (20*300) high, i.e. 9000x6000 resolution image. This is 54000000 pixels in total which means 54 megapixels.
47X50" image is in 300 dpi 14100x15000 pixel image which means you should have had a 211.5mp camera for same output.
Most printers do interpolation really well (and are CMYK which means one RGB pixel can not in any case be represented by only one printer pixel), so in practice you would need MUCH less mp's for similar quality.
--
Pekka
http://photography-on-the.net
Paul42
Forum Enthusiast
Rent a 10d and see what kind of results you get. Until you try it for yourself you will not know if it meets your expectations or not.
Paul Stout
http://www.pbase.com/paul42/renaissance_fairs
over 408,000 hits!
--
Paul Stout
http://www.pbase.com/paul42/renaissance_fairs
over 408,000 hits!
Masterdeath
Senior Member
I agree with you if the poster is being viewed within 3 feet. If the poster is being viewed from 20 feet, all most any 6mp or high digital camera can pull it off..
You could allways wait for the 1ds Mark II..
What type of 35mm film did you use before?
You could allways wait for the 1ds Mark II..
What type of 35mm film did you use before?
Gerhard Pinehurst
Well-known member
I know you know this but it needs to be said over and over again. It's not solely about megapixels. The above said is true if your goal is to print the closest to THAT SPECIFIC CAMERA'S ability. Nothing more - nothing less.
--
Gerhard Pinehurst, Sweden
Jason Hutchinson
Forum Pro
Yuck, I've seen posters that large from 200 speed film and they looked pretty aweful to me. You'd be surprised how good a decent DSLR like even the 6MP class would look at this size. I've seen S2 shots this big from 2' that looked pretty stunning. You can try this at home with a consumer printer for about $2 by just cropping the appropriate size out of a larger image and printing it 8x10.I shot on film, 200 ASA...
Jason
Masterdeath
Senior Member
Thats the way I meant it...
Magazine are viewed within the 12" range, not like a bill board or sign from 10 feet away.. Upsizing on a magazine is strongly not recommended..
Its best to go for DPI true from camera.. Their are many reason why printing is much different then going to a film print.. 300 DPI is considered the minimum for close view printing. (I know this does not apply to the original poster) RIP machines that set the printing plate go from 2400 DPI all the way up to 4000 DPI. (these are dots NOT pixels) but even at 2400 DPI, the current printing methods can resolve way over 300 DPI. Most cases the limit is 350-700 depending on the screen.
I use a S2 now, and have dont a few large press prints. At 10 feet even 100 DPI true from camera look good. You can get away with 75DPI for most NORMAL people.
Either way, get a S2 or a canon mark II and that will kill your ISO 200 35mm...
Magazine are viewed within the 12" range, not like a bill board or sign from 10 feet away.. Upsizing on a magazine is strongly not recommended..
Its best to go for DPI true from camera.. Their are many reason why printing is much different then going to a film print.. 300 DPI is considered the minimum for close view printing. (I know this does not apply to the original poster) RIP machines that set the printing plate go from 2400 DPI all the way up to 4000 DPI. (these are dots NOT pixels) but even at 2400 DPI, the current printing methods can resolve way over 300 DPI. Most cases the limit is 350-700 depending on the screen.
I use a S2 now, and have dont a few large press prints. At 10 feet even 100 DPI true from camera look good. You can get away with 75DPI for most NORMAL people.
Either way, get a S2 or a canon mark II and that will kill your ISO 200 35mm...
Gerhard Pinehurst
Well-known member
And just to complicate things even more...
When printing there's also the the print screen resolution (raster) to consider. Magazines are typically printed at 133LPI, 150LPI or 175LPI (lines per inch). Mathematically you need an image (DPI) resolution with a resolution of sqrt(2) -
Optimum print size digital images
Print size(offset) Canon 1DmII without cropping and interpolation:
Print_screen Img_resolution w (mm) h (mm)
80 lpi 113 dpi 787 525
133 lpi 188 dpi 473 316
150 lpi 212 dpi 419 279
175 lpi 247 dpi 360 240
Print size (offset) Canon 1D10D/300D without cropping and interpolation:
80 lpi 113 dpi 690 460
133 lpi 188 dpi 415 277
150 lpi 212 dpi 368 245
175 lpi 247 dpi 316 210
That 300DPI recommendation is actually not true. It's a simplification from the prepress people to ensure they always get enough resolution. I'd recommend you multiply the LPI with 2 (as a simplification) to get the DPI resolution of digital images targeted for offset print. If you don't want to go through this explanation with every prepress operator just interpolate them all to 300DPI before delivery ;-).
And yes - B/W requries even less resolution. Use 1,5 as a multiplicator.
Gerhard (waiting to be flamed - massively)
--
Gerhard Pinehurst, Sweden
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum