«

I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
1.875 feet.

Thanks,
Chris

<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
|I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
| before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
| 1.875 feet.
|
| Thanks,
| Chris
|

You're joking, right?

writes:
> I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
> before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
> 1.875 feet.

You'll see some softness up close at that size but for noncritical
viewing from normal distances it will look fine. Pay no attention to
the megapixel freaks.

wrote:
> I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
> before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
> 1.875 feet.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris

There is no really good way of answering that question. The important
thing to remember is that an print that size is not going to be viewed from
6 inches, it is more likely to be 6 feet. We don't notice the loss in
detail at 6 feet like we do at six inches. At six inches next to 4x6 inch
print, you will see image loose.

All I can say is try it and see. I think I would generally want more
resolution that that so I shoot a lot higher, but you don't have that option
now.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
> before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
> 1.875 feet.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris

If you do a little math you can blow up a portion of the image and print it
out on any inkjet printer to match exactly what a 2ft x 1.8ft photo will
look like, or at least what a portion of it will look like. Personally, I
think you're really pushing it, but at least you'll know what the end result
will look like.

writes:

> I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
> before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
> 1.875 feet.

For close examination, it'll stand up fine to about 3 inches by 4
inches.

Depending on how close the viewers will be, you may be able to print
it *much* bigger. But it's very unlikely that you can print it as big
as you want and have it look good to most viewers from the sorts of
distances I think of as normal for a print that big (as little as 3
feet, maybe even only 2 feet).

It's pretty easy with all the software *I've* used for editing and
printing photos to print one sheet of the photo at the size you want
(i.e. a fairly small part of the image). Then you can put that on the
wall, stand various distances away, and see what you think.
--
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/>

If you have this printed by a lab such as www.bigphotohelp.com you will have
a print that when viewed at the proper distance, say three feet, will look
very good.

Only those purest who look for pixilation with a 10X glass at a 4 x 6 inch
5 or 6 megapixel print complain.

"If it looks good..It is good"

Arthur Small wrote:
> If you have this printed by a lab such as www.bigphotohelp.com you will have
> a print that when viewed at the proper distance, say three feet, will look
> very good.
>
> Only those purest who look for pixilation with a 10X glass at a 4 x 6 inch
> 5 or 6 megapixel print complain.
>
> "If it looks good..It is good"
>
>
There are two issues here- soft resolution (lack of resolution) and
pixelation. Upsampling can reduce pixelation, though it won't do much
for resolution.