Nikon Coolpix 5700 Digital Camera 5.0MP - Question

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

Matalog wrote:

> I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I am
> looking for. But the auction sasys this :-
>
>
>
> "The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image quality
> settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is capable
> of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".
>
>
>
> Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think I
> could get from this camera at maximum res?


That'd be 128dpi which is not very good, just barely passsable but
probably acceptable if you aren't at all picky. 200dpi is very good,
more than 300 dpi is not usable. Hint: dpi is Dots Per Inch. That would
make about a 13 inch print at 200dpi.

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:25:46 -0800, in rec.photo.digital paul
<paul@not.net> wrote:

>That'd be 128dpi which is not very good, just barely passsable but
>probably acceptable if you aren't at all picky. 200dpi is very good,
>more than 300 dpi is not usable. Hint: dpi is Dots Per Inch. That would
>make about a 13 inch print at 200dpi.

Really ppi, not dpi. And one can use software to interpolate and still get
acceptable results. Qimage is a good printing util to do just this, among
other things.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com

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

Matalog wrote:
> I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I am
> looking for. But the auction sasys this :-
>
>
>
> "The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image quality
> settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is capable
> of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".

That last part is subjective. An image printed at that size would only be
128dpi, which based on numbers alone, probably isn't enough for a 20x16 print
unless viewed from 5 or more metres away, in my opinion.

>
>
>
> Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think I
> could get from this camera at maximum res?

I've got very nice 150dpi 15x10s from my 4 megapixel camera. They look as sharp
at about 2 metres as a 300dpi 6x4 looks handheld.



--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

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

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:xq6dnaVUcOXwHUncRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net...
> Matalog wrote:
>
> > I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I
am
> > looking for. But the auction sasys this :-
> >
> >
> >
> > "The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image
quality
> > settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is
capable
> > of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".
> >
> >
> >
> > Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think
I
> > could get from this camera at maximum res?
>
>
> That'd be 128dpi which is not very good, just barely passsable but
> probably acceptable if you aren't at all picky. 200dpi is very good,
> more than 300 dpi is not usable. Hint: dpi is Dots Per Inch. That would
> make about a 13 inch print at 200dpi.


13 x 16 or 13 x 9 or 10?

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

Matalog commented courteously ...

>> That'd be 128dpi which is not very good, just barely
>> passsable but probably acceptable if you aren't at all
>> picky. 200dpi is very good, more than 300 dpi is not
>> usable.

Part of visual quality is the subject matter. For example,
scenics or soft portraits can be printed larger,
particularly if you soften them a little first. But,
images with sharpness and detail - for example, my hobby
is car pictures - demand more PPI.
>
> 13 x 16 or 13 x 9 or 10?

I have an HP 1220C wide-bed ink jet. Even at 1280 x 960, I
can get reasonable 13" x 19" prints on glossy paper *if*
I'm willing to stand back and view from 3 to 5 feet.
That's only 67 PPI!

Note that I said "reasonable", not "great". If your plan
is to go to a custom lab and pay some bucks for your big
prints, then I'd agree that 200 PPI is dead minimum,
preferably 300.

But remember, it's not just raw mega pixels (which
translate to PPI which translates to DPI) that matters,
its the lens and the camera's electronics that go into
whether the mega pixels (no matter how many there are)
actually carry real image information. And then, people
have been known to blow an otherwise good image by
overcompressing if they save in JPEG rather than TIFF...

FWIW, I have a Nikon 5700, and find it a little soft. I
use Paint Shop Pro's Unsharp Mask at a mild setting on all
of my pictures, even to view them. But, I need to be
careful of too much artificial sharpening, else, I'll
start to see jaggies on the near-horizontal or near-
vertical lines in my car pictures.

That's my take, your mileage may vary ...

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm!" -
Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

Delete the reverse SPAM to reply by E-mail

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

Matalog wrote:
> I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I am
> looking for. But the auction sasys this :-
>
>
>
> "The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image quality
> settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is capable
> of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".
>
>
>
> Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think I
> could get from this camera at maximum res?
>
>
>
> Thanks for any replies.
>
>
Good 8x 10s, some possibly excellent 8 x10s, possibly a few
good 11 x 14s.

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

In article <hD_Ad.550$Os1.369@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, matalog@ntlworld.com
says...
>
>
>I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I am
>looking for. But the auction sasys this :-
>
>
>
>"The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image quality
>settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is capable
>of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".
>
>
>
>Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think I
>could get from this camera at maximum res?
>
>
>
>Thanks for any replies.
>

As others have said, the results are subjective. I would not accept the
results in 16x20, but that is me. However, I've had a half dozen high quality
magazine covers, and tons of magazine interior shots published, that were done
with the 5700. It is a good camera, though, if I were looking for a P&S
digital right now, I'd opt for the 5000, 5400, 8400 (I think that is where
they are now), that offers an optical viewfinder, and wider angle on the zoom.
Check me out on those model numbers, as I cannot seem to keep up with them
all. The 5000, with its supplemental WA does a better job, than my older 5700
did, with a tad less pincushion distortion.

OTOH, how often do you plan on printing 16x20, and what are your acceptable
criteria for that size print.

Hunt