Velocity Reviews > minimum mp's for 11x14

# minimum mp's for 11x14

Jim Townsend
Guest
Posts: n/a

 07-27-2003
stefano giovannini wrote:

> Tom Thackrey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a very subjective question. I think the minimum ppi for OK printing
>> is 180, therefore an 11x14 would require 5mp. If you think 300 ppi is the
>> minimum, 14mp would be required.

>
> is it better to do a print at 200 dpi WITHOUT interpolation or at 300
> dpi WITH interpolation?
>
> or let's say something in between with less interpolation?
>
> considering same size print.

Your printer software does interpolation and smoothing to a degree.

The software that comes with most image editing programs does a decent job and
there are additional programs that do a better job. Genuine fractals is one.

Interpolation done properly will result in a less jaggy picture, but there will
be NO more detail than there was in the original image. The only benefit to
making up extra pixels is for smoother output.

JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a

 07-27-2003
In message <1fyrcve.a8iygw1h4z9j8N%(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (stefano giovannini) wrote:

>Tom Thackrey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a very subjective question. I think the minimum ppi for OK printing
>> is 180, therefore an 11x14 would require 5mp. If you think 300 ppi is the
>> minimum, 14mp would be required.

>
>is it better to do a print at 200 dpi WITHOUT interpolation or at 300
>dpi WITH interpolation?
>
>or let's say something in between with less interpolation?
>
>considering same size print.

200 PPI (not dpi) is high enough a resolution that blocky pixels are not
usually a big problem. Having 300 PPI of real data is always better
than having 200 PPI of real data, not just because of the possible
pixellation at 200 PPI. Interpolating from 200 PPI to 300 PPI is
actually may *lose* a small amount of fine detail, even though you are
eliminating the potential for blocky pixels. If you print at 200 PPI,
and can see the pixels, resample to 2x the resolution (400 PPI), not 300
PPI. This will preserve more image detail.

Any time that you upsample by a non-integer, you are scattering
information in the image, softening the detail. This is especially true
if you're working with any data that has already been downsampled from
the camera's CCD resolution, or with computer-generated additions, as
they can have very high contrast from pixel-to-pixel.

Also, remember to do any sharpening *after* you reach the final
resolution.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

carl
Guest
Posts: n/a

 07-28-2003
"Pacovsky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> for a decent 11x14 print lowest possable mp required, thanks in advance john

Like everyone says, it depends.

I have a Canon S30 (3.3 mp) and I've done 8x10s which I think are just
great, so I'm sure an 11x14 would be at least good. I've even done a
20x30 poster which turned out fantastic (admittedly it's an
impressionistic photo of my kid going down a slide, so detail was not
important).

So I'd say if you're regular type person, 3+ is fine (heck, 2+ might
be ok). If you're a serious photographer, you'd obviously want to go
higher. And as they all say, how much detail do you want?