Kodak - Print Quality - Interesting Implication

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by VT, Nov 14, 2003.

  1. VT

    VT Guest

    On this comparison page of Kodak digicams:

    http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/19/453&pq-locale=en_US

    Kodak claims
    both 4Mp and 5Mp are capable of maximum print sizes of 20"x30"
    3Mp is capable of max print size of 11"x14"
    2Mp is capable of max print size of 8"x10"

    This means:

    4Mp 20"x30" @ 76ppi to 85ppi
    5Mp 20"x30" @ 85ppi to 98ppi

    3Mp 11"x14" @ 140ppi to 146ppi
    2Mp 8"x10" @ 150ppi to 160ppi

    Perhaps with larger prints the viewing distances are correspondingly
    larger so the the ppi density is not quite as critical?
    Or perhaps the newer resampling technologies used in commerical
    digital printing are allowing lower ppi for smooth (non-jaggie)
    prints?

    Any comments?
    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHES for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    VT, Nov 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. VT

    Tom J. Guest

    They are not talking about raw pixels.

    "VT" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On this comparison page of Kodak digicams:
    >
    >

    http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/19/453&pq-locale=en_U
    S
    >
    > Kodak claims
    > both 4Mp and 5Mp are capable of maximum print sizes of 20"x30"
    > 3Mp is capable of max print size of 11"x14"
    > 2Mp is capable of max print size of 8"x10"
    >
    > This means:
    >
    > 4Mp 20"x30" @ 76ppi to 85ppi
    > 5Mp 20"x30" @ 85ppi to 98ppi
    >
    > 3Mp 11"x14" @ 140ppi to 146ppi
    > 2Mp 8"x10" @ 150ppi to 160ppi
    >
    > Perhaps with larger prints the viewing distances are correspondingly
    > larger so the the ppi density is not quite as critical?
    > Or perhaps the newer resampling technologies used in commerical
    > digital printing are allowing lower ppi for smooth (non-jaggie)
    > prints?
    >
    > Any comments?
    > --
    > Vincent
    > remove CLOTHES for e-mail
    >
    > http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    Tom J., Nov 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. VT

    Darrell Guest

    "VT" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On this comparison page of Kodak digicams:
    >
    >

    http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/19/453&pq-locale=en_US
    >
    > Kodak claims
    > both 4Mp and 5Mp are capable of maximum print sizes of 20"x30"
    > 3Mp is capable of max print size of 11"x14"
    > 2Mp is capable of max print size of 8"x10"
    >
    > This means:
    >
    > 4Mp 20"x30" @ 76ppi to 85ppi
    > 5Mp 20"x30" @ 85ppi to 98ppi
    >
    > 3Mp 11"x14" @ 140ppi to 146ppi
    > 2Mp 8"x10" @ 150ppi to 160ppi
    >
    > Perhaps with larger prints the viewing distances are correspondingly
    > larger so the the ppi density is not quite as critical?
    > Or perhaps the newer resampling technologies used in commerical
    > digital printing are allowing lower ppi for smooth (non-jaggie)
    > prints?
    >
    > Any comments?
    > --

    I recall when I was at photo school back in 1974 (no I wasn't taught by
    Fox-Talbot!) the viewing distance of a print should be at least twice it's
    diagonal, so a 20x30" print. The diagonal of a 20x30 print is 36"x2 72" so
    at 6 feet it probably is adequate. Mind you a 20x30" print from a 4x5" neg
    is about the same as 6x7.5" from 35mm
    Darrell, Nov 14, 2003
    #3
  4. VT

    Darrell Guest

    Darrell, Nov 14, 2003
    #4
  5. VT

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Kodak - Print Quality - Interesting Implication
    >From: VT
    >Date: 11/14/03 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <>
    >
    >On this comparison page of Kodak digicams:
    >
    >http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/19/453&pq-locale=en_US
    >
    >Kodak claims
    >both 4Mp and 5Mp are capable of maximum print sizes of 20"x30"
    >3Mp is capable of max print size of 11"x14"
    >2Mp is capable of max print size of 8"x10"
    >
    >This means:
    >
    >4Mp 20"x30" @ 76ppi to 85ppi
    >5Mp 20"x30" @ 85ppi to 98ppi
    >
    >3Mp 11"x14" @ 140ppi to 146ppi
    >2Mp 8"x10" @ 150ppi to 160ppi
    >
    >Perhaps with larger prints the viewing distances are correspondingly
    >larger so the the ppi density is not quite as critical?
    >Or perhaps the newer resampling technologies used in commerical
    >digital printing are allowing lower ppi for smooth (non-jaggie)
    >prints?
    >
    >Any comments?
    >--
    >Vincent
    >remove CLOTHES for e-mail
    >
    >http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/



    Good chart. Thanks for posting it.

    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 14, 2003
    #5
  6. VT

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Re: Kodak - Print Quality - Interesting Implication
    >From: " Darrell"
    >Date: 11/14/03 10:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <4u9tb.62804$>
    >
    >
    >"VT" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On this comparison page of Kodak digicams:
    >>
    >>

    >http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/19/453&pq-locale=en_US
    >>
    >> Kodak claims
    >> both 4Mp and 5Mp are capable of maximum print sizes of 20"x30"
    >> 3Mp is capable of max print size of 11"x14"
    >> 2Mp is capable of max print size of 8"x10"
    >>

    >They did say maximum size, not best quality ;)
    >
    >
    >



    Best quality in every case would be 2x3 inches. :)->)

    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 14, 2003
    #6
  7. VT

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Kodak is being "optimistic"
    I've printed 8x10 from 3 megapixels and at a good viewing distance (Not
    minimum distance but where the eye can see the entire print) it is barely
    acceptable.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "VT" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On this comparison page of Kodak digicams:
    >
    >

    http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/19/453&pq-locale=en_U
    S
    >
    > Kodak claims
    > both 4Mp and 5Mp are capable of maximum print sizes of 20"x30"
    > 3Mp is capable of max print size of 11"x14"
    > 2Mp is capable of max print size of 8"x10"
    >
    > This means:
    >
    > 4Mp 20"x30" @ 76ppi to 85ppi
    > 5Mp 20"x30" @ 85ppi to 98ppi
    >
    > 3Mp 11"x14" @ 140ppi to 146ppi
    > 2Mp 8"x10" @ 150ppi to 160ppi
    >
    > Perhaps with larger prints the viewing distances are correspondingly
    > larger so the the ppi density is not quite as critical?
    > Or perhaps the newer resampling technologies used in commerical
    > digital printing are allowing lower ppi for smooth (non-jaggie)
    > prints?
    >
    > Any comments?
    > --
    > Vincent
    > remove CLOTHES for e-mail
    >
    > http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    Tony Spadaro, Nov 14, 2003
    #7
  8. VT

    VT Guest

    On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:02:51 GMT, "Tony Spadaro"
    <> wrote:

    >Kodak is being "optimistic"
    > I've printed 8x10 from 3 megapixels and at a good viewing distance (Not
    >minimum distance but where the eye can see the entire print) it is barely
    >acceptable.



    When digicams first came out there was talk of 300ppi being required
    for true photographic prints.

    At around the 2-3Mp height people seemed to home in on about 200ppi as
    the concensus for photo quality prints.

    I expected with the increase of Mp in digicams to 4, 5, 6 and now 8Mp
    for that figure to become more demanding back to 240 to 300ppi -

    so I was taken a little aback by Kodak's take on this.

    Now having said that I have used a 2Mp digicam for some years and
    depending on the subject - it often produces very good 10x8 - not all
    the time - but for a 1/2 length portrait or better - 2Mp seems
    adequate -
    3/4 to full length starts showing image breakdown like in the details
    in the hands, fingers -
    3Mp does better - but again there is one "best" 2Mp 10x8 print that I
    have yet to top.............

    So I still think 300ppi is needed fror critical (nose-to-paper)
    viewing - but for less demanding viewing at greater distances this can
    be relaxed to 200ppi or even 150ppi -
    I think 75 to 90-ppi really is only meant for poster sized prints
    viewed at poster type distances........(with poster type quality)
    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHES for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    VT, Nov 14, 2003
    #8
  9. VT

    Alan Browne Guest

    VT wrote:

    > On this comparison page of Kodak digicams:
    >
    > http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/19/453&pq-locale=en_US
    >
    > Kodak claims
    > both 4Mp and 5Mp are capable of maximum print sizes of 20"x30"




    What counts is in a wide specturm of cases, how well a quality print can
    be made and viewed at a reasonable distance (about twice the diagonal is
    one definition of 'reasonable distance'). If, at a reasonable distance,
    the tonal gradations appear smooth, no high contrast 'halos' appear and
    there is an absence of jaggies, then it may very well be acceptable.

    (Also need to look at the printers in use.)

    Don't accept Kodak's word for what _you_ should accept. You need to see
    it for yourself. And if you look at a low number of samples, then you
    are taking a risk.

    Alan.
    Alan Browne, Nov 14, 2003
    #9
  10. VT

    Ed Kirstein Guest

    It somewhat depends on the camera. My old Olympus C-2020 at 2 mp makes
    beautiful 8x10's on a bubblejet/inkjet type printer, but some of the other
    cameras of the era, like the Casio's were pretty jagged at that printing
    size. In fact, I have had 2 shots from the C-2020 made into 16 x 20's by
    Clubphoto.com and they have very good detail, sharpness and no jaggies.

    Ed

    "VT" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On this comparison page of Kodak digicams:
    >
    >

    http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/19/453&pq-locale=en_US
    >
    > Kodak claims
    > both 4Mp and 5Mp are capable of maximum print sizes of 20"x30"
    > 3Mp is capable of max print size of 11"x14"
    > 2Mp is capable of max print size of 8"x10"
    >
    > This means:
    >
    > 4Mp 20"x30" @ 76ppi to 85ppi
    > 5Mp 20"x30" @ 85ppi to 98ppi
    >
    > 3Mp 11"x14" @ 140ppi to 146ppi
    > 2Mp 8"x10" @ 150ppi to 160ppi
    >
    > Perhaps with larger prints the viewing distances are correspondingly
    > larger so the the ppi density is not quite as critical?
    > Or perhaps the newer resampling technologies used in commerical
    > digital printing are allowing lower ppi for smooth (non-jaggie)
    > prints?
    >
    > Any comments?
    > --
    > Vincent
    > remove CLOTHES for e-mail
    >
    > http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    Ed Kirstein, Nov 14, 2003
    #10
  11. VT

    Ray Fischer Guest

    VT <> wrote:
    >On this comparison page of Kodak digicams:
    >
    >http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/19/453&pq-locale=en_US
    >
    >Kodak claims
    >both 4Mp and 5Mp are capable of maximum print sizes of 20"x30"
    >3Mp is capable of max print size of 11"x14"
    >2Mp is capable of max print size of 8"x10"


    Ummm, okay. Not wholly unreasonable.

    >This means:
    >
    >4Mp 20"x30" @ 76ppi to 85ppi
    >5Mp 20"x30" @ 85ppi to 98ppi


    Don't care.

    >Perhaps with larger prints the viewing distances are correspondingly
    >larger so the the ppi density is not quite as critical?


    Perhaps it depends greatly upon the photograph taken. A scene with a
    lot of fine detail will not look as good enlarged as one with gradual
    transitions.

    Can you print a 2MP image at 8"x10" and have it look good?
    Sure! Can you print a 2MP image at 8"x10" and have it look
    like crap? Sure!

    >Or perhaps the newer resampling technologies used in commerical
    >digital printing are allowing lower ppi for smooth (non-jaggie)
    >prints?


    Your fundamental mistake is in assuming that marketing weenies do
    anything resembling a mathematical analysis. It's wholly subjective.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Nov 15, 2003
    #11
  12. VT

    Ron Baird Guest

    Greetings again VT,

    Actually, the Pixels Per Inch (PPI) is relative to the application that
    opens the image, which is generally 72 Dots Per Inch (DPI) for all of the
    KODAK Consumer Digital Cameras. If the image needs to be resized exactly
    for the printer, using ADOBE PhotoShop or ADOBE Elements, or even shareware
    off the web is needed to accomplish this.

    To figure out what size a print will be relative to DPI, for whatever DPI is
    desired, divide the resolution by the DPI. The result will be the size (in
    inches) and the image can be printed at that DPI without loosing resolution.

    Examples of size differences between 72 DPI and 300 DPI relative to PPI.

    Resolution or PPI

    2240 x 1500
    1792 x 1200
    1440 x 960
    720 x 480

    Image size at 72

    31.111 x 20 inches
    24.889 x 16.667 inches
    20 x 13.333 inches
    10 x 6.667 inches

    DPI Image size at 300 DPI

    7.467 x 5 inches
    5.973 x 4 inches
    4.8 x 3.2 inches
    2.4 x 1.6 inches

    Also, I have found that a review of the differences between resolution, PPI,
    and DPI, are well explained on the Kodak site as well as others. I have
    also found that for a better understanding of resolution, I often direct
    friends and others to an excellent article on the subject. Try visiting the
    Digital Dog website

    http://digitaldog.net/files/Resolution.pdf

    On that resulting page you will find an article by ANDREW RODNEY called
    "Resolution." It will help in your understand more about resolution in
    general and how it applies to digital imaging. As you will note it is an
    Acrobat file so you will need a Reader installed to your browser. Good
    information.

    Let me know what you think after reviewing this message and the site.

    Talk to you soon,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    "VT" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:02:51 GMT, "Tony Spadaro"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Kodak is being "optimistic"
    > > I've printed 8x10 from 3 megapixels and at a good viewing distance (Not
    > >minimum distance but where the eye can see the entire print) it is barely
    > >acceptable.

    >
    >
    > When digicams first came out there was talk of 300ppi being required
    > for true photographic prints.
    >
    > At around the 2-3Mp height people seemed to home in on about 200ppi as
    > the concensus for photo quality prints.
    >
    > I expected with the increase of Mp in digicams to 4, 5, 6 and now 8Mp
    > for that figure to become more demanding back to 240 to 300ppi -
    >
    > so I was taken a little aback by Kodak's take on this.
    >
    > Now having said that I have used a 2Mp digicam for some years and
    > depending on the subject - it often produces very good 10x8 - not all
    > the time - but for a 1/2 length portrait or better - 2Mp seems
    > adequate -
    > 3/4 to full length starts showing image breakdown like in the details
    > in the hands, fingers -
    > 3Mp does better - but again there is one "best" 2Mp 10x8 print that I
    > have yet to top.............
    >
    > So I still think 300ppi is needed fror critical (nose-to-paper)
    > viewing - but for less demanding viewing at greater distances this can
    > be relaxed to 200ppi or even 150ppi -
    > I think 75 to 90-ppi really is only meant for poster sized prints
    > viewed at poster type distances........(with poster type quality)
    > --
    > Vincent
    > remove CLOTHES for e-mail
    >
    > http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    Ron Baird, Nov 17, 2003
    #12
    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:
    789
    Phantom
    Sep 13, 2004
  2. N.E.1.
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    756
    Phil Stripling
    Sep 23, 2003
  3. Desmond
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    831
    Bob D.
    Sep 27, 2003
  4. PTRAVEL

    Interesting Large-size Print Experiment

    PTRAVEL, Jan 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    391
  5. Tom G

    Interesting Kodak promo on YouTube

    Tom G, Jan 26, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    316
    Hap Shaughnessy
    Jan 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page