PDA

View Full Version : biggest print via 5mp??



Adamzx3
11-07-2004, 08:19 AM
I was wondering how big of a print i can realistically get from a 5MP camera (a panasonic FZ20 or a Nikon 5700) Me and my friend are going 2 open up a photo retouching/restoration business, and eventually if all goes well, we'll start doing senior/family portraits and stuff like that. so should I just wait and get the Nikon 8700 8MP camera or something like that?

John_Reed
11-07-2004, 08:46 AM
I was wondering how big of a print i can realistically get from a 5MP camera (a panasonic FZ20 or a Nikon 5700) Me and my friend are going 2 open up a photo retouching/restoration business, and eventually if all goes well, we'll start doing senior/family portraits and stuff like that. so should I just wait and get the Nikon 8700 8MP camera or something like that?The FZ20, for example, generates a 2560X1920 array of pixels in its images. If you print at 160 pixels/inch (NOT printer "dpi" which are much higher), you could print a 16 X 12 inch photo without interpolation. I have a great 19 X 13 print hanging in my office made from a 2MP (1600 X 1200) image WITH interpolation, so I don't rule out interpolation as a useful tool as well. Some will argue that 160 pixels/inch is too "coarse," but I read a study by HP years ago where they had studied this number scientifically, and had determined that the "human eye can't resolve any finer resolution than 150 pixels/inch." I know that http://www.shutterfly.com uses 160 for interpolation for their big prints, and I've gotten some very satisfactory large prints from them that confirm this.

Adamzx3
11-10-2004, 07:36 AM
hmm so if I am sending them away to a printing company will this still print good? keep in mind that these are for (or will be if all goes well) senior portraits and family portraits like that. Also what sizes do portait studios print at??

pwiles1968
11-10-2004, 10:34 AM
You can allways Interpolate the Image to make it larger there are several packages that will do this, here is some info-

Interpolation (http://www.americaswonderlands.com/image_resizing.htm)

Terracotta
11-11-2004, 09:48 AM
Back in the ages of history HP did a little bit of research and worked out that the human eye could not resolve more than 150ppi (Pixels Per Inch, not to be confused with dpi which is the number of dots per inch, you can have many dots per pixel), of course this includes a lot of qualification that I've not remembered but the rule of thumb is that 150ppi is good enough for looking at a photo on a desk. Thus taking a 2536x1920 image you can print up to 16.9x12.8 at the 'native resolution' of the image for viewing on your desk. However, you can get away with WAY less ppi when you're viewing things from a distance I've just worked out my lovely 24 TV displays an image at 37ppi, that's fine for the approx 5~10ft viewing distance that I normally view at, and never looks pixelated, with another clever bit of maths we find that at that ppi you get a 95.6x51.9 5MP print, of course if I park my nose 3 from that print it'll look pixelated to hell but from 5ft away it's going to be fine.

To paraphrase that lot, if you're looking at a normal print a 5MP image is going to be fine at 17x13, viewing from 8ft 96x52 will be fine & the closer you get the higher the ppi you need & vice versa.

kgosden
11-11-2004, 01:10 PM
Be careful when comparing static printed images to moving images on a TV for resolution. Even a slight bit of motion in a movie of a landscape will reduce the level of resolution required for the image to appear sharp to the eye. This is a function of a variety of tricks played in the eye and mind. Even slight motion tends to draw the viewers attention and reduce their ability to concentrate on details that might be static elsewhere in the scene.

John_Reed
11-11-2004, 01:54 PM
Be careful when comparing static printed images to moving images on a TV for resolution. Even a slight bit of motion in a movie of a landscape will reduce the level of resolution required for the image to appear sharp to the eye. This is a function of a variety of tricks played in the eye and mind. Even slight motion tends to draw the viewers attention and reduce their ability to concentrate on details that might be static elsewhere in the scene.I have now created and printed two large murals, one 5' X 14', one 5' X 12'. I created them at 72 pixels/inch, just to keep the computer memory requirements down, especially when working with layers. Even flattened, these images were ~150MB images before compression. They each started out as digital photos (panoramas), interpolated to fill up the 4320X12000 pixel array. They were printed out on drum printers at 600 dpi, and I'm telling you, it wasn't easy to see the rough edges! Especially for distant viewing, they were both great, and even closeup, at arm's length, not bad at all.

Adamzx3
11-11-2004, 07:57 PM
cool thanks thats good to know :)

what size do senoir portraits usually come in? I assume not 4x6 and 8x10??

Terracotta
11-12-2004, 08:54 AM
Be careful when comparing static printed images to moving images on a TV for resolution. Even a slight bit of motion in a movie of a landscape will reduce the level of resolution required for the image to appear sharp to the eye. This is a function of a variety of tricks played in the eye and mind. Even slight motion tends to draw the viewers attention and reduce their ability to concentrate on details that might be static elsewhere in the scene.

Yeah, however this is comparing a photoCD playback, and I have noticed that I can get way closer without visible image imperfections when I'm watching TV or a movie, but for a photoCD get much closer than 5ft and you can see pixelation.

kgosden
11-12-2004, 06:55 PM
John, my point wasn't that relatively low dpi could not produce good prints. I was just warning to take care in comparing drastically different media and image sources to try and guess at acceptable values. I might be able to eat a pound of cooked chicken, but that doesn't mean I could do the same with a live one moving and unplucked.