>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).
filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk <> 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 <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
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
> Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
