>So a 1.68M pixel camera for a 13 x 19 image is not pushing the envelope, >it's simply not believable.
Just for the record, I did not say that a 1.68M pixel camera for a 13 x 19 image is pushing the envelope: I said that it was pushing the envelope to print a 13 x 9 inch print from a 1-2 megapixel camera capture with or without interpolation since conventional wisdom suggests that you would need a 3 megapixel camera to produce an satisfactory 8x10 inch print (I did take the typo to be the size and was not referring to the 13 x 19 dimension that was really inteded, which I agree with you would not be realistic and would be beyond pushing the envelope). [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> wrote: >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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 [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
