max print size with 6.3 MPixel camera ??

I have a Canon EOS 10D digital camera (6.3 megapixels). Wondering what
is the largest print size I dare try for getting a nice enlarged print.
Info on web seems confusing. I have tried a 12x18 inch enlargment print
and that looks nice. Dare I go to 16x20 or would that be a waste of money?
Image for printing shows up in PhotoShop (actually GIMP as I use Linux
instead of Windows) as a roughly 2000x3000 pixel image. If I want 16x20
prints will I need to think about getting a better digital SLR?

~Beowulf

 

There are no precise standards for this. However, if you can get 300 dpi on the
print, or something close to that, then it ought to be good. Conventional
wisdom is that you ought to be able to do 11x14 or 11x17 prints easily. Once
you get to 16x20 or 16x24, it gets more difficult. If you do some intelligent
interpolation, you can get to 30x40 or larger. I've seen 30x40 prints that were
indistinguishable from film prints, but a lot of interpolation work went into
getting them.

---Bob Gross---

 

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:00:04 +0000, Robertwgross wrote:
,,

Sounds like I might get a somewhat decent 16x20, but I will thing more
along the lines of 12x18 and also think of moving up to a larger megapixel
camera in a year or so as prices come down. I will ask the photofinisher
also to see what they find in their experience-- they are great, they have
equipment to print digital to up to 12x18 on actual photo paper with
actual photo process (not inkjet); beyond 12x18 they use inkjet; they
really seem to have invested in doing quality digital. Hopefully they can
do 16x20, maybe I will try one just to see how far I can push the limits
of my EOS 10D and its 6.3 megapixels.

 

Beowulf,

don't give in all too easily. 6 Megapixels are quite a lot, and
the secret is in the upscaling. Some printer drivers and some
programs using algorithms like Lanczos are doing well (even
IrfanView can do it), but the king of the hill seems to be a
program by Extensis called pxl SmartScale
(www.extensis.com/pxlsmartscale/).

That program not only scales up, it also redraws high-contrast
edges in the higher resolution, so pictures usually look
incredibly good.

If you test the 30 day trial version, please report your results
here. You're not the only one who is interested in this.

Hans-Georg

 

Yup = I was gonna suggest the self same thing: Lanczos in IrfanView (a free
software program) and do a side by side comparison

Perhaps by cropping a small area of the original image and printing at a
smaller page size?

Arts

 

Couldn't I crop a section of one of my 6.3MP images and have it printed
at the local photofinisher to for example even a 5x7 to see how well the
entire image would print to 16x20. Not sure if this makes sense, not sure
how to do the math to pick the right size crop, but it seems to make some
sense logically.

 

You could simply, in Photoshop for example, increase the image size to 16x20
then reduce the canvas size down to 5x7 to get your sample.

 

Yeh - I couldn't be bothered with the math too

Without the words I think we know what we mean

Arts

telepathy will do away with keyboards


ps - it would seem OK doing 16x20 comparisons if you is well-reaourced in
the paper printing department.

Doing interpolation on a crop - a nice crop - might indicate what algorithm
may work best on your system

A

 

Nice Skroob - that sounds even better = no math

would it introduce any losses though?

A

 

Or just use Photoshop CS. I have printed a number of 24x36 prints on my
Epson 7600 from my Nikon D100. CS does a great job of upscaling. I use Nik
Sharpener Pro for the final sharpen prior to printing.

Interestingly, the results are BETTER from the D100 (and D70) than from 35mm
negatives scanned on my Nikon 4000ED film scanner

Tom

 

But be sure to view it from the same distance that you would
view the 16x20 or it won't be representative of the true quality.

Jim

 

Sorry, but it's gotta be said "imagine a beowulf cluster of 10D's" and "Does it
(10D) run Linux?"... ;-)

 

If you are really discriminating (picky), then divide the resolution
figures by 300 and you will have the size in inches. If you are not so
discriminating, then 200 will do, depending on the subject, and the
normal viewing distance for the print.

 

Once you get to using an inkjet printer, you are also at the mercy of
the printer driver. Fortunately, most of them do quite a good job of
rendering the picture well.

 

If you res your picture up to 16x20 at 300 dpi and it still looks OK then it
will print well. In Photoshop if you increase the resolution by 10% at a
time it will tend to retain detail better.

There is also a program called Genuine Fractals that does a very good job of
enlarging a picture without it pixelating. You can also have your picture
enlarged on a LightJet printer and it will interpolate in a way similar to
Genuine Fractals.

As a rule a CLOSE UP of a person or a thing will enlarge MUCH better than
something like a landscape picture with lots of small detail.

 

I've done 16x20s with my 6MP DR. They look great.

Greg

 

20x30 looks great.

 

Should go to 16x20 with no problem, if it was taken with a tripod then
20x24.

 

That sounds like a very sensible call to me.

You should also consider the intended viewing distance. I've taken to getting
"up close and personal" with huge prints in the shopping mall (you know, bra ads
and the like and the quality close up is very variable. Usually those things
are done on a printing press and show a screen close up, but from a normal
viewing distance a lot of them are just fine.

 

I've got a beautiful 16x24 print from my 6MP Fuji S2. Made from my
file on an Epson 7600 inkjet printer. Better than I'm used to seeing
from 35mm film at that size -- partly I think the eye doesn't notice
*lack* of detail to some extent, but *does* notice extraneous detail
(grain). Anyway, it looks great. So it's at least sometimes possible
from 6MP.