> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
