Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints



> I'm very sure!
>
> The Pro 70 was the first consumer digicam with CFII and hence Microdrive
> compatibility, it's that old :-)
>
> It has a great lens and RAW capability so can dodge JPEG artifacts
> altogether.
>
> I know it's pushing the accepted wisdom, but people have mistaken the
> pictures for commercial posters so it's not just my opinion.
>
> And I meant 13x19, A3+ or B+ size - that was a typo.
>
>
> In article <IMEKIBPDGJAEFIHJOLKMKELMCLAA.laurie@advancenet.net>,
> laurie@advancenet.net (LAURIE SOLOMON) wrote:
>
> >I've produced very acceptable 13x9s from a 1.68 megapixel camera, the
> > Canon
> > Pro 70.
> >
> > Are you sure it is 1.68 megapixels?  That is so low that I doubt they
> > are
> > even selling digital cameras with that few megapixel capacity.
> > As for what is or is not very acceptible depends subjectively on one's
> > tastes and standards; besides 13x9 is a somewhat smaller image than a
> > 13x19,
> > although 13x9 may be pushing the envelope for a 1-2 megapixel camera
> > since
> > the typical wisdom is that you need at least 3 megapixels to produce a
> > satisfactory 8x10.

I just have to weigh in on this.  Even the current crop of 6M+ megapixel
cameras barely produce acceptable 13 x 19 prints from unrezzed data.  So a
1.68M pixel camera for a 13 x 19 image is not pushing the envelope, it's
simply not believable.  There simply is not enough data there, by a factor
of about 4 to produce an acceptable 13 x 19 print.  That is, if we're
talking inches.  If you mean some other unit of measure, that's a different
story.

A 1.68 M pixel camera will have a file that is ~ 1.6k x 1k.  And, 1.6k over
19 inches is only 84 PPI to the printer, and that will give you very
pixelated printouts.

Now, if you rez up the images to get more PPI to the printer, you can
eliminate the pixelated look...but the fidelity of the image data is
questionable.  You can't create detail where detail didn't exist in the
original file in the first place.  Though the image may be "sharp", and may
look "good" standing alone, so does a comic strip...

It all depends on what you are looking for.  If you want a detailed large
image, a 1.68M pixel image simply will not do.  If you want simply a
graphical representation of the major outlines of the image, it will do.

Regards,

Austin

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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.