Resolution required for good a3 output?

[andrew76]

I currently have a 350d and have been looking at buying an a3 printer - model not decided yet.

Until now I had assumed as it was an 8 megapixel body it would be more than capable of a3 prints.
Howvever, having read this:
http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

It seems this is not the case. Now I know the article is showing optimum output but just how good an a3 print would I get?

If I used the table then virtually no one could print much bigger than a3 anyway! How many 40 megapixel cameras are there?!

It would be helpful to get some real world feedback on a3 outputs as I am also considering a new body. Initially looked at the 40d but if resolution is going to be all important then need to save for the 50d I guess!

Andrew

 

[Doug R]

My original D300 made fantastic A3+ prints no problem at all. I now make 16x24 prints that are amazing with my 8meg 1DII. You have more than enough res to print A3.
--
Doug

 

[jpegman]

You have got to take some of these "requirements" for "true photographic quality" with a grain of salt (maybe a half grain!)

The reality of images is that as the print gets larger, one MUST stand further away to see the entire image, so that saying the same resolution is required for ALL PRINT SIZES for TRUE PHOTOGRAPHIC QUALITY IS A bunch of egomaniac crxp.

One would have to look at a 18 x 27 print at about 10 inches away to say that a 44 Megapixel camera so that a 300dpi resolution is met as D215 (whoever that is) states.

I know people who had 2 Mp (Two) Olympus cameras years ago (when that was high res) that made photographic quality 11 x 14's with no problem - and people would ask what film he used when they saw it!

 

[MrScary]

--Your DSLR will print A3 prints at 300ppi down to 199ppi. Stop Worrying.
MrScary (DennisR)
Swansea, Wales. UK

http://copernob.jalbum.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scarecrowdr
http://community.webshots.com/user/mrscarecrow
http://www.russ4to.KMD5DImages.photoshare.co.nz

 

[Jonas Palm]

While I agree that you should stop worrying, and just buy a printer that produces output in the size you want, I would also say that having a higher resolution original to feed the printer would produce readily higher resolution output.

A good image is a good image regardless of print size. I've seen great poster size prints made from pushed 35mm Tri-X film. Grain the size of golf balls, but that mattered not at all.

If, however, you want the resolution limitations of the original image to be imperceptible, you have a very different task ahead of you. Resolution demands depend both on the subject matter and the viewer. Personally, I like photographic images that act like windows into another reality. There is detail that sucks me in closer, revealing more, leading the eye to discover new vistas, new focal points of interest, new avenues of association. If I can perceive the resolution limit, well, that's it - there is no more to be found, and the illusion is broken.

There is no hard and fast rule that is worth a damn. You have to look for yourself.

 

[andrew76]

Many thanks for all the replies and assurances

I realise the figures were best case and several of the replies to the article said as much.

However I didnt want to spend the money and then find the prints weren't very good, even if they are just for my own enjoyment!

Next thing is to decide which printer to get. Canon Pro 9000 is topping the list at present as the current version has a cashback offer and still gets good reports from what I have read.

Andrew

 

[Gekko4321]

I have a 40D and a Canon Pro 9500 and I make great 13 x 19 prints! I personally would not go much bigger in print size with the 10 MP 40D. You could, as others are right about viewing distance, but that is about the max I want. PPI gets down to 200 when using RAW and I find that about right. BTW-I have printed 3 MP shots off an old Fuji and can almost get away with 13 x 19! A few feet away and its fine. Up close and you can start to see the breakdown. Then you need a good resizing algorhythm but even that can be limiting. Enjoy, your gonna be fine!

 

[Brad Franklin]

Your current body or a 40D will be just fine for A3.

 

[gianfini]

Well, one variable is missing from the equation of the site you mention: view distance !

What this site says is that if you want to print bigger than the indicated sizes you must up-size the image. This requires very good upsampling algorithm (e.g. Qimage has good ones) and will anyway deteriorate somehow the image.

But you are not supposed to view A3 pictures from same distance of A4 or 4x6 images! Thus from 3-5 feet the image will look same accuracy than your 4x6 prints from closer scrutiny

g

 

[David Griffin]

I printed a raw image from my Nikon D70 at A3+ and it look sperfect to me.
I printed it on an Epson 3800 using Qimage.

 

[Gekko4321]

I find that for A3 size, using the upsize algorhythm in the Elements 6 is just as good as Qimage (unless you use a magnifying glass). Use bicubic smoother and upsize to 300 or 600 PPI, whichever breakpoint is higher.

 

[Brad Franklin]

I just took the time to actually read that web page you posted - it's total and complete ignorance. There are so many factors involved in making a good print, and there is no such thing as 'true photo quality' or whatever they call it. It depends on proper capture technique, subject, lens, camera sensor, post processing, printing technique, viewing distance, etc etc. That article is a massive oversimplification and is quite misleading. 300 dpi is a rough rule of thumb number for the max the eye can resolve when looking at a photo maybe 6 inches away. At normal viewing distance for an A3 print, you can print at a much lower dpi and not see any difference.

In general, your camera will be fine at A3, worry about the following first:

1) Proper photography technique
2) Proper post processing/sharpening technique
3) Proper printing technique