How many MegaPixels to print 8X10

I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the minimum
amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
accurate?

In article <DJSVc.33854$Fg5.30664@attbi_s53>, says...
> I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the minimum
> amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
> Many of
> the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
> accurate?

Yes and no. Typically 200-300 DPI (dots per inch) output will maximize
the output of most home printers or photo labs. This means, at minimum,
you'd want an output size of 2000 x 1400 (2.8 megapixels) and better
yet, 3000 x 2400 (5.4 megapixels). Now, 8 x 10 is a slightly cropped
output, so for acceptable quality you'd want approximately 3-4
megapixels. For best quality, 6 megapixels and above.

More pixels will give you more flexibility in cropping and will be more
forgiving if your focus isn't spot-on. However, more pixels (in point
and shoots) typically yields more noise which can limit image quality.
Therefore, in an inexpensive digital camera I think a good trade off
between noise and detail is between 4 and 5 megapixels.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

"tk" <> writes:

> I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the
> minimum amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8
> x 10 print. Many of the manufactures literature state that 3.2
> megapixels is enough. Is this accurate?

Yes. 2 megapixels really works quite well; better than most consumer
snapshot film cameras. Until the lighting and sharpness of the photo
are up to first-class standards, there's not much point in worrying
about the resolution being above snapshot standards.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd->, <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/>

3.2 will work just fine.
"tk" <> wrote in message
newsJSVc.33854$Fg5.30664@attbi_s53...
> I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the
minimum
> amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
> Many of
> the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
> accurate?
>
>

tk wrote:
> I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the minimum
> amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
> Many of
> the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
> accurate?
>
>
That depends on how you define 'good quality'. There are exceptions,
but most of the more decerning here recommend having at least 300
dots/inch in the print. That means you need about 3000 x 2400
resolution, or about 7 mp for that level of quality. I would say that
in most cases, fair to good quality 8 x 10 prints would require at least
4 mp.

"tk" <> wrote in message
newsJSVc.33854$Fg5.30664@attbi_s53...
> I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the
minimum
> amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
> Many of
> the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
> accurate?
>
>
I suppose it depends on what you are used to, compare a 10 x 8 from 35mm 400
ASA Kodak Tri-X film and there's not a lot of difference, though the print
from the film will still be better quality. Same film on 2.1/4 Sq, forget
it, not even in the same street.

But, show the average person in the street a 10 x 8 from a 3 to 4 Mp digital
camera and they will be ecstatic, esp if the subject is something they like.
Photographers tend to look closely at prints, the average person just looks
at the picture as a whole. And they are quite right, when looking at a
painting people stand back, will sometimes go close to get the effect of it
disintegrating and then reforming as they step away again. More
photographers should be aware of this, stop looking at the techie info and
make more pictures, that is what the cameras are for.

Jem

tk wrote:
> I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the minimum
> amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
> Many of
> the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
> accurate?
>
>
The quality of the image is more important than the pixel count. I
frequently make 8x10s from my daughter's 1.4 Mp. camera using 'QImage'.
This program interpolates the image to the right size for the printer.
And don't be fooled by those who say it can't be done.

Interpolation is widespread, used on almost every image you print
without your knowledge and does indeed produce very good results. Have a
look at some of techno aussies stuff here:
http://www.technoaussie.com/big_prints.htm most of his monster wall art
size prints are interpolated up from small negatives or digital files.

Ryadia

Ron Hunter wrote:

> tk wrote:
>
>> I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the
>> minimum
>> amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
>> Many of
>> the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
>> accurate?
>>
>>
> That depends on how you define 'good quality'. There are exceptions,
> but most of the more decerning here recommend having at least 300
> dots/inch in the print. That means you need about 3000 x 2400
> resolution, or about 7 mp for that level of quality. I would say that
> in most cases, fair to good quality 8 x 10 prints would require at least
> 4 mp.

If what you say is true Ron (and it is not) a Canon 10D with a 6 Mp
sensor could not produce an 8x10 print. Rubbish! I frequently make A3
and A2 size prints from my 10D files. The new printer I have, along with
Photoshop produces prints (so far) 20" x 34" with no evidence of digital
break up. Http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia. I expect to make panoramas
24" x 60" from 2 or 3 images from the 10D next week. Do your sums on the
size/mega pixel thing for an image that size. Certainly need bundles
more mega pixie's than the 12 or 18 I'll be using - according to your
theory!

Ryadia

"Ryadia" <> wrote in message
news:...
> tk wrote:
> > I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the
minimum
> > amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
> > Many of
> > the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is
this
> > accurate?
> >
> >
> The quality of the image is more important than the pixel count. I
> frequently make 8x10s from my daughter's 1.4 Mp. camera using 'QImage'.
> This program interpolates the image to the right size for the printer.
> And don't be fooled by those who say it can't be done.
>
> Interpolation is widespread, used on almost every image you print
> without your knowledge and does indeed produce very good results. Have a
> look at some of techno aussies stuff here:
> http://www.technoaussie.com/big_prints.htm most of his monster wall art
> size prints are interpolated up from small negatives or digital files.
>
> Ryadia

That is very interesting, I downloaded the trial.

Thanks.

Jem

It'll be fine with just 1 or 2 mp, but need use a chemical process to reveal



"tk" <> escribió en el mensaje
newsJSVc.33854$Fg5.30664@attbi_s53...
> I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the
minimum
> amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
> Many of
> the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
> accurate?
>
>