Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MP required for 60cm x 40cm photo?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 6:03:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I was looking here:

http://photos.wanadoo.co.uk/gifts.html#canvas

and these canvases look cool, but what sort of megapixel do you think
I'd require in order to get a good result from this, with no
artifacting or pixellating visible? It's a big picture!

It's apparently 23.4 x 15.6 inches.


Oh and if you know of anywhere that does it for a bit cheaper... I'd
like to know! Cheers!



andyt
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 6:03:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I was looking here:
>
> http://photos.wanadoo.co.uk/gifts.html#canvas
>
> and these canvases look cool, but what sort of megapixel do you think
> I'd require in order to get a good result from this, with no
> artifacting or pixellating visible? It's a big picture!
>
> It's apparently 23.4 x 15.6 inches.

I've seen 6 megapixel cameras make fine prints at that size, but of
course, there's a lot more to it than the resolution (*). However, if the
print will undergo close scrutiny, then more megapixels will provide more
detail in the image. (**)

Here's the kicker: If you tell people that it was printed from a digital
photo, they will *imediately* walk to within nose-length of the photo, look
for any microscopic flaw/artifact/pixellation they can find, then say "Oh...
yeah, you can tell." If you don't tell them, they'll just think it's a
great-looking print.

(*) One of my friends has a camera with substantially higher resolution
than my current model, but with about 3x the noise. I prefer the prints
from my camera, even though they don't have nearly as much detail when blown
up.

(**) If you're talking about quality cameras, then the 6 megapixel range
seems to give you the most bang for your buck, with good models like the D70
and 300D available for about $900 with a lens. To go up to an 8 megapixel
with comparable quality, the price nearly doubles for a 33% increase in
resolution, and prices start to skyrocket from there up.

steve
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 6:12:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You've got very good advice above. If it is just for, say,
portraiture, then 6-8 *good* megapixels will probably be easily
sufficient, and depending on the image, as few as 3-4 may suffice. I
routinely print portraits taken on 8Mp prosumers to 13"x19" prints, and
they look quite stunning. You have to bring them up quite close to see
any pixallation.

But if you are talking about a cityscape or landscape image with lots
of detail (that invites the viewer to get in close), then even 12
megapixels will struggle at that size.

It's all about how close your viewer is. Up close, you will be wanting
200 or more pixels per inch. That's about 14Mp for a print that size!
>From standing back, say 4-5 feet, which is where most viewers would
probably be, 100 or even 75 ppi may be sufficient. Especially if the
image does not contain very fine detail. At 75 dpi, that same print
size only requires 2 Mp!
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 7:16:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Andy Turner wrote:

> and these canvases look cool, but what sort of megapixel do you think
> I'd require in order to get a good result from this, with no
> artifacting or pixellating visible? It's a big picture!
>
> It's apparently 23.4 x 15.6 inches.

I think it depends on the picture itself.
To give you an idea, I ordered this picture:
http://www.darwinonline.org/displayimage.php?album=159&...

on a photo paper 60*40 cm (23.4 x 15.6 inches) printed by a pro
photographer. The pictures was taken with a D70, so 6Mp 3008*2000 and
the result is as it should be, no visible artifact. Of course if you
take a lens and look for them you may found them, but i have not tried
myself.

nicolas

--
my pictures:
http:\\dishio.darwinonline.org
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 6:28:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It also has to do with the expectations of the viewer. I still shoot a 4mp
Oly E-10 (a better than average 4mp) and print to 12x16 on the Epson 2200.
Everybody is happy....but if I look close I know the difference. Others
don't

<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1103065951.827109.106750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> You've got very good advice above. If it is just for, say,
> portraiture, then 6-8 *good* megapixels will probably be easily
> sufficient, and depending on the image, as few as 3-4 may suffice. I
> routinely print portraits taken on 8Mp prosumers to 13"x19" prints, and
> they look quite stunning. You have to bring them up quite close to see
> any pixallation.
>
> But if you are talking about a cityscape or landscape image with lots
> of detail (that invites the viewer to get in close), then even 12
> megapixels will struggle at that size.
>
> It's all about how close your viewer is. Up close, you will be wanting
> 200 or more pixels per inch. That's about 14Mp for a print that size!
> >From standing back, say 4-5 feet, which is where most viewers would
> probably be, 100 or even 75 ppi may be sufficient. Especially if the
> image does not contain very fine detail. At 75 dpi, that same print
> size only requires 2 Mp!
>
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:03:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

FWIW I have a 5Mp (from Canon S60) on my wall printed at 70x50 and it
looks great. Most people think I bought it as a poster


Andy Turner wrote:
> I was looking here:
>
> http://photos.wanadoo.co.uk/gifts.html#canvas
>
> and these canvases look cool, but what sort of megapixel do you think
> I'd require in order to get a good result from this, with no
> artifacting or pixellating visible? It's a big picture!
>
> It's apparently 23.4 x 15.6 inches.
>
>
> Oh and if you know of anywhere that does it for a bit cheaper... I'd
> like to know! Cheers!
>
>
>
> andyt
>
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:54:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 14 Dec 2004 15:12:31 -0800, chrlz@go.com wrote:

>You've got very good advice above. If it is just for, say,
>portraiture, then 6-8 *good* megapixels will probably be easily
>sufficient, and depending on the image, as few as 3-4 may suffice. I
>routinely print portraits taken on 8Mp prosumers to 13"x19" prints, and
>they look quite stunning. You have to bring them up quite close to see
>any pixallation.
>
>But if you are talking about a cityscape or landscape image with lots
>of detail (that invites the viewer to get in close), then even 12
>megapixels will struggle at that size.
>
>It's all about how close your viewer is. Up close, you will be wanting
>200 or more pixels per inch. That's about 14Mp for a print that size!
>>From standing back, say 4-5 feet, which is where most viewers would
>probably be, 100 or even 75 ppi may be sufficient. Especially if the
>image does not contain very fine detail. At 75 dpi, that same print
>size only requires 2 Mp!


Cheers for the advice everyone. I've currently got a 3MP Nikon, but
thinking of getting the 7MP Casio EXP Pro thing. I'll bear the detail
in mind when taking the photos for it - avoid a fussy background etc..

thanks!



andyt
!