[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints

["Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com>]

> From: HMSDOC@aol.com
>
> I print on an Epson 2200 at sizes of up to 13x19 inches.  In
> reality, I tend
> to leave an inch margin or so around the image, so lets say an
> image size of
> 11x17 inches.  "Conventional" teaching with scans (and I suppose that this
> could be part of the answer..that the conventional holds with
> scans but not direct
> digital acquisition) is that for critical sharpness you should be able to
> send 300ppi to the printer.  Say this is overkill and you really
> only need 250
> ppi.  By my calculations you would still need 11 megapixels fo an
> 11x17 image at
> 250ppi.   Yet everyone raves at the output of even the Canon 10D at
> significantly less resolution.  So is the conventional teaching
> incorrect when it comes
> to direct digital capture?  Perhaps more importantly, how many
> megapixels are
> needed for an extremely sharp 11x17 inch print?  I realize there are other
> benefits to digital capture as it translates to printing, such as
> lack of grain,
> but sharpness is quite important to me as well.

You're right that you won't get _super_ sharp images from a 6Mp camera at
11x17, but they'll still be quite sharp at 180ppi. I like the results I get
with a Canon 10D and an Epson 2200. For some subjects with a lot of sharp
lines, you can use tools like the Geniune Fractals plugin to upsize, because
it does a good job of artificially preserving edge sharpness. Another
alternative in some situations, is to shoot multiple shots and stitch them
together.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body