Re: Photo resolution translation into size of print

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cyrus Chvala, Jul 10, 2003.

  1. Cyrus Chvala

    Cyrus Chvala Guest

    It's all in how it is percieved. I used to have a 1.3Mp camera which
    comes out as a 1024 X 768 image. Print that to a 4 X 6 inch photo and
    you get 170 dpi. I printed a lot of pictures like that and almost
    everyone I showed them to thought they were great. But I noticed that
    it was slightly pixilated. But you couldn't see it unless the picture
    was about 6 inches from your nose. The pixilation was most noticeable
    with wisps of hair. When I try to point it out to the ordinary person
    they couldn't see it even if I point at the picture where I saw the
    problem. Now I am near sighted and can read small print very
    comfortably which is not the norm. I suspect that most people just
    aren't trained to see the difference which is fine. If they see a
    great picture then it is a great picture even if I see something
    different.
    Cyrus Chvala, Jul 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cyrus Chvala

    BF Guest

    I agree. I am very critical and want everything as perfect as it can be but
    most people don't care or just don't know what good is. Nothing against
    them, but what looks good to them might look terrible to me, but if they are
    satisfied then that is all that really matters. I encourage people to look
    at my pictures very close and try to find problems. A couple times they
    found things that I missed which I think is great because it means that I
    still have a way to go to achieve perfection, at least what I consider to be
    perfection.






    "Cyrus Chvala" <> wrote in message
    news:3f0d6b18.89204469@nntp...
    > It's all in how it is percieved. I used to have a 1.3Mp camera which
    > comes out as a 1024 X 768 image. Print that to a 4 X 6 inch photo and
    > you get 170 dpi. I printed a lot of pictures like that and almost
    > everyone I showed them to thought they were great. But I noticed that
    > it was slightly pixilated. But you couldn't see it unless the picture
    > was about 6 inches from your nose. The pixilation was most noticeable
    > with wisps of hair. When I try to point it out to the ordinary person
    > they couldn't see it even if I point at the picture where I saw the
    > problem. Now I am near sighted and can read small print very
    > comfortably which is not the norm. I suspect that most people just
    > aren't trained to see the difference which is fine. If they see a
    > great picture then it is a great picture even if I see something
    > different.
    BF, Jul 10, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cyrus Chvala

    Guest

    In message <3f0d6b18.89204469@nntp>,
    (Cyrus Chvala) wrote:

    >It's all in how it is percieved. I used to have a 1.3Mp camera which
    >comes out as a 1024 X 768 image.


    1.3mp is 1280*960 pixels. 1024*768 is 0.8mp.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jul 10, 2003
    #3
    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:
    800
    Phantom
    Sep 13, 2004
  2. Steven M. Scharf

    D-SLR Sensor Resolution and Sensor Size Comparison Size Matters!

    Steven M. Scharf, May 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    5,425
    Georgette Preddy
    May 16, 2004
  3. jersie0
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    485
    Ron Baird
    Oct 22, 2004
  4. Deep Thought
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    546
    birdman
    Aug 22, 2005
  5. Marc Wossner

    Resolution and print size

    Marc Wossner, Jan 23, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    842
    Marc Wossner
    Jan 28, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page