40" x 27" prints from 13.72MP

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Georgette Preddy, Jul 24, 2004.

    1. Advertising

  1. Georgette Preddy

    Tom Scales Guest

    Tom Scales, Jul 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  2. "Tom Scales" <> wrote in news::

    > Let's see. We're supposed to evaluate the quality of a 27x40 print from a
    > small web image.
    >
    > Huh?
    >
    > Tom
    > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=9647178

    >
    >


    The original is here:
    http://www.pbase.com/image/30544207/original

    And it is not in particular sharp. Of course, you can
    make a 27x40 from any photo. It does not need to be
    sharp to be large.

    It is a bit pathetic with all the WOW comments in the Sigma
    forum though. Don't they stop and think sometimes?


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Jul 24, 2004
    #3
  3. In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> wrote:

    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=9647178


    But your kiddie Sigma is only 3.4MP. But you don't notice the
    typically crappy Sigma colors here because there's nothing to
    standardize on (like a skin tone). I'll still put my 10D up against
    your kiddie toy any day.

    And aren't you the one always bitching about people not posting
    full-sized images? Guess it's OK when you do it (or I should say,
    point to others doing it).
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 24, 2004
    #4
  4. In article <Xns9530AE8FA6E48klotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
    <> wrote:

    > It is a bit pathetic with all the WOW comments in the Sigma
    > forum though. Don't they stop and think sometimes?


    "Pathetic" and "Sigma" - now there's two words that belong together.
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 24, 2004
    #5
  5. "Tom Scales" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Let's see. We're supposed to evaluate the quality of a 27x40 print from a
    > small web image.


    Nope, just note the testimony that the 13.72MP SD10 is super sharp at
    27x40". I have lots of SD9 24x36"'s that are stunning, sharper than
    my 10D was at 8x10".

    > Huh?
    >
    > Tom
    > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=9647178
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 24, 2004
    #6
  6. Georgette Preddy

    Tom Scales Guest

    Well, that's just bullshit.

    "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Tom Scales" <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > Let's see. We're supposed to evaluate the quality of a 27x40 print from

    a
    > > small web image.

    >
    > Nope, just note the testimony that the 13.72MP SD10 is super sharp at
    > 27x40". I have lots of SD9 24x36"'s that are stunning, sharper than
    > my 10D was at 8x10".
    >
    > > Huh?
    > >
    > > Tom
    > > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=9647178
    Tom Scales, Jul 24, 2004
    #7
  7. Georgette Preddy

    G. Innipig Guest

    G. Innipig, Jul 24, 2004
    #8
  8. Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<240720040852426843%>...
    > In article <>, Georgette
    > Preddy <> wrote:
    >
    > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=9647178

    >
    > But your kiddie Sigma is only 3.4MP.


    YES! 3.43 full color MPs!!!!

    Next closest is the Kodak 14/c with only 3.3 full color MPs!!

    > But you don't notice the
    > typically crappy Sigma colors here because there's nothing to
    > standardize on (like a skin tone). I'll still put my 10D up against
    > your kiddie toy any day.


    I had a 10D, it was no good.

    > And aren't you the one always bitching about people not posting
    > full-sized images? Guess it's OK when you do it (or I should say,
    > point to others doing it).


    A picture of a print??
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 24, 2004
    #9
  9. Charles Schuler, Jul 24, 2004
    #10
  10. "G. Innipig" <> wrote in message news:<4102d360$0$6443$>...
    > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=9647178

    >
    > A post from somebody who, with the greatest respect, can barely string
    > together a few words in English,


    And we all know image quality is determined by fluency in multiple languages.

    > and the Preddiot broadcasts it far and
    > wide. Get real Gormette.
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 25, 2004
    #11
  11. "G. Innipig" <> wrote in message news:<4102d360$0$6443$>...
    > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=9647178

    >
    > A post from somebody who, with the greatest respect, can barely string
    > together a few words in English,


    And we all know image quality is determined by fluency in multiple languages.

    > and the Preddiot broadcasts it far and
    > wide. Get real Gormette.
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 25, 2004
    #12
  12. Georgette Preddy

    dylan Guest

    dylan, Jul 25, 2004
    #13
  13. Georgette Preddy, Jul 27, 2004
    #14
  14. Georgette Preddy

    Tom Scales Guest

    Come on GP. Start with 3.4 mp.
    "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "dylan" <> wrote in message

    news:<wEOMc.92$%>...
    > > Can't describe it as stunning at 56dpi, from whatever source.

    >
    > 4536/40 = ?
    >
    > > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=9647178
    Tom Scales, Jul 27, 2004
    #15
  15. Georgette Preddy

    Crownfield Guest

    Georgette Preddy wrote:
    >
    > "dylan" <> wrote in message news:<wEOMc.92$%>...
    > > Can't describe it as stunning at 56dpi, from whatever source.

    >
    > 4536/40 = ? << imagination.>>


    there were no pixels there. 2250 x 1500, remember.

    so 2250 / 40 = 56.25 pixels per inch of print.
    posters are often 72 ppi.

    they must look like they were printed on a teletype.

    I have used a 3000 x 2000 pixel image on a vehicle,
    so it was about 96 inches by 96 inches. thats 36 dpi,
    so it looks great at 10 feet, but not at 10 inches.



    >
    > > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=9647178
    Crownfield, Jul 28, 2004
    #16
  16. Crownfield <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Georgette Preddy wrote:
    > >
    > > "dylan" <> wrote in message news:<wEOMc.92$%>...
    > > > Can't describe it as stunning at 56dpi, from whatever source.

    > >
    > > 4536/40 = ? << imagination.>>

    >
    > there were no pixels there. 2250 x 1500, remember.


    The SD9 and SD10 output 4536 x 3024 pixel images, 13.72MP.
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 30, 2004
    #17
  17. "Tom Scales" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Come on GP. Start with 3.4 mp.


    The SD9 has the most MPs of any DSLR at 13.72MP as output.
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 30, 2004
    #18
  18. Georgette Preddy

    Crownfield Guest

    Georgette Preddy wrote:
    >
    > Crownfield <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > Georgette Preddy wrote:
    > > >
    > > > "dylan" <> wrote in message news:<wEOMc.92$%>...
    > > > > Can't describe it as stunning at 56dpi, from whatever source.
    > > >
    > > > 4536/40 = ? << imagination.>>

    > >
    > > there were no pixels there. 2250 x 1500, remember.

    >
    > The SD9 and SD10 output 4536 x 3024 pixel images, 13.72MP.


    right.
    they make them up, afterwards in software.
    whole cloth I*N*T*E*R*P*O*L*A*T*I*O*N!!

    just like the S2 outputs 6000 x 4000 pixel images:
    by making up data at points where NO sample was taken.
    Crownfield, Jul 30, 2004
    #19
  19. Georgette Preddy

    Crownfield Guest

    Georgette Preddy wrote:
    >
    > "Tom Scales" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > Come on GP. Start with 3.4 mp.

    >
    > The SD9 has the most MPs of any DSLR at 13.72MP as output.


    and of those 13mp,
    almost all of them are made up by interpolation.
    sigma is not professional, because it interpolates.
    Crownfield, Jul 30, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dr. Slick
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    702
  2. Victor81
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,109
    Dave Martindale
    Dec 12, 2003
  3. Bruce
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    466
    netnews
    Dec 29, 2003
  4. George Preddy
    Replies:
    69
    Views:
    1,286
    bagal
    May 30, 2004
  5. Georgette Preddy

    B&H Photo gets it right - Sigma SD10 is 13.72MP

    Georgette Preddy, Jun 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    90
    Views:
    1,561
Loading...

Share This Page