File size for poster
 

What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
format?

Steve

Re: File size for poster
 

On 4/01/2013 3:02 PM, Steve B wrote:
> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
> format?
>
> Steve
>
>

I print at a 200dpi resolution - you can print at 100dpi but thats
pushing it.

Re: File size for poster
 

In article <kc5k7r$rj1$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Steve B <steveb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
> format?

the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
of quality you want.

you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
poster.

a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).

Re: File size for poster
 

On 4/01/2013 4:04 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kc5k7r$rj1$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Steve B <steveb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
>> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
>> format?
>
> the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
> that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
> of quality you want.
>
> you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
> not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
> poster.
>
> a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
> maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
> ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
> be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).
>

Its apparent you don't make prints.

Re: File size for poster
 

In article <kc6049$mlf$1@dont-email.me>, Rob
<mesaminenewsgroup@google.com> wrote:

> >> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
> >> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
> >> format?
> >
> > the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
> > that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
> > of quality you want.
> >
> > you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
> > not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
> > poster.
> >
> > a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
> > maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
> > ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
> > be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).
>
> Its apparent you don't make prints.

it's apparent you haven't a clue.

Re: File size for poster
 

On 04/01/2013 05:04, nospam wrote:
> In article <kc5k7r$rj1$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Steve B <steveb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
>> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
>> format?

You don't get "noise" as such unless you do something very silly like
over compress the source image. You do get sampling artefacts if you
push things too far in the direction of low numbers of pixels. I would
not go below 6MP for an image I wanted as a poster and 12MP is better.

Compression that is any tighter than 1 byte per pixel on average will
almost certainly introduce some visible artefacts if you know what to
look for. Some awkward material needs a little bit more space.

Worth reading the information that your chosen print shop provides on
suitable image sizes and formats for printing at different sizes.

> the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
> that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
> of quality you want.
>
> you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
> not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
> poster.
>
> a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
> maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
> ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
> be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).

For the typical distances that a poster is viewed at you can probably
get away with something like 6MP for a 24x36" poster print. It will be
nothing like tack sharp close to but will be fine in a largish room.
That is about 80ppi. Anything cruder than that will be pushing it.

It depends to some extent on the subject material as well. Some highly
periodic material like fences and railings will look awful if you do not
sample adequately whilst other smoothly changing textures are fine.

Certain printing processes are more forgiving than others as well so
there is no single answer to your question only a lower bound. Bigger is
always better but the improvement for doubling the filesize falls off
pretty rapidly once the file is big enough for the print size.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: File size for poster
 

On 4/01/2013 6:29 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kc6049$mlf$1@dont-email.me>, Rob
> <mesaminenewsgroup@google.com> wrote:
>
>>>> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
>>>> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
>>>> format?
>>>
>>> the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
>>> that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
>>> of quality you want.
>>>
>>> you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
>>> not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
>>> poster.
>>>
>>> a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
>>> maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
>>> ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
>>> be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).
>>
>> Its apparent you don't make prints.
>
> it's apparent you haven't a clue.
>

What crap you don't make prints.

Its you that does not have a clue.

Re: File size for poster
 

On 4/01/2013 4:04 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kc5k7r$rj1$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Steve B <steveb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
>> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
>> format?
>
> the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
> that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
> of quality you want.
>
> you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
> not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
> poster.
>
> a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
> maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
> ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
> be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).
>


Printers don't work like that, you ever made a large print - obviously not.

Re: File size for poster
 

On Friday, January 4, 2013 4:09:46 AM UTC, Rob wrote:
> On 4/01/2013 3:02 PM, Steve B wrote:
>
> > What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
> > too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
> > format?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
>
> I print at a 200dpi resolution - you can print at 100dpi but thats
> pushing it.

Suppose I want to print really big, a billboard to put on the side of the road.
160 inch by 80 inch I have in mind.

What dpi should I use?


DanP

Re: File size for poster
 

In article <87hamw3nyq.fld@pix.apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

> My only disagreement with nospam is the lower limit of
> 150 ppi. Probably 120 ppi will work, and there is a
> good chance that even 100 will be usable.

close enough. it was an estimate, not a hard limit, and 100 ppi is
really pushing it, except in the most unusual of images.

> It depends
> very much of what kind of detail is in the image. If it
> has little fine detail like hair or the weave in fabric,
> and only sharp edges such as on silhouettes, it is
> actually very possible to get a great print that is only
> 50 ppi.

and if it has a lot of detail, then 150 ppi might not be enough.
chances are it's somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.