Tom's Hardware > Forum > Digital Camera > Digital Camera General > what's 28.3 mp in terms of print size?

what's 28.3 mp in terms of print size?

Forum Digital Camera : Digital Camera General - what's 28.3 mp in terms of print size?

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Word :    Username :           
 

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

 

What's 28.3mp (6144 by 4614 pixels) in terms of print size?

Let's say assuming a default resolution of 240 pixels/inch, though this
can be modified.

Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.

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

 

25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch

20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended

John


"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118230977.880217.130950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> What's 28.3mp (6144 by 4614 pixels) in terms of print size?
>
> Let's say assuming a default resolution of 240 pixels/inch, though this
> can be modified.
>

Reply to john

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

 

John wrote:
> 25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch
>
> 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
>
> John
>

Thanks. Now that I think about it, it should've been obvious; you
divide the number of pixels by the pixels-per-inch and you're left with
the inches, right?

>
> "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118230977.880217.130950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > What's 28.3mp (6144 by 4614 pixels) in terms of print size?
> >
> > Let's say assuming a default resolution of 240 pixels/inch, though this
> > can be modified.
> >

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

Correct :.)

John

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118233946.452587.279860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> John wrote:
>> 25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch
>>
>> 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
>>
>> John
>>
>
> Thanks. Now that I think about it, it should've been obvious; you
> divide the number of pixels by the pixels-per-inch and you're left with
> the inches, right?
>
>>
>> "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118230977.880217.130950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > What's 28.3mp (6144 by 4614 pixels) in terms of print size?
>> >
>> > Let's say assuming a default resolution of 240 pixels/inch, though this
>> > can be modified.
>> >
>

Reply to john

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

 

Mike Henley wrote:
> John wrote:
>> 25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch
>>
>> 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
>>
>> John
>>
>
> Thanks. Now that I think about it, it should've been obvious; you
> divide the number of pixels by the pixels-per-inch and you're left
> with the inches, right?

Ah, but, how many pixels per inch is appropriate for the original poster's
requirements - he didn't say!

David

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:32:12 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Mike Henley wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>> 25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch
>>>
>>> 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. Now that I think about it, it should've been obvious; you
>> divide the number of pixels by the pixels-per-inch and you're left
>> with the inches, right?
>
> Ah, but, how many pixels per inch is appropriate for the
> original poster's requirements - he didn't say!

Mike *was* the original poster, and he assumed "a default
resolution of 240 pixels/inch". :) But you may have been thinking
as I did, which is that 240 pixels/inch (dpi) isn't appropriate,
given the huge number of pixels (28.3mp) stipulated by the OP.

My thinking is that when sizes get sufficiently large, rules of
thumb (300dpi for prints, etc.) begin to become less valid. With
only a slight increase in the number of pixels, the formula used
above would predict a print whose dimensions are 2ft. x 3ft, which
isn't likely to be viewed as closely as a 4"x6" or 8" x 10" print.
By this I don't mean that fewer than 240 pixels/inch should be used
to produce 25.6 * 19.2 prints, since some detail would be lost.
Instead, that number of pixels would allow much larger prints to be
made (given a sufficiently wide printer) containing all of the
image's detail. For the 28.3mp specified by the OP, that would
allow a print nearly 4 feet by 6 feet to be made. At viewing
distances appropriate for prints of this size, I'd imagine that 150
dpi or 120 dpi would be reasonable.

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> writes:

> What's 28.3mp (6144 by 4614 pixels) in terms of print size?
>
> Let's say assuming a default resolution of 240 pixels/inch, though this
> can be modified.

Then divide 6144 by 240 and 4614 by 240, and there's your answer.

In many uses big prints are viewed from further away, than smaller
prints, and hence can have lower resolutions and still look good.

With Photoshop and other image editors I've used it's easy enough to
print out one piece of a huge image, so you can see how that piece
looks at various distances without committing to printing the entire
picture that large. Since what's "acceptable" varies with the image,
viewing distance, viewer, and so forth, doing that kind of a test can
be very worthwhile. The rules of thumb (like 240 camera original
pixels per inch) are rules of *thumb*, not immutable laws of nature.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> writes:

> John wrote:
>> 25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch
>>
>> 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
>>
>
> Thanks. Now that I think about it, it should've been obvious; you
> divide the number of pixels by the pixels-per-inch and you're left with
> the inches, right?

Yep. Now I feel like maybe I should apologize for my somewhat
sarcastic message just posted -- sorry!

This is a great example of the wonders of "units arithmetic" --

pixels / (pixels/inch) = inches

It's also a very useful sanity check -- if you follow through the
units arithmetic on your calculation and it comes out in the *wrong
kind of units* at the end, you've definitely done something wrong!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> writes:

> Mike Henley wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>> 25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch
>>>
>>> 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. Now that I think about it, it should've been obvious; you
>> divide the number of pixels by the pixels-per-inch and you're left
>> with the inches, right?
>
> Ah, but, how many pixels per inch is appropriate for the original poster's
> requirements - he didn't say!

Well, he did specify 240 in his initial message -- phrased more as an
example to work with than as a known requirement, but he specified
it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118230977.880217.130950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> What's 28.3mp (6144 by 4614 pixels) in terms of print size?
Can't you divide 6144 by 240 and 4614 by 240 to solve your question?
The correct answer is that it depends on the pixels per inch that you
choose.
>
> Let's say assuming a default resolution of 240 pixels/inch, though this
> can be modified.
>
Jim

Reply to Jim

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

 

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m27jh4u895.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> writes:
>
>> Mike Henley wrote:
>>> John wrote:
>>>> 25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch
>>>>
>>>> 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks. Now that I think about it, it should've been obvious; you
>>> divide the number of pixels by the pixels-per-inch and you're left
>>> with the inches, right?
>>
>> Ah, but, how many pixels per inch is appropriate for the original
>> poster's
>> requirements - he didn't say!
>
> Well, he did specify 240 in his initial message -- phrased more as an
> example to work with than as a known requirement, but he specified
> it.

Yes, indeed - I hadn't gone back to check.

But is 240 the appropriate figure? A good discussion resulted, though.
Personally, I find 200 dpi "adequate".

David

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

Keith said:

DPI is a very misunderstood concept, or rule or just fact.

If you are taking wedding pictures the minimum you would strive for would be
240 with no cutting, there lies the problem, cutting.

If you are taking pictures of nature scenes and want a picture 13x19 (12x18)
then do not be too concerned with the 240 as most people look at these
pictures from a distance and they usually turn out ok.

The key is to shoot all your pictures at the maximum of your camera "I.a.",
if your camera is an 8 meg then shoot that way, if you don't, you will
surely take that perfect picture at 4 meg and find out when you blow it up
you have too much grain. Software can clean up some rough edges but as I
said don't be afraid to print scenery at a larger size but do not try that
with people pictures because they (humans) look at these pictures with their
noses.

Learn, and you will, to take that perfect picture the first time with no, or
little, cutting needed.

People take good pictures not the camera.

A good photographer waits, with patience, for that good shot. A good
wedding photographer is also good at setting the people up for that right
shot, that is why he or she does,t like others to take pictures after they
do all the work.

Some of my best nature scene shots were because I was there at the right
time. If one does not have patience they will never be successful.

Keith

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118230977.880217.130950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> What's 28.3mp (6144 by 4614 pixels) in terms of print size?
>
> Let's say assuming a default resolution of 240 pixels/inch, though this
> can be modified.
>

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1118230977.880217.130950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> What's 28.3mp (6144 by 4614 pixels) in terms of print size?
>
> Let's say assuming a default resolution of 240 pixels/inch, though this
> can be modified.

I would think that for most purposes that sort of resolution would be
enough for the largest billboard imaginable.

If you print the image at 10 foot by 7.5 foot then you have 50dpi, but at
that size you need to stand back a bit to see the whole picture, and at the
comfortable viewing distance 50dpi is more than enough.

However, if your original 28.3mp is already scaled up then it will be a
little soft compared to a native 28.3mp.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

Reply to MarkH

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

 

In article <wYApe.12488$%21.11514@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
"John" <john59098@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch
>
> 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
>
> John
>
>
> "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118230977.880217.130950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > What's 28.3mp (6144 by 4614 pixels) in terms of print size?
> >
> > Let's say assuming a default resolution of 240 pixels/inch, though this
> > can be modified.
> >

That's 65cm x 48cm in modern sizes. Those neanderthal inches are way out
of date.

Reply to Anonymous
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Digital Camera > Digital Camera General > what's 28.3 mp in terms of print size?
Go to:

There are 1282 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them