>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.
-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of derek_c@cix.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:55 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
I've produced very acceptable 13x9s from a 1.68 megapixel camera, the
Canon Pro 70.
Yes, when you get up close you can see staircasing from the lack of
resolution, but in practice you don't examine big pictures close up.
And for me the complete absence of film grain makes all the difference.
In article <26.40448af6.2cc5e0c1@aol.com>, HMSDOC@aol.com () wrote:
> I suspect I will 'go digital' sometime in the next year or two. My
> question
> regards what type of print output quality I can expect from digital.
>
> 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. I would appreciate any
> help
> in how to look at this as I think about getting a digital body. Right
> now I
> am using a 1V and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus. A DS1 at 14 or so
> megapixels and full frame sensor is way too expensive for me...but if a
> new Canon EOS 3
> type digital body were to come out I could see spending up to $2500 or
> so.
>
> Howard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, 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 ().
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
