Michael Chase-Salerno wrote:
Orion Vianna wrote:
If you want to make a good 8x10 print under the above standards, it
will be best to have a 300ppi image with a size of 2400 by 3000
(8x300 by 10x300), a 7.2Mpixel scan. So now you know exactly the why
of the quest for higher Mpixel rating from scanners (and digital
cameras), even when interpolation may acceptably invent pixels where
there are none. "
BTW other people are saying the same thing, here is another link.
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/image-quality/
Ok so maybe you already knew that.
I may be totally missing something but a 12000x12000 image will give
me exactly 40x40 inches of quality print.
40x40 is much smaller then whats on the side of buildings in the
city... I love to know how they deal with such huge file sizes...
Thats why I wrote 12k x 12k image is not that big.
To my knowledge things like outdoor advertising of large scale are
done at a much lower ppi. For example, billboards can be on the order
of tens of ppi. Often developed at a smaller scale (say 1/12) and then
blown up in final production.
It's all about what you need of course. Viewing distance is an
important factor. Remember the larger the image, the farther back you
will be in order to "take it all in"
That makes sense.
In my case I'm printing artwork and it needs to be as detailed as possible.
Thanks for the reply :o)
_______________________________________________
Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org
http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug
Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium
Dec 2 - MythTV
Jan 6 - Git
