Recommended Megapixel vs. Printed Size Chart

[AshokaMazda]

I'm pretty new to digital photography and was having quite a hard time finding information on MegaPixels vs. printed image size. I spent a couple hours digging up info and here it is in case it is useful to someone else.
---------------------------------------------
Here some recommended maximum pictures sizes for the different common
resolutions with photolab quality-200ppi and (proof quality-150ppi):

.3MP - 640 x 480 - Computer Viewing (3x4)
.7MP - 1024 x 768 - 3x5 (5x7)
1MP - 1280 x 960 - 4x6 (6x8)
1.3MP - 1280 x 1024 - 4x6 (6x8)
2MP - 1600 x 1200 - 4x6 (8x10)
2MP - 1632 x 1224 - 4x6 (8x10)
3MP - 2048 x 1536 - 5x7 (10x12)
4MP - 2272 x 1704 - 8x10 (11x14)
4MP - 2400 x 1800 - 8x10 (11x14)
5MP - 2560 x 1920 - 8x12 (12x18)
5MP - 2592 x 1944 - 8x12 (12x18)
6MP - 3072 x 2048 - 11x14 (14x20)
7MP - 3264 x 2176 - 11x17 (14x21)
8MP - 3264 x 2448 - 11x17 (16x21)
11MP - 4064 x 2704 - 13x20 (18x27)
22MP - 5356 x 4056 - 20x26 (27x35)

I found this to be common information through many different sites and printing companies and compiled it. Let me know if you believe something is far off being correct.
--
AshokaMazda - Beginner

 

[Ron AKA]

I think on a simplistic basis this is correct. It is just a correlation of total MP to ppi. However, it overlooks two factors:

1. The larger the print, the further you stand away from it for viewing. The further you stand away the lower the ppi that is required for it to look good.

2. If you use print software which has advanced interpolation methods (Qimage or Genuine Fractals for example), you can increase the resolution with minimal loss in quality.

On a practical basis I use a Fuji camera with a real resolution of 3.2 MP but the camera brings this up to 6 or so by interpolation. I find this image makes an excellent print using Qimage on 11X17 paper even with significant cropping, and expect similar on 13X19. Using an outside lab inkjet I have a print at 18X24 which is quite acceptable, unless viewed from 4" away.

Ron

I'm pretty new to digital photography and was having quite a hard
time finding information on MegaPixels vs. printed image size. I
spent a couple hours digging up info and here it is in case it is
useful to someone else.
---------------------------------------------
Here some recommended maximum pictures sizes for the different common
resolutions with photolab quality-200ppi and (proof quality-150ppi):

.3MP - 640 x 480 - Computer Viewing (3x4)
.7MP - 1024 x 768 - 3x5 (5x7)
1MP - 1280 x 960 - 4x6 (6x8)
1.3MP - 1280 x 1024 - 4x6 (6x8)
2MP - 1600 x 1200 - 4x6 (8x10)
2MP - 1632 x 1224 - 4x6 (8x10)
3MP - 2048 x 1536 - 5x7 (10x12)
4MP - 2272 x 1704 - 8x10 (11x14)
4MP - 2400 x 1800 - 8x10 (11x14)
5MP - 2560 x 1920 - 8x12 (12x18)
5MP - 2592 x 1944 - 8x12 (12x18)
6MP - 3072 x 2048 - 11x14 (14x20)
7MP - 3264 x 2176 - 11x17 (14x21)
8MP - 3264 x 2448 - 11x17 (16x21)
11MP - 4064 x 2704 - 13x20 (18x27)
22MP - 5356 x 4056 - 20x26 (27x35)

I found this to be common information through many different sites
and printing companies and compiled it. Let me know if you believe
something is far off being correct.
--
AshokaMazda - Beginner

 

[MarkB56]

Ashok,

I'm quite sure that the stats you have are accurate. However...

If you crop a photo, you reduce the size, so it may not get as big as the chart says...

Sometimes, you can get an even bigger picture that is very pleasing than the stats suggest.

For example, this picture http://www.pbase.com/image/24966850 ; was printed at 20"X30" with very satisfactory results. At that size, there are some digital artifacts in the transition areas between low and high contrast, but then again, film would have grain.

So, ultimately, it's your eye that determines what is good and what is not.

Enjoy the experience.

Mark

 

[Jon O'Brien]

1. The larger the print, the further you stand away from it for
viewing. The further you stand away the lower the ppi that is
required for it to look good.

In my experience, the larger the print, the more likely someone is to move up close to see more detail.

--
Jon O'Brien.

 

[Michael Williams127282]

I'd agree. I've taken some shots from my old 1.3MP camera and managed to print some good looking 8x10s (and this was doing resizing manually..... I can't image how good the prints would have been printed from Qimage). I've also taken many of my 6MP images and printed them at 13x19 and they're simply gorgeous (and that's from viewing as close as the eye can focus).

It's fine to use such a chart as was posted for a quick guideline, but anymore, with the advanced interpolation and such, you can really stretch some high quality large prints out of what may seem like a picture with too low resolution.

Mike W.

I think on a simplistic basis this is correct. It is just a
correlation of total MP to ppi. However, it overlooks two factors:

1. The larger the print, the further you stand away from it for
viewing. The further you stand away the lower the ppi that is
required for it to look good.
2. If you use print software which has advanced interpolation
methods (Qimage or Genuine Fractals for example), you can increase
the resolution with minimal loss in quality.

On a practical basis I use a Fuji camera with a real resolution of
3.2 MP but the camera brings this up to 6 or so by interpolation. I
find this image makes an excellent print using Qimage on 11X17
paper even with significant cropping, and expect similar on 13X19.
Using an outside lab inkjet I have a print at 18X24 which is quite
acceptable, unless viewed from 4" away.

Ron

 

[SteveB]

These are probably the max sizes acceptable to most people, but on the other hand I can tell the difference (finer textures) on an 8x6" print between a 3MP and a 4MP image every time and I like the 4MP better, but I admit the difference is small.

I'm pretty new to digital photography and was having quite a hard
time finding information on MegaPixels vs. printed image size. I
spent a couple hours digging up info and here it is in case it is
useful to someone else.
---------------------------------------------
Here some recommended maximum pictures sizes for the different common
resolutions with photolab quality-200ppi and (proof quality-150ppi):

.3MP - 640 x 480 - Computer Viewing (3x4)
.7MP - 1024 x 768 - 3x5 (5x7)
1MP - 1280 x 960 - 4x6 (6x8)
1.3MP - 1280 x 1024 - 4x6 (6x8)
2MP - 1600 x 1200 - 4x6 (8x10)
2MP - 1632 x 1224 - 4x6 (8x10)
3MP - 2048 x 1536 - 5x7 (10x12)
4MP - 2272 x 1704 - 8x10 (11x14)
4MP - 2400 x 1800 - 8x10 (11x14)
5MP - 2560 x 1920 - 8x12 (12x18)
5MP - 2592 x 1944 - 8x12 (12x18)
6MP - 3072 x 2048 - 11x14 (14x20)
7MP - 3264 x 2176 - 11x17 (14x21)
8MP - 3264 x 2448 - 11x17 (16x21)
11MP - 4064 x 2704 - 13x20 (18x27)
22MP - 5356 x 4056 - 20x26 (27x35)

I found this to be common information through many different sites
and printing companies and compiled it. Let me know if you believe
something is far off being correct.
--
AshokaMazda - Beginner

 

[NightShift©]

Ashok,

I'm quite sure that the stats you have are accurate. However...

If you crop a photo, you reduce the size, so it may not get as big
as the chart says...

Sometimes, you can get an even bigger picture that is very pleasing
than the stats suggest.

For example, this picture http://www.pbase.com/image/24966850 ; was
printed at 20"X30" with very satisfactory results. At that size,
there are some digital artifacts in the transition areas between
low and high contrast, but then again, film would have grain.

wait a minute, you printed that at 20x30? how big was your source file or are you implying THAT was your source file?

So, ultimately, it's your eye that determines what is good and what
is not.

Enjoy the experience.

Mark

 

[sthug]

I think on a simplistic basis this is correct. It is just a
correlation of total MP to ppi. However, it overlooks two factors:

1. The larger the print, the further you stand away from it for
viewing. The further you stand away the lower the ppi that is
required for it to look good.
2. If you use print software which has advanced interpolation
methods (Qimage or Genuine Fractals for example), you can increase
the resolution with minimal loss in quality.

On a practical basis I use a Fuji camera with a real resolution of
3.2 MP but the camera brings this up to 6 or so by interpolation. I
find this image makes an excellent print using Qimage on 11X17
paper even with significant cropping, and expect similar on 13X19.
Using an outside lab inkjet I have a print at 18X24 which is quite
acceptable, unless viewed from 4" away.

Not agree RON.

First I think the question is 'What level of detail you want in your print?' With a 300ppi file, I think you have the best balance between level of detail and file size.

After, 'What do you want to make with your picture?' If you intend to crop image and print at a bigger size then you must have an high resolution camera.

Today a 3 or 4MP camera is a good choice for basic user, but if you want manipulate picture and make lager print then look for higher resolution.

I known Qimage produce very good interpolate image but it can't create the detail lost by the camera.

 

[UZi_Lovin_Hawaiian]

I think it all depends but I can see Ron's point. I wouldn't print a 13x19 print and hand it around loosely for people to examine up close though perhaps some might want to do that. I liken it to a jumbotron screen at a stadium, where the image from across the stadium is sharp yet undoubtedly grainy as heck from a few feet away.

I love my 2.1MP camera but know full well that I need to make good use out of it's zoom lens in order to get a great 8x10. When working with low resolution cameras I think that this is the key, using the lens or framing the shot such that you minimize cropping, otherwise you'll lack the detail (though the image may look smooth and sharp after quality interpolation is done). It's too bad that there are so many cameras out there with 4x zooms and smaller. I really can't see life without my 10x lens, and I'd probably consider moving up to a digital rebel when this one dies.

I think on a simplistic basis this is correct. It is just a
correlation of total MP to ppi. However, it overlooks two factors:

1. The larger the print, the further you stand away from it for
viewing. The further you stand away the lower the ppi that is
required for it to look good.
2. If you use print software which has advanced interpolation
methods (Qimage or Genuine Fractals for example), you can increase
the resolution with minimal loss in quality.

On a practical basis I use a Fuji camera with a real resolution of
3.2 MP but the camera brings this up to 6 or so by interpolation. I
find this image makes an excellent print using Qimage on 11X17
paper even with significant cropping, and expect similar on 13X19.
Using an outside lab inkjet I have a print at 18X24 which is quite
acceptable, unless viewed from 4" away.

Not agree RON.

First I think the question is 'What level of detail you want in
your print?' With a 300ppi file, I think you have the best balance
between level of detail and file size.
After, 'What do you want to make with your picture?' If you intend
to crop image and print at a bigger size then you must have an high
resolution camera.

Today a 3 or 4MP camera is a good choice for basic user, but if you
want manipulate picture and make lager print then look for higher
resolution.

I known Qimage produce very good interpolate image but it can't
create the detail lost by the camera.

--
Gerald
aka. Uzi Lovin Hawaiian - Defender of Common Sense!
Honolulu, Hawaii

 

[Ron AKA]

Some comments:

Not agree RON.

First I think the question is 'What level of detail you want in
your print?' With a 300ppi file, I think you have the best balance
between level of detail and file size.

I think many would argue this is too much for the raw file size.

After, 'What do you want to make with your picture?' If you intend
to crop image and print at a bigger size then you must have an high
resolution camera.

Agree, and I was discussing what ppi do you need after cropping. However, that said, one should invest in a camera with a good optical zoom and crop with your camera, and only do minimal crop with the camera. That is unless you are interested in a very compact camera, with a minimal zoom, then I agree you need a higher MP pickup to allow digital zoom or post camera cropping.

Today a 3 or 4MP camera is a good choice for basic user, but if you
want manipulate picture and make lager print then look for higher
resolution.

Can't agree, when you take a good native image using the optical zoom, and then post process with some good interpolation software, you can go quite large. To some degree more and more MP's is just a marketing ploy to sell more expensive cameras. If I was to ask for something more from my camera it would be a true dedicated TTL metered flash, not more MP.

I known Qimage produce very good interpolate image but it can't
create the detail lost by the camera.

True theoretically it cannot create real data, but in the absense of real data it can do a pretty good job of minimizing the loss. It would be an interesting challenge to see if anyone could tell the difference between a 150 ppi image upsampled to 300 ppi compared to a 300 ppi native image. I'm talking printed ppi.

Ron

 

[wing88]

the table you have given is ok for aunties dog
in her backyard on 20x30 being viewed from 10 feet
... well you get the drift ...

200 ppi is too low for professional output on a press for example
200 ppi is less than 150 screenlines which is below my radar

you want 175 screenline prints or higher for good quality ...
in the US National Geographic is considered a good magazine ..
well it still uses a cheap print ... at least what I get to see from it ...
as do most US magazines ... biridal magazines etc etc (part of my
industry) .. reason: Larger distribution, bigger publications so you
gotta make it economical and/or people dont know better ...
in other markets (smaller countries) you usually find better print
quality ...

so 200-220 screen lines is good quality high gloss print which
means at least 365ppi ...

my S2 (which is better than the 14n in my tests) barely gives me enough
pixels especially when I have to crop ...

so my equation for pro work is different ..

Top quality A4 is about 20MP on a 35MM SLR or 16MP 4x5 (larger sensor)
none of the 35mm fullfill my criteria of top quality reproduction .. which
does not mean that I consider them bad or not useable .. just not top ..
thats all ...

for hobby shots and manageable datavolumes we need to compromise ..
then you table might just be adequate .. lets say for the P&S and low
end DSLRS

definatley not for the digital backs and the people working with it ..
I am looking to upgrade to a digital back because the 35mm are still
too far away of being superb .. ok for the money .. but not superb ...

just to put your post a bit in perspective ..

have fun
gmd

 

[Ron AKA]

Wing 88,

Your opinion make no technical sense to me. Could you justify your post on a technical basis?

Ron

 

[wing88]

if you dont know what screen lines are
and what I am talking about or with what resolution
do you go on CMYK press ??

have fun
gmd

 

[MarkB56]

wait a minute, you printed that at 20x30? how big was your source
file or are you implying THAT was your source file?

Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm looking for the size of the source file to confirm it exactly, but as I recall, it was no bigger than Fine on the 5700. (My filing system is less than perfect).

My personal observation is that, quite rightly, on line printers tend to understate what you you will get in terms of quality. Having worked in a camera store, I think this is quite sensible, given that "quality" is a very subjective definition. Digital photographers complain of high levels of noise at certain ISO levels, yet on a film based picture, the comporable grain is understood, ( or at least seems to be understood) as all part of the picture taking process.

Nikon, and a few other sites offer some examples of what a large picture blow up would look like, given certain megapixels. I would suggest that you take a representative sample of the type of picture you normally, or most frequently take, and send it to Ofoto, or someone like that, at a size that you might frequently purchase. It might come out lousy, then again, you might be surprised.

Photography does not assume that you will get perfect, professional results without investing something. I tried $50.00 US dollars and was pleasantly surprised. And if I had been disappointed, I probably saved that amount in avoiding future pictures.

Mark

 

[EarlRutherford]

Agreed. Most of our work is 175 or 200 line also, and the specs for inkjet prints is lower than what is needed for quality offset printing.

And 35mm film has always been borderline for offset printing, except for much less than full page size.

Earl

the table you have given is ok for aunties dog
in her backyard on 20x30 being viewed from 10 feet
... well you get the drift ...

200 ppi is too low for professional output on a press for example
200 ppi is less than 150 screenlines which is below my radar

you want 175 screenline prints or higher for good quality ...
in the US National Geographic is considered a good magazine ..
well it still uses a cheap print ... at least what I get to see
from it ...
as do most US magazines ... biridal magazines etc etc (part of my
industry) .. reason: Larger distribution, bigger publications so you
gotta make it economical and/or people dont know better ...
in other markets (smaller countries) you usually find better print
quality ...

so 200-220 screen lines is good quality high gloss print which
means at least 365ppi ...

my S2 (which is better than the 14n in my tests) barely gives me
enough
pixels especially when I have to crop ...

so my equation for pro work is different ..

Top quality A4 is about 20MP on a 35MM SLR or 16MP 4x5 (larger
sensor)
none of the 35mm fullfill my criteria of top quality reproduction
.. which
does not mean that I consider them bad or not useable .. just not
top ..
thats all ...

for hobby shots and manageable datavolumes we need to compromise ..
then you table might just be adequate .. lets say for the P&S and low
end DSLRS

definatley not for the digital backs and the people working with it ..
I am looking to upgrade to a digital back because the 35mm are still
too far away of being superb .. ok for the money .. but not superb ...

just to put your post a bit in perspective ..

have fun
gmd

 

[Eric_17]

I have trouble with those numbers.

Some things to think about:

Human eye maximum resolution:
1000dpi @ 10" viewing distance
500dpi @ 20"
200dpi @ 4'

2MP - 1632 x 1224 - 4x6 (8x10)

A 8" x 10" print at 1632px x 1224px (2MP) equates to 163dpi. At 20" viewing distance (a typical photo album viewing distance) this looks like total dung. 300dpi is a better choice for 20" viewing.

(Source: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html )

Another thing to think about:
Megapixel to pixel width formula:
w = (4/3 * A)^.5

where w is the pixel width and A is the number of pixels (A = 1,000,000 for 1MP).

I'd re-edit that table you posted with 300dpi numbers, using the formula above, maybe with 600dpi numbers, too. But in essense: just keep in mind the viewing distance you intend to show it at, the size of the print you intend to make, and dpi. Keep those three things in mind, and you'll do fine. No sense memorizing numbers.
--
Eric

 

[AshokaMazda]

Some things to think about:

Human eye maximum resolution:
1000dpi @ 10" viewing distance
500dpi @ 20"
200dpi @ 4'

2MP - 1632 x 1224 - 4x6 (8x10)

A 8" x 10" print at 1632px x 1224px (2MP) equates to 163dpi. At
20" viewing distance (a typical photo album viewing distance) this
looks like total dung. 300dpi is a better choice for 20" viewing.

(Source: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html )

Another thing to think about:
Megapixel to pixel width formula:
w = (4/3 * A)^.5
where w is the pixel width and A is the number of pixels (A =
1,000,000 for 1MP).

I'd re-edit that table you posted with 300dpi numbers, using the
formula above, maybe with 600dpi numbers, too. But in essense:
just keep in mind the viewing distance you intend to show it at,
the size of the print you intend to make, and dpi. Keep those
three things in mind, and you'll do fine. No sense memorizing
numbers.
--
Eric

Thanks for all your input on this ongoing dilemna.

Also, the sizes I'd found were for ppi not dpi.

I'm unsure about the direct transfer of dpi to ppi but I don't think they are exactly 1 to 1.

Most of this as I said were recommendations through printing companies, I wouldn't know better than they would.

I thought it was generally useful for someone to get a basic idea of what size MP camera they might want based on the printing size that is desired.

Anyone know of a more accurate chart listed on a site somewhere to go by?

--
AshokaMazda - Beginner

 

[Ron AKA]

My original post on this topic raised two issues, viewing distance and interpolation. While some would dissagree with the absolute numbers you quote, at least you show decreasing resolution with increased viewing distance.

However, I do not see anything concerning interpolation of data. The link you post seems mostly dedicated to comparing flim to digital. While this is interesting, it neglects the reality of modern digital interpolation of data. I got into photography over 40 years ago. It was easy to see grain in any 400 plus film when enlarged (or not) to any extent. However, with digital I have prints of 18X24 from my real 3.2 MP images that are much better than they theoretically should be. The reason is interpolation. We can't have this discussion without considering all the technology.

Ron

Some things to think about:

Human eye maximum resolution:
1000dpi @ 10" viewing distance
500dpi @ 20"
200dpi @ 4'

2MP - 1632 x 1224 - 4x6 (8x10)

A 8" x 10" print at 1632px x 1224px (2MP) equates to 163dpi. At
20" viewing distance (a typical photo album viewing distance) this
looks like total dung. 300dpi is a better choice for 20" viewing.

(Source: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html )

Another thing to think about:
Megapixel to pixel width formula:
w = (4/3 * A)^.5
where w is the pixel width and A is the number of pixels (A =
1,000,000 for 1MP).

I'd re-edit that table you posted with 300dpi numbers, using the
formula above, maybe with 600dpi numbers, too. But in essense:
just keep in mind the viewing distance you intend to show it at,
the size of the print you intend to make, and dpi. Keep those
three things in mind, and you'll do fine. No sense memorizing
numbers.
--
Eric

 

[David Hughes124436]

My original post on this topic raised two issues, viewing distance
and interpolation. While some would dissagree with the absolute
numbers you quote, at least you show decreasing resolution with
increased viewing distance.

However, I do not see anything concerning interpolation of data.
The link you post seems mostly dedicated to comparing flim to
digital. While this is interesting, it neglects the reality of
modern digital interpolation of data. I got into photography over
40 years ago. It was easy to see grain in any 400 plus film when
enlarged (or not) to any extent. However, with digital I have
prints of 18X24 from my real 3.2 MP images that are much better
than they theoretically should be. The reason is interpolation. We
can't have this discussion without considering all the technology.

Ron

And, of course, the subject matter is also important. The real answer is "it all depends". Especially when some say 300 dpi is the maximum you can see and others see it as a compromise.

Regards, David

 

[Eric_17]

Well, interpolation allows you to increase the DPI without adding detail. Rather, you just scale the detail without adding more detail between or in the original detail. Effectively, all interpolation does is eliminate square pixels when making enlargements. I was talking about image detail, so interpolation really doesn't make a difference. You could take a 640x480 image, resize it to 4x3 feet (creating 13 dpi) using nearest neighbor and also using Qimage's interpolation (or heck, even Genuine Fractals). Viewed at four feet away, both nearest neighbor and the interpolated image would look like dung, although the interpolated image wouldn't have the added artifacts of artificial square edges in the image.

AshokaMazda, DPI = PPI. They're synonymous. Technically, the only difference is their context.
--
Eric