I've made great looking 16x20 inkjet prints from my 6MP Nikon D70 but the same image didn't quite cut it for a full page magazine ad. There are a number of factors to consider including subject matter, exposure, focus, and post processing.
How does one begin to make such a chart? The chart on this page is purely for a mathematical overview. As the table underneath the chart shows, I can shoot 35mm film, scan it, and have at least a 19 megapixel image. For the sake of simplicity, I have selected the "photo quality" standard of ppi as a constant. Yes, 4 megapixels at 72ppi will give you roughly a 24 x 36 image.
Actually the D2H gives you x pixels which is He captured a RAW image file not a jpeg then he did some post processing in Photoshop. Finally, he sent the file to a print shop, where the image was most likely processed again in the RIP software. In the table below the chart, I've listed print sizes at ppi and ppi as alternatives to the ppi standard. The chart simply serves as a visual comparison of various megapixel areas. You're spot on about the link above - the guy is using top quality gear and the photo was sent to a printer who obviously applied interpolation either in Photoshop or through the RIP more likely.
Sending the image to a different printer would produce a different result. Another point is that resolution is fast becoming less important than it has been to date. As sensors become more detailed, so lenses, sensor size, lag time and other functions become more important ". The best way to decide on maximum print size is to look at actual prints.
Recently with simple Photoshopping and a good printer meaning a person who prints rather than a machine I took them up to 16x It really surprised me how good they looked! But the fact is that I have made high quality 11x14 prints from my older 4mp point and shoot. THese are as good, if not better, in quality as some of the 11x14 35mm prints I have made in the darkroom with ISO film.
They were not pixelated, blurred, or distorted. Granted they have to be high quality images to start with. In real life the numbers are a good guide, but only experience can tell you for sure what your camera will actually do for you. You can repeat it times before you start to notice any real image loss.
Of course results vary depending on photographs but I have started with a photograph at dpi For the full explaination: babibubebo. Any digital camera from 3MP on will satisfy the average user printing at 4x6 through 8x The only time the rule doesn't hold is they happen to need to do extensive cropping. I know you put in the fine print about inkjets working at dpi but I just wanted to emphasize that 3MP-5MP digicams is all most people need.
It gets confusing with all the dimensions and things like that, but over all it was really helpful. I simply selected Bicubic Sharper and entered in the pixel dimensions I wanted. Using Bicubic sharper in one hit achieved exactly the same result. What ISO is it? Film has grain, not pixels so you could use ISO film and it still wouldn't become little square pixels no matter how much you enlarged it. That being said, there are many other differences between film and digital. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
The link to the tiger print is also great. It also confirms the old saying "the proof is in the pudding" or something like that. From this chart how do you print smaller?
By doubling the DPI? Print still a mistery to me Thank you Peter Kidd Wales ". I experimented within photoshop and found slightly better results using the one-step "bicubic smoother" setting. I found it to be smoother AND sharper. I also found two things that haven't been mentioned yet The one-step approach is just a better way to resize in my opinion. Well done. You are correct that, in the strictest sense, to get an image that looks good to any pair of eyes from any distance one should be printing at ppi at native resolution.
But things are not quite that simple. The average pair of eyes is less acute, and the average viewing distance is further away. Skill with interpolation software can double native resolution while retaining unpixelated edges and all details. Which is why the D2H can do posters with certain subjects. This is great info, especially for those not handy with post-processing.
The only thing that could be considered missing is a chart that shows ppi vs viewing distance. If the image was placed farther away from the audience the ppi's can reduce, as Smartie alluded to when refering to billboards, with no reduction in quality being seen.
But some people are using this chart to say that more mega-pixels than X isn't needed or desirable. To them I would like to remind of: Panorama photography, Scrolling backgrounds for film, and the common practice of cropping. Many thanks. It ends up about ISO shots on 16 gigs give or take a few dozen. Steve jollibug wrote: What's the approximate size of an 18 megapixel RAW photo?
It has mRaw and sRaw support, yes. Unapologetic Canon Apologist. Lemming51's gear list: Lemming51's gear list. F Forum M My threads. Latest sample galleries. Canon EOS R3 sample gallery. Nikon Z9 production sample gallery. See more galleries ». Latest in-depth reviews. Read more reviews ». Latest buying guides. Best cameras for landscape photography in Best drones in Best video cameras for photographers in Best cameras for Instagram in Check out more buying guides ».
Leica M Nikon Nikkor Z mm F2. Nikon Z9 initial review. Sony a7 IV initial review. Thank you for the info! To summarize: 08GB can hold approx. Mike Rollerson Photography 11 years ago.
When it comes to memory cards, try and stick to the rule "buy as big as you can afford". There'll always be an occasion when you wish you had larger. RuanNiemann 11 years ago. I'd rather have more smaller ones than one huge one. PSJ Picdump 11 years ago.
I'm with Ruan - I'd prefer to have 2 smaller cards than one big one. I rarely hit the 3rd card Groups Beta.
0コメント