File size for poster

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steve B, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. Steve B

    Steve B Guest

    What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    format?

    Steve
    Steve B, Jan 4, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve B

    Rob Guest

    On 4/01/2013 3:02 PM, Steve B wrote:
    > What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    > too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    > format?
    >
    > Steve
    >
    >


    I print at a 200dpi resolution - you can print at 100dpi but thats
    pushing it.
    Rob, Jan 4, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <kc5k7r$rj1$>, Steve B <>
    wrote:

    > What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    > too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    > format?


    the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    of quality you want.

    you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
    not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
    poster.

    a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
    maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
    ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
    be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).
    nospam, Jan 4, 2013
    #3
  4. Steve B

    Rob Guest

    On 4/01/2013 4:04 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kc5k7r$rj1$>, Steve B <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    >> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    >> format?

    >
    > the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    > that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    > of quality you want.
    >
    > you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
    > not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
    > poster.
    >
    > a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
    > maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
    > ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
    > be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).
    >


    Its apparent you don't make prints.
    Rob, Jan 4, 2013
    #4
  5. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <kc6049$mlf$>, Rob
    <> wrote:

    > >> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    > >> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    > >> format?

    > >
    > > the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    > > that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    > > of quality you want.
    > >
    > > you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
    > > not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
    > > poster.
    > >
    > > a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
    > > maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
    > > ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
    > > be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).

    >
    > Its apparent you don't make prints.


    it's apparent you haven't a clue.
    nospam, Jan 4, 2013
    #5
  6. Steve B

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 04/01/2013 05:04, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kc5k7r$rj1$>, Steve B <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    >> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    >> format?


    You don't get "noise" as such unless you do something very silly like
    over compress the source image. You do get sampling artefacts if you
    push things too far in the direction of low numbers of pixels. I would
    not go below 6MP for an image I wanted as a poster and 12MP is better.

    Compression that is any tighter than 1 byte per pixel on average will
    almost certainly introduce some visible artefacts if you know what to
    look for. Some awkward material needs a little bit more space.

    Worth reading the information that your chosen print shop provides on
    suitable image sizes and formats for printing at different sizes.

    > the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    > that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    > of quality you want.
    >
    > you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
    > not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
    > poster.
    >
    > a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
    > maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
    > ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
    > be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).


    For the typical distances that a poster is viewed at you can probably
    get away with something like 6MP for a 24x36" poster print. It will be
    nothing like tack sharp close to but will be fine in a largish room.
    That is about 80ppi. Anything cruder than that will be pushing it.

    It depends to some extent on the subject material as well. Some highly
    periodic material like fences and railings will look awful if you do not
    sample adequately whilst other smoothly changing textures are fine.

    Certain printing processes are more forgiving than others as well so
    there is no single answer to your question only a lower bound. Bigger is
    always better but the improvement for doubling the filesize falls off
    pretty rapidly once the file is big enough for the print size.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Jan 4, 2013
    #6
  7. Steve B

    Rob Guest

    On 4/01/2013 6:29 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kc6049$mlf$>, Rob
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    >>>> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    >>>> format?
    >>>
    >>> the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    >>> that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    >>> of quality you want.
    >>>
    >>> you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
    >>> not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
    >>> poster.
    >>>
    >>> a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
    >>> maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
    >>> ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
    >>> be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).

    >>
    >> Its apparent you don't make prints.

    >
    > it's apparent you haven't a clue.
    >


    What crap you don't make prints.

    Its you that does not have a clue.
    Rob, Jan 4, 2013
    #7
  8. Steve B

    Rob Guest

    On 4/01/2013 4:04 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kc5k7r$rj1$>, Steve B <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    >> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    >> format?

    >
    > the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    > that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    > of quality you want.
    >
    > you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
    > not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
    > poster.
    >
    > a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
    > maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
    > ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
    > be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).
    >



    Printers don't work like that, you ever made a large print - obviously not.
    Rob, Jan 4, 2013
    #8
  9. Steve B

    DanP Guest

    On Friday, January 4, 2013 4:09:46 AM UTC, Rob wrote:
    > On 4/01/2013 3:02 PM, Steve B wrote:
    >
    > > What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    > > too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    > > format?
    > >
    > > Steve
    > >
    > >

    >
    > I print at a 200dpi resolution - you can print at 100dpi but thats
    > pushing it.


    Suppose I want to print really big, a billboard to put on the side of the road.
    160 inch by 80 inch I have in mind.

    What dpi should I use?


    DanP
    DanP, Jan 4, 2013
    #9
  10. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    <> wrote:

    > My only disagreement with nospam is the lower limit of
    > 150 ppi. Probably 120 ppi will work, and there is a
    > good chance that even 100 will be usable.


    close enough. it was an estimate, not a hard limit, and 100 ppi is
    really pushing it, except in the most unusual of images.

    > It depends
    > very much of what kind of detail is in the image. If it
    > has little fine detail like hair or the weave in fabric,
    > and only sharp edges such as on silhouettes, it is
    > actually very possible to get a great print that is only
    > 50 ppi.


    and if it has a lot of detail, then 150 ppi might not be enough.
    chances are it's somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
    nospam, Jan 4, 2013
    #10
  11. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <kc65a5$e1p$>, Rob
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster
    > >>>> without
    > >>>> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    > >>>> format?
    > >>>
    > >>> the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    > >>> that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    > >>> of quality you want.
    > >>>
    > >>> you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
    > >>> not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
    > >>> poster.
    > >>>
    > >>> a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
    > >>> maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
    > >>> ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
    > >>> be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).
    > >>
    > >> Its apparent you don't make prints.

    > >
    > > it's apparent you haven't a clue.

    >
    > What crap you don't make prints.
    >
    > Its you that does not have a clue.


    what bullshit.

    you said to print at 200 dpi, maybe as low as 100 dpi:
    In article <kc5kma$445$>, Rob
    <> wrote:
    > I print at a 200dpi resolution - you can print at 100dpi but thats
    > pushing it.


    first, go learn the difference between dpi and ppi. they're different.

    second, i said to print at 200 ppi, just as you did, except i used the
    correct terminology. the only difference is i gave a lower bound of 150
    rather than 100 (i.e., higher quality).

    in other words, you are basically saying the same thing i did and then
    trying to say i'm the one without a clue??
    nospam, Jan 4, 2013
    #11
  12. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <50e69e2a$>, Rob <>
    wrote:

    > >> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    > >> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    > >> format?

    > >
    > > the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    > > that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    > > of quality you want.
    > >
    > > you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
    > > not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
    > > poster.
    > >
    > > a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
    > > maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
    > > ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
    > > be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).

    >
    > Printers don't work like that, you ever made a large print - obviously not.


    they do work like that.
    nospam, Jan 4, 2013
    #12
  13. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    DanP <> wrote:

    > > > What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    > > > too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    > > > format?

    > >
    > > I print at a 200dpi resolution - you can print at 100dpi but thats
    > > pushing it.

    >
    > Suppose I want to print really big, a billboard to put on the side of the
    > road.
    > 160 inch by 80 inch I have in mind.
    >
    > What dpi should I use?


    ppi, not dpi, and you can go much lower than 200 ppi because it's
    viewed from hundreds of feet.
    nospam, Jan 4, 2013
    #13
  14. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <t4wFs.22583$>, Martin Brown
    <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    > > the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    > > that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    > > of quality you want.
    > >
    > > you need 300 pixels per inch for 'tack sharp' but a poster is generally
    > > not viewed close up so you don't need 300 ppi for a good looking
    > > poster.
    > >
    > > a poster is usually viewed at a distance, so 200 ppi is probably fine,
    > > maybe even 150 ppi depending on the subject, but 150 is pushing it. 200
    > > ppi for a 24x36" would be 34.5 megapixels (4800x7200) and 150 ppi would
    > > be 19.5 megapixels (3600x5400).

    >
    > For the typical distances that a poster is viewed at you can probably
    > get away with something like 6MP for a 24x36" poster print. It will be
    > nothing like tack sharp close to but will be fine in a largish room.
    > That is about 80ppi. Anything cruder than that will be pushing it.


    depends how far away people will view it. 24x36" isn't really that big
    and won't be viewed from that far away, maybe a couple of feet or so,
    most likely. 80 ppi is not going to be particularly good.

    > It depends to some extent on the subject material as well. Some highly
    > periodic material like fences and railings will look awful if you do not
    > sample adequately whilst other smoothly changing textures are fine.


    true. people pictures don't generally need sharp details. landscapes
    often do.

    > Certain printing processes are more forgiving than others as well so
    > there is no single answer to your question only a lower bound. Bigger is
    > always better but the improvement for doubling the filesize falls off
    > pretty rapidly once the file is big enough for the print size.


    also true.
    nospam, Jan 4, 2013
    #14
  15. Steve B

    me Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:19:23 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    wrote:

    >nospam <> writes:
    >
    >> In article <kc5k7r$rj1$>, Steve B <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    >>> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    >>> format?

    >>
    >> the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    >> that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    >> of quality you want.

    >
    >Yes but -- the file size is directly dependent on the number of pixels.



    Directly? Maybe only for an uncompressed raw file. For any type of
    file using compression a more loose function thereof, no?
    me, Jan 4, 2013
    #15
  16. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    > >> What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    > >> too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    > >> format?

    > >
    > > the file size isn't what's important, it's the number of pixels and
    > > that depends on how far away the typical viewer will be and the level
    > > of quality you want.

    >
    > Yes but -- the file size is directly dependent on the number of pixels.


    only if it's uncompressed.

    once you compress it, all bets are off.
    nospam, Jan 4, 2013
    #16
  17. Steve B

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 4 Jan 2013 16:29:34 GMT, ray carter <> wrote:
    : On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 02:59:57 -0800, DanP wrote:
    :
    : > On Friday, January 4, 2013 4:09:46 AM UTC, Rob wrote:
    : >> On 4/01/2013 3:02 PM, Steve B wrote:
    : >>
    : >> > What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster
    : >> > without too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a
    : >> > roughly 24" x 36" format?
    : >> >
    : >> > Steve
    : >> >
    : >> >
    : >> >
    : >> I print at a 200dpi resolution - you can print at 100dpi but thats
    : >> pushing it.
    : >
    : > Suppose I want to print really big, a billboard to put on the side of
    : > the road.
    : > 160 inch by 80 inch I have in mind.
    : >
    : > What dpi should I use?
    : >
    : >
    : > DanP
    :
    : considering that it would not be intended to be viewed at closer than
    : about 50 feet, I should think ab out 25-50 dpi ought to be adequate.

    Last year one of the departments (Water, IIRC) at the city where I work was
    thinking about blowing up some of my pictures to display on the sides of their
    trucks. The idea fizzled when the company that was going to do the
    enlargements told them that my 18Mp shots wouldn't have near enough
    resolution. Trucks may be trickier than billboards, though, because you can't
    count on the viewer being a specified distance away.

    Before one of you guys points out that we could have just rented a Hasselblad,
    the idea was to take advantage of my gallery of stock photos. Taking all new
    pix wouldn't have been feasible. It would have been a fun chance to get my
    impecunious paws on a Hassy, though.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jan 5, 2013
    #17
  18. Steve B

    DanP Guest

    On Friday, January 4, 2013 11:07:42 AM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-04 02:59:57 -0800, DanP <> said:


    > > Suppose I want to print really big, a billboard to put on the side of the road.
    > > 160 inch by 80 inch I have in mind.
    > >
    > > What dpi should I use?
    > >

    >
    > Then consider resizing using Perfect Resize (formerly Genuine Fractals)
    > and depending on your printer, you might have to print sections to
    > assemble as a mosaic.
    >
    > < http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-resize/ >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    You have avoided my trap, any dpi/ppi number would blow the image to a ridiculous size too big to be handled by the average computer, let alone camera.

    Unless you do something fancy like a picture made of individual smaller pictures and need to come close to look, the average camera can handle the size.

    So, anything above 6Mpx would do regardless of size of print. Come too close to a fine big print and you will have no idea what you are looking at and more important, why.


    DanP
    DanP, Jan 5, 2013
    #18
  19. Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On 4 Jan 2013 16:29:34 GMT, ray carter <> wrote:
    > : On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 02:59:57 -0800, DanP wrote:
    > :
    > : > On Friday, January 4, 2013 4:09:46 AM UTC, Rob wrote:
    > : >> On 4/01/2013 3:02 PM, Steve B wrote:
    > : >>
    > : >> > What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster
    > : >> > without too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a
    > : >> > roughly 24" x 36" format?
    > : >> >
    > : >> > Steve
    > : >> >
    > : >> >
    > : >> >
    > : >> I print at a 200dpi resolution - you can print at 100dpi but thats
    > : >> pushing it.
    > : >
    > : > Suppose I want to print really big, a billboard to put on the side of
    > : > the road.
    > : > 160 inch by 80 inch I have in mind.
    > : >
    > : > What dpi should I use?
    > : >
    > : >
    > : > DanP
    > :
    > : considering that it would not be intended to be viewed at closer than
    > : about 50 feet, I should think ab out 25-50 dpi ought to be adequate.


    > Last year one of the departments (Water, IIRC) at the city where I work was
    > thinking about blowing up some of my pictures to display on the sides of their
    > trucks. The idea fizzled when the company that was going to do the
    > enlargements told them that my 18Mp shots wouldn't have near enough
    > resolution. Trucks may be trickier than billboards, though, because you can't
    > count on the viewer being a specified distance away.


    But did they know what they were talking about? I sometimes sell image
    files to people who then go to a printer of their choice to have a
    really big print made. I then get an anguished call from my client
    saying the printer has refused the image file on the grounds that it's
    too small, not enough detail, not enough megapixels, etc.. Please can
    I send them a bigger version of my image?

    I know from past experience that some printers don't understand the
    numbers associated with image files, and simply react ignorantly to
    some silly message some silly software sticks under their noses. So I
    push for more details of the problem.

    In some cases all I do is to re-edit the photograph so that the dpi
    figure in the EXIF is changed from the default 72 that some silly
    editor sticks there to 300dpi. No other change at all. Printer now
    perfectly happy.

    In some case they're confusing MP and jpeg megabyte file size. So I
    just lower the jpeg compression to make the file bigger. No change at
    all to detail resolution, just more colour space refinement that's
    way beyond big poster printing technology anyway.

    Another confusion is dpi and ppi. My point is that to begin with both
    client and printer seem to be telling me that there weren't enough MP
    in my image. But on investigation it's always turned out to be a
    misunderstanding on their part. I've also learned that it's a mistake
    to try to educate them. I just find out by questioning what the
    problem really is, and then I simply say "I'll fix that and send you a
    bigger file", without saying a word that implies there might be any
    misunderstanding or ignorance involved.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 5, 2013
    #19
  20. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > DanP <> writes:


    >> On Friday, January 4, 2013 4:09:46 AM UTC, Rob wrote:
    >>> On 4/01/2013 3:02 PM, Steve B wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > What would be the lowest file size of mp for conversion to a poster without
    >>> > too much noise? And what would such a poster cost in a roughly 24" x 36"
    >>> > format?
    >>> >
    >>> > Steve
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>> I print at a 200dpi resolution - you can print at 100dpi but thats
    >>> pushing it.

    >>
    >> Suppose I want to print really big, a billboard to put on the side of the road.
    >> 160 inch by 80 inch I have in mind.
    >>
    >> What dpi should I use?


    > Serious advice -- talk to the experts, if you really want to. The
    > billboard companies know what works.


    > I've seen material from billboards recycled into bags and such, and I
    > can tell you based on that material that the resolution is about 8
    > pixels per inch.


    > Remember, you see billboards from very far away!


    You can get right up to some of them. If not, all you need is a long
    lens and you can check out the pixel size for yourself.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 5, 2013
    #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. Alfred Molon

    What resolution for poster size prints ?

    Alfred Molon, Oct 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    50,125
    Alfred Molon
    Oct 16, 2003
  2. Asbjørn Bjørnstad

    OT: how many ipd for a poster this size?

    Asbjørn Bjørnstad, Nov 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    341
    Ray Murphy
    Nov 27, 2003
  3. Terry

    increase pixels for poster size?

    Terry, Dec 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    13,931
  4. One4All

    Disconnect Between HD File Size & PS's File Size

    One4All, Sep 9, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    346
    One4All
    Sep 12, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    690
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page