6.3 Megapixel Print Size

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by DJC737, Nov 16, 2003.

  1. DJC737

    DJC737 Guest

    With a well focused and exposed image made with good glass you can produce
    beautiful 12 x 18 images. This requires a good knowledge of Photoshop
    interpolation and sharpening but it can be done. If you learn one of the
    stitching programs and master it well, any size is possible. Dave

    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > takeone wrote:
    >
    > > I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > > film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Take One
    > >
    > >

    > Boy, you are really going to stir the pot with this one.
    >
    > Take the listed pixel counts for the highest resolution and divide by
    > 300. That will give the size in inches for a print that will look 'as
    > good as film' to MOST people. Some hardcore film enthusiasts will claim
    > they can tell the difference, but 90% of those who view your pictures
    > (unless you hang out with professional photographers) won't.
     
    DJC737, Nov 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DJC737

    takeone Guest

    I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?

    Thanks,
    Take One
     
    takeone, Nov 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. DJC737

    chibitul Guest

    In article <mzOtb.83$>,
    "takeone" <> wrote:

    > I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?
    >

    define "film-quality" please. for night photo, the Canon sensor at ISO
    1600 seems to kick the ass of film at the same ISO 1600.

    So yeah, at ISO 1600 you can't make them as big as you want, since it is
    always better than film :)
     
    chibitul, Nov 16, 2003
    #3
  4. DJC737

    Don Coon Guest

    "takeone" <> wrote in message
    news:mzOtb.83$...
    > I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Take One
    >


    The image size is 3072 x 2048 so, depending on you definition of film
    quality, here are you options:

    5x7 = 410ppi = Excellent to Overkill : )
    7X10 =300ppi = Excellent
    8x10 = 256ppi Very Good
    11x14 = 186ppi Good though some might class it as Fair
    14x16 =146ppi Fair
    16x24 = 128ppi Minimum by most printing standards

    Of course there are lots of other considerations such as image content,
    viewing distance, and sharpness of the original.

    Just my opinion formed by experience and opinions of others.

    Best of luck!
     
    Don Coon, Nov 16, 2003
    #4
  5. DJC737

    VT Guest

    On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:35:14 GMT, "takeone"
    <> wrote:

    >I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    >film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?
    >


    For critical viewing 300ppi (pixels per inch) print densisty
    resolution is needed.

    The Canon Digital Rebel has 3072x2048 pixels -
    so @300ppi that's 10.24"x 6.8".

    However with larger prints and typical larger normal viewing distances
    the print density/resolution may not be as stringent. Also the
    concensus here for quite a while is that 200ppi is good enough for
    true photo quality prints (especially when using home inkjet photo
    printers) -
    this means @200ppi the largest print size is now: 15.4" x 10.25".

    Probably your best best is to download a typical test sample image
    from the Canon Digital Rebel and print to larger and larger sizes
    until you find the point where the print would be UNacceptable to you.

    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHES for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Nov 16, 2003
    #5
  6. DJC737

    Lisa Horton Guest

    I've made 11x14/16.5 prints that are glorious and stunning in their
    beauty, and difficult to differentiate from film sourced enlargements.
    Can't speak to sizes larger than that though.

    Lisa

    takeone wrote:
    >
    > I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Take One
     
    Lisa Horton, Nov 16, 2003
    #6
  7. DJC737

    Ron Hunter Guest

    takeone wrote:

    > I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Take One
    >
    >

    Boy, you are really going to stir the pot with this one.

    Take the listed pixel counts for the highest resolution and divide by
    300. That will give the size in inches for a print that will look 'as
    good as film' to MOST people. Some hardcore film enthusiasts will claim
    they can tell the difference, but 90% of those who view your pictures
    (unless you hang out with professional photographers) won't.
     
    Ron Hunter, Nov 16, 2003
    #7
  8. DJC737

    Annika1980 Guest

    I've got a 12"x18" photo on the wall at our golf clubhouse, and nobody can
    believe it was captured and printed digitally.
    Most people who know such things suspect Medium Format.
     
    Annika1980, Nov 16, 2003
    #8
  9. DJC737

    chibitul Guest

    In article
    <>,
    while coming back to normal after being drunk last night <> wrote:

    > So yeah, at ISO 1600 you can't make them as big as you want, since it is
    > always better than film :)


    Sorry, that shout read "at ISO 1600 you CAN make them as big as you
    want, since it is always better than film."
     
    chibitul, Nov 16, 2003
    #9
  10. "Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've made 11x14/16.5 prints that are glorious and stunning in their
    > beauty, and difficult to differentiate from film sourced enlargements.
    > Can't speak to sizes larger than that though.


    That's odd. 645 scanned on a Nikon 8000 looks a lot better at 8.25x11.5 than
    anything 6MP that I've downloaded and printed from the net. And _half_ such
    a scan printed at 8.25x11.5 makes half a 6MP image printed at 8.25x11.5 look
    _sick_.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 16, 2003
    #10
  11. DJC737

    Hans Kruse Guest

    I got 40x60cm prints made from pictures taken by my Canon 10D. This shold be
    about 16x24" (US) (15.74" x 23.62").
    Looking at these pictures from the distance of holding them in stretched
    arms, they look really good. Taken by Sigma 15-30mm EX DG and Canon 28-135mm
    USM IS lenses.
    Since the 300D has the same resolution the print quality should be the same.
    I used the Phase One DSLR RAW converter sw and no resampling in Photoshop.
    --Hans

    "takeone" <> wrote in message
    news:mzOtb.83$...
    > I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Take One
    >
    >
     
    Hans Kruse, Nov 16, 2003
    #11
  12. "Annika1980" <> wrote:

    > I've got a 12"x18" photo on the wall at our golf clubhouse, and nobody can
    > believe it was captured and printed digitally.
    > Most people who know such things suspect Medium Format.


    People who know and love MF, love it for two reasons: the detail and the
    lack of grain. 6MP digital, when combined with good technique, can deliver
    that lack of grain at _any_ size. Even medium format turns grainy at some
    size.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 16, 2003
    #12
  13. DJC737

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Re: 6.3 Megapixel Print Size
    >From: "David J. Littleboy"
    >Date: 11/16/03 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <bp92md$g0j$>
    >
    >
    >"Annika1980" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I've got a 12"x18" photo on the wall at our golf clubhouse, and nobody can
    >> believe it was captured and printed digitally.
    >> Most people who know such things suspect Medium Format.

    >
    >People who know and love MF, love it for two reasons: the detail and the
    >lack of grain. 6MP digital, when combined with good technique, can deliver
    >that lack of grain at _any_ size. Even medium format turns grainy at some
    >size.
    >
    >David J. Littleboy
    >Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >

    Everything turns grainy at "some size".


    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Nov 17, 2003
    #13
  14. DJC737

    wnor Guest

    I had a 28X40 inch picture made on the internet from a 10D picture. Even at
    a close distance, it looks wonderful, to me. I have no idea what the company
    used to enlarge the picture nor what they printed it on. It is now framed
    and on the wall. No one, so far, can believe it is from a digital camera.

    "Hans Kruse" <> wrote in message
    news:3fb80900$0$169$...
    > I got 40x60cm prints made from pictures taken by my Canon 10D. This shold

    be
    > about 16x24" (US) (15.74" x 23.62").
    > Looking at these pictures from the distance of holding them in stretched
    > arms, they look really good. Taken by Sigma 15-30mm EX DG and Canon

    28-135mm
    > USM IS lenses.
    > Since the 300D has the same resolution the print quality should be the

    same.
    > I used the Phase One DSLR RAW converter sw and no resampling in Photoshop.
    > --Hans
    >
    > "takeone" <> wrote in message
    > news:mzOtb.83$...
    > > I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > > film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Take One
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    wnor, Nov 17, 2003
    #14
  15. "ArtKramr" <> wrote:
    > >From: "David J. Littleboy"
    > >"Annika1980" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I've got a 12"x18" photo on the wall at our golf clubhouse, and nobody

    can
    > >> believe it was captured and printed digitally.
    > >> Most people who know such things suspect Medium Format.

    > >
    > >People who know and love MF, love it for two reasons: the detail and the
    > >lack of grain. 6MP digital, when combined with good technique, can

    deliver
    > >that lack of grain at _any_ size. Even medium format turns grainy at some
    > >size.


    > Everything turns grainy at "some size".


    Not clean digital images. Careful interpolation (or "oversampling") of an
    ISO 100 or 200 dSLR image creates a larger, pixelation and noise free,
    image, albeit a very soft one. As long as you don't mind the softness, the
    noise is well below what the human eye can detect.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 17, 2003
    #15
  16. DJC737

    Christian Guest

    takeone wrote:

    > I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?


    This has already been answered but I'll add two points which haven't been
    made yet.

    First, a lot of people will just tell you to divide the length and width (in
    pixels) of the output image (3072 x 2048) by 300 (or whatever dpi you want
    to print at) to work out how big a given camera can print but this is
    really nonsense because of the ability to rescale ("resample" or
    "interpolate") the digital image. I doubled the size of some 10D images
    the other day and the amount of detail it captured was quite incredible.
    So basically, you can make pretty large prints with a 6MP DSLR -- not as
    big as MF or as with a 1Ds but still, probably as large as most people will
    ever want.

    However, there is an inherent limitation no one has mentioned yet and that
    is the quality of the image being captured to begin with. Obviously lower
    ISOs have higher signal to noise ratios but other factors include the
    quality of the lens (don't expect miracles from the kit lens!) and your
    technique (suitable shutter speed, use of a tripod and mirror-lockup, which
    the 300D doesn't have, etc.). If you use low ISOs and perfect technique
    with good lenses then you can probably make some very large prints.
    Otherwise you're definitely going to be limited at some point.
     
    Christian, Nov 17, 2003
    #16
  17. In article <mzOtb.83$>,
    "takeone" <> wrote:

    > I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Take One
    >
    >


    I have a Nikon D100 among others, not a Canon, but similar pixel count.
    With good post-processing technique, an excellent taking lens and
    shooting "raw" you can get very acceptable 20x30 inch prints, that at
    normal viewing distance look very, very good, and much smoother than
    anything from a scanned 35mm slide or negative. The grain of 35mm will
    definately show itself at that print size. With digital there is no
    grain visible, the image is smooth.

    You do need to interpolate resolution up, which can be done in
    photoshop, or when you use a high quality RIP to drive your printer
    (done automatically).
    And of course you need to apply some amount of "unsharp mask" or other
    "sharpening" processes. (Fred Miranda's Actions for PHotoshop)

    I am more satisfied with my 20x30" prints from digital than I ever have
    been with 35mm film. It's the lack of grain, and the smoothness of the
    image.

    I may start an argument here, but I think you have to look beyond
    absolute pixels here, when evaluating the final print. It is what the
    print looks like that counts, not how many original pixels were used to
    capture the image. With a 6 mp digital SLR you can shoot (with an
    excellent lens) images that can reveal more details than can be seen
    with 35mm film, due to the average film's grain obscuring things.

    Just like with film, to achieve the best quality prints, you need to
    become skilled at the processing of the images and the printing of them,
    and not rely on an outside printing service, unless they are very very
    skilled at the art of making big prints from digital.

    Gene McCluney
     
    Gene McCluney, Nov 17, 2003
    #17
  18. DJC737

    Crownfield Guest

    Christian wrote:
    >
    > takeone wrote:
    >
    > > I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > > film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?

    >
    > This has already been answered but I'll add two points which haven't been
    > made yet.
    >
    > First, a lot of people will just tell you to divide the length and width (in
    > pixels) of the output image (3072 x 2048) by 300 (or whatever dpi you want
    > to print at) to work out how big a given camera can print but this is
    > really nonsense because of the ability to rescale ("resample" or
    > "interpolate") the digital image. I doubled the size of some 10D images
    > the other day and the amount of detail it captured was quite incredible.


    as long as we agree that you can not upsample
    and get any more detail than you started with.

    for comparison,
    the images you see on the side of a bus may be made at 72 ppi.


    > So basically, you can make pretty large prints with a 6MP DSLR -- not as
    > big as MF or as with a 1Ds but still, probably as large as most people will
    > ever want.
    >
    > However, there is an inherent limitation no one has mentioned yet and that
    > is the quality of the image being captured to begin with. Obviously lower
    > ISOs have higher signal to noise ratios but other factors include the
    > quality of the lens (don't expect miracles from the kit lens!) and your
    > technique (suitable shutter speed, use of a tripod and mirror-lockup, which
    > the 300D doesn't have, etc.). If you use low ISOs and perfect technique
    > with good lenses then you can probably make some very large prints.
    > Otherwise you're definitely going to be limited at some point.
     
    Crownfield, Nov 17, 2003
    #18
  19. DJC737

    Crownfield Guest

    VT wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:35:14 GMT, "takeone"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I'm considering the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What is the largest
    > >film-quality print that can be made from this 6.3 megapixel camera?
    > >

    >
    > For critical viewing 300ppi (pixels per inch) print densisty
    > resolution is needed.


    only if you are going to hold the print at the same distance
    you would hold a 8x10, or an ansel adams book.

    >
    > The Canon Digital Rebel has 3072x2048 pixels -
    > so @300ppi that's 10.24"x 6.8".
    >
    > However with larger prints and typical larger normal viewing distances
    > the print density/resolution may not be as stringent. Also the
    > concensus here for quite a while is that 200ppi is good enough for
    > true photo quality prints (especially when using home inkjet photo
    > printers) -
    > this means @200ppi the largest print size is now: 15.4" x 10.25".
    >
    > Probably your best best is to download a typical test sample image
    > from the Canon Digital Rebel and print to larger and larger sizes
    > until you find the point where the print would be UNacceptable to you.
    >
    > --
    > Vincent
    > remove CLOTHES for e-mail
    >
    > http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
     
    Crownfield, Nov 17, 2003
    #19
  20. DJC737

    takeone Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:bp92md$g0j$...

    > People who know and love MF, love it for two reasons: the detail and the
    > lack of grain. 6MP digital, when combined with good technique, can deliver
    > that lack of grain at _any_ size. Even medium format turns grainy at some
    > size.
    >


    When you compare 6MP digital to MF, do you mean prints viewed from a
    distance, or examined closely with a loupe?

    Take One
     
    takeone, Nov 17, 2003
    #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. Bun Mui
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    840
    Phantom
    Sep 13, 2004
  2. Brian C. Baird

    The Human Eye: 120 Megapixel Monochrome, 6 Megapixel Color

    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    4,115
    Dave Haynie
    Jun 17, 2004
  3. Mark

    5 Megapixel VS. 4 Megapixel camera

    Mark, Mar 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    625
    Paul H.
    Mar 9, 2005
  4. Vik Rubenfeld

    URL for 4 megapixel vs. 7 megapixel Comparison Shots?

    Vik Rubenfeld, Sep 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    411
    Vik Rubenfeld
    Sep 26, 2005
  5. chumpy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    753
    Ron Hunter
    Nov 9, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page