Pixels and image size ....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll, Sep 18, 2003.

  1. I read an article on the Nikon D1 camera the other day. I read that the 2000
    X 1312 pixels that the D1 provides cannot provide a decent 8 x 10 photo?. A
    5 x 7 would be the best you could enlarge for a decent photo. I never
    produce more than a 5 X 7 anyway but owning a D1 camera, I became a bit
    curious. I took a picture - " RAW" approx 2 meg - and saved it to a cd
    rom. Went to the local developer and had a 8 x 10 made and it came out
    great. What is a suffieciant pixel range" technically" to get a decent 8 X
    10 photo?.
     
    lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll, Sep 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll

    Jim Townsend Guest

    lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll wrote:

    > I read an article on the Nikon D1 camera the other day. I read that the 2000
    > X 1312 pixels that the D1 provides cannot provide a decent 8 x 10 photo?.


    I don't know what article you were reading, but the number of pixels required
    for a good photo is very subjective..

    I had an old Canon S100 2 megapixel camera.. It produced 1600x1200 pixel files
    and I found the 8x10 prints I made with it were reasonable at arms length. I
    now have a 6 megapixel Canon 10D and I don't see a huge difference between
    prints.

    > What is a suffieciant pixel range" technically" to get a decent 8 X
    > 10 photo?.


    Again.. It's a subjective thing.. The 'rule' of thumb says you should have
    around 300 pixels per inch.. So at 8x10, you're looking at an image that is
    2400 x 3000.. or 7.2 Megapixels.

    In reality, you should get by OK with a 3 or 4 megapixel camera. And in fact..
    most of us do :)
     
    Jim Townsend, Sep 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll" <> wrote in
    message news:JFoab.12212$...
    > I read an article on the Nikon D1 camera the other day. I read that the

    2000
    > X 1312 pixels that the D1 provides cannot provide a decent 8 x 10 photo?.

    A
    > 5 x 7 would be the best you could enlarge for a decent photo. I never
    > produce more than a 5 X 7 anyway but owning a D1 camera, I became a bit
    > curious. I took a picture - " RAW" approx 2 meg - and saved it to a cd
    > rom. Went to the local developer and had a 8 x 10 made and it came out
    > great. What is a suffieciant pixel range" technically" to get a decent 8 X
    > 10 photo?.


    The D1 is a professional tool, and hence produces high quality images
    despite the low resolution. Resolution ain't the be all and end all,
    especially with DSLRs.
    Traditionally the ideal resolution of a file is around 300dpi. So an
    8x12in image at 300dpi is 3600 pixels by 2400 pixels, or 8.64 million
    pixels. An A4 (297mmx210mm) image is 8.69 megapixels, and an 8x10" print is
    7.2 megapixels. Currently the only cameras capable of fulfilling these
    resolutions are the Kodak DCS-14n and the Canon EOS 1Ds, although the
    forthcoming Sony F828 will beat the 8x10 res and come close to 8x12 and A4.
    Of course, if your viewing distance is greater, or your eyesight worse,
    or if you just aren't that picky, a lower resolution print will likely give
    you perfectly usable prints

    --
    Martin
    Staring at C:\ prompts since 1993
     
    Martin Francis, Sep 18, 2003
    #3
  4. lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll

    Alan F Cross Guest

    In message <JFoab.12212$>, lll llllllll
    lll lllllllllllll <> writes
    >I read an article on the Nikon D1 camera the other day. I read that the 2000
    >X 1312 pixels that the D1 provides cannot provide a decent 8 x 10 photo?. A
    >5 x 7 would be the best you could enlarge for a decent photo. I never
    >produce more than a 5 X 7 anyway but owning a D1 camera, I became a bit
    >curious. I took a picture - " RAW" approx 2 meg - and saved it to a cd
    >rom. Went to the local developer and had a 8 x 10 made and it came out
    >great. What is a suffieciant pixel range" technically" to get a decent 8 X
    >10 photo?.
    >
    >


    It's generally accepted that you'll get a perfectly good image at 180
    dpi. If you do the sums you'll find that 2000 x 1312 pixels should be
    good for 11 x 7. A 10x8 is near enough to make no difference.

    With some subjects you'll not need that much resolution. Also with some
    new sharpening products you can get away with less (though you will want
    to up-sample before printing).
    --
    Alan F Cross
     
    Alan F Cross, Sep 18, 2003
    #4
  5. lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll

    Bill Guest

    I agree with the other replies. Resolution is not the only factor in making
    a good print. A 3MP image taken with a quality camera (good lens) and a
    lower ISO (less noise) can yield a very good 8x10. But the quality also
    depends largely on the printer...........what printing algorithm it uses,
    what inks, and what kind of photo paper. I have printed both 3MP and 6MP
    images on both my HP and a friend's Epson, and they all look fine. I saw
    very little difference inthe 3MP and 6MP files........at 8x10. Thre 11x17
    did look slightly better with the 6MP file, but normally I shoot in 3MP
    unless I know I want a larger print.
    Hope this helps.
    Bill

    "lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll" <> wrote in
    message news:JFoab.12212$...
    > I read an article on the Nikon D1 camera the other day. I read that the

    2000
    > X 1312 pixels that the D1 provides cannot provide a decent 8 x 10 photo?.

    A
    > 5 x 7 would be the best you could enlarge for a decent photo. I never
    > produce more than a 5 X 7 anyway but owning a D1 camera, I became a bit
    > curious. I took a picture - " RAW" approx 2 meg - and saved it to a cd
    > rom. Went to the local developer and had a 8 x 10 made and it came out
    > great. What is a suffieciant pixel range" technically" to get a decent 8 X
    > 10 photo?.
    >
    >
     
    Bill, Sep 19, 2003
    #5
  6. lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Not only is it subjective and vary from person to person, it also
    depends on subject matter.

    Jim Townsend wrote:
    >
    >
    > I don't know what article you were reading, but the number of pixels required
    > for a good photo is very subjective..
    >


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Sep 19, 2003
    #6
  7. lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll

    Guest

    In message <EEBab.184911$xf.42051@lakeread04>,
    "Bill" <> wrote:

    >I have printed both 3MP and 6MP
    >images on both my HP and a friend's Epson, and they all look fine. I saw
    >very little difference inthe 3MP and 6MP files........at 8x10. Thre 11x17
    >did look slightly better with the 6MP file, but normally I shoot in 3MP
    >unless I know I want a larger print.


    At 11*17, did the 6mp images look better to you because of more detail
    in the image, or because there was less pixellation?

    The reason I ask is because not every lens is going to resolve a full
    6mp worth of data, as the sensor oversamples the lens.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Sep 23, 2003
    #7
  8. lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll

    Jack Yeazel Guest

    Martin Francis wrote:

    > The D1 is a professional tool, and hence produces high quality images
    > despite the low resolution. Resolution ain't the be all and end all,
    > especially with DSLRs.
    > Traditionally the ideal resolution of a file is around 300dpi. So an
    > 8x12in image at 300dpi is 3600 pixels by 2400 pixels, or 8.64 million
    > pixels.


    I like your analysis of the number of pixels in an acceptable 8x12 print...
    However, it's 8.64 million 'dots' -not pixels, but I won't argue, because it
    takes several dots (don't know how many) to print one pixel... Maybe somebody
    can tell us...???

    Once one tries to print this picture as a 5x7 and retain the same number of
    pixels, the PRINTER becomes the limiting factor...

    I did a few tests with some friend's printers to see how this would come out at:
    http://www.gpsinformation.org/jack/Printer-Test/printer-prints.html

    The test target to be printed is 955 ppi, so for an 8x12 that would be 87.5
    million pixels...
    Thus printing the test target to determine how many line widths per mm the
    printer can resolve will stress any printer I know of!

    The test target (on the Procedure page) is only about 4x6, so it doesn't take
    'all day' to print...

    JY
     
    Jack Yeazel, Sep 23, 2003
    #8
  9. lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Jack Yeazel <> wrote:

    >I like your analysis of the number of pixels in an acceptable 8x12 print...
    >However, it's 8.64 million 'dots' -not pixels, but I won't argue, because it
    >takes several dots (don't know how many) to print one pixel... Maybe somebody
    >can tell us...???


    If the printer is using error diffusion, there is no dots-2-pixel
    correlation. It's all about average weights in sub-dot distances.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Sep 23, 2003
    #9
  10. lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll

    Jack Yeazel Guest

    Jack Yeazel wrote:
    >
    > Martin Francis wrote:
    >
    > > The D1 is a professional tool, and hence produces high quality images
    > > despite the low resolution. Resolution ain't the be all and end all,
    > > especially with DSLRs.
    > > Traditionally the ideal resolution of a file is around 300dpi. So an
    > > 8x12in image at 300dpi is 3600 pixels by 2400 pixels, or 8.64 million
    > > pixels.

    >
    > I like your analysis of the number of pixels in an acceptable 8x12 print...
    > However, it's 8.64 million 'dots' -not pixels, but I won't argue, because it
    > takes several dots (don't know how many) to print one pixel... Maybe somebody
    > can tell us...???


    On second thought, I believe Martin means 300 pixels per inch... Photoshop
    imports Fuji and Nikon pics at that "resolution", but for a Kodak 260, it 72
    ppi... I'm thinking it completely arbitrary and has no reality to pixels per
    inch... Someone on the news group explained it's a throwback to a previous
    printer standard...

    In Photoshop, changing the ppi results in a change in the size of the print -so
    that the total number of pixels doesn't change... Increasing the ppi puts more
    'challenge' to the printer's ability to not lose any of the original picture's
    resolution...

    Thus the test target in: http://www.gpsinformation.org/jack/printer-tests.html
    (having 955 ppi) will put any printer 'to the test'... "955" was chosen to give
    the test target an exact 1-to-1 relationship of the resolution numbers on the
    target to the printed line-widths per mm... So far, no printer has been able to
    print "20x20"...

    JY
     
    Jack Yeazel, Sep 23, 2003
    #10
  11. lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Jack Yeazel wrote:

    > I like your analysis of the number of pixels in an acceptable 8x12 print...
    > However, it's 8.64 million 'dots' -not pixels, but I won't argue, because it
    > takes several dots (don't know how many) to print one pixel... Maybe
    > somebody can tell us...???


    If you take a picture of a featurless perfectly white wall, and overexpose it a
    touch for good measure, then obtain a 4 megapixel image from it and print that
    image at 8 inches x 10 inches......

    Not ONE drop of ink will touch the paper.. There is no white ink in the
    average inkjet.. So a white image at 300 pixels per inch will result in an
    image with *no* dots per inch.

    In other words.. Don't bother with ink dots :) It's too complicated. Just set
    your printer to print at it's maximum resolution. There is no easy way to
    determine a direct correlation between camera pixels and printer dots.

    Just give your printer lots of pixels per inch.. The printer will take care of
    the ink dots on paper.
     
    Jim Townsend, Sep 24, 2003
    #11
    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. Mark Grady
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    898
  2. Desmond
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    932
    Bob D.
    Sep 27, 2003
  3. PeterH

    Pixels v Jpeg File Size v Print Size??

    PeterH, Jan 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    15,245
    Don Stauffer
    Jan 18, 2004
  4. News

    Image resolution and picture size (in pixels)

    News, Jun 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    427
  5. stu7

    pixels / pixel size / sensor size

    stu7, Apr 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    640
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page