How many MegaPixels to print 8X10

It'll be fine with just 1 or 2 mp, but need use a chemical process to reveal



"tk" escribió en el mensaje
newsJSVc.33854$Fg5.30664@attbi_s53...
I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the
minimum
amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
accurate?

Why is that tree branch blocking the lighthouse on that calendar cover shot?
That pole on the left side should have been cropped out too.

ef




If what you say is true Ron (and it is not) a Canon 10D with a 6 Mp
sensor could not produce an 8x10 print. Rubbish! I frequently make A3
and A2 size prints from my 10D files. The new printer I have, along with
Photoshop produces prints (so far) 20" x 34" with no evidence of digital
break up. Http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia. I expect to make panoramas
24" x 60" from 2 or 3 images from the 10D next week. Do your sums on the
size/mega pixel thing for an image that size. Certainly need bundles
more mega pixie's than the 12 or 18 I'll be using - according to your
theory!

Ryadia

"Ryadia" wrote

If what you say is true Ron (and it is not) a Canon 10D with a 6 Mp
sensor could not produce an 8x10 print. Rubbish! I frequently make A3
and A2 size prints from my 10D files. The new printer I have, along with
Photoshop produces prints (so far) 20" x 34" with no evidence of digital
break up.

Then your pictures don't have much detail in them. A 6MP camera making
20"x34" prints will be using about 83 ppi. At that resolution, an image with
detail in it (like a landscape) would certainly show blurring. If you hang
the print on a wall that's a fair distance away from the observer, they
wouldn't be able to tell. But close up, it would not look very crisp.

Then again, different people have different standards, so if you're happy
with it...

"tk" wrote in message news:DJSVc.33854$Fg5.30664@attbi_s53...
I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the minimum
amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
accurate?

It depends what you are happy with, a 3MP mosiac camera won't be near
enought to print an 8x10 with 100 ISO 35mm film quality. An
outstanding 6MP mosiac camera is good for 25-50% of low ISOo 35mm
film's full color resuloution at 8x10.

If you get a Foveon Direct Image Sensor (no color interpolation
required, so 1 pixel = 1 pixel instead of 4 monochrome pixels being
combined to generate 1 full color pixel) 3MP is the same as a 12MP
mosiac, so 3MP output is more than enough.

Using my Canon A40 Powershot I recorded macro photos of a shell at about
1.4 megapixels. Putting this file through photoshop and setting the
resolution at 300 DPI I created several examples that were now 200-300
megabytes in size and printed out as 24X36 posters. The color,
resolution and contrast were all manipulated in Photoshop and the
resulting prints show no sign of pixelation. The input is somewhat
immaterial if you have the ability to manipulate the output and have
access to a quality printing service.
John

Ryadia wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

tk wrote:

I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the
minimum
amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is
this
accurate?


That depends on how you define 'good quality'. There are exceptions,
but most of the more decerning here recommend having at least 300
dots/inch in the print. That means you need about 3000 x 2400
resolution, or about 7 mp for that level of quality. I would say that
in most cases, fair to good quality 8 x 10 prints would require at
least 4 mp.


If what you say is true Ron (and it is not) a Canon 10D with a 6 Mp
sensor could not produce an 8x10 print. Rubbish! I frequently make A3
and A2 size prints from my 10D files. The new printer I have, along with
Photoshop produces prints (so far) 20" x 34" with no evidence of digital
break up. Http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia. I expect to make panoramas
24" x 60" from 2 or 3 images from the 10D next week. Do your sums on the
size/mega pixel thing for an image that size. Certainly need bundles
more mega pixie's than the 12 or 18 I'll be using - according to your
theory!

Ryadia

Jem Raid wrote:
"tk" wrote in message
newsJSVc.33854$Fg5.30664@attbi_s53...

I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the

minimum

amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
accurate?



I suppose it depends on what you are used to, compare a 10 x 8 from 35mm 400
ASA Kodak Tri-X film and there's not a lot of difference, though the print
from the film will still be better quality. Same film on 2.1/4 Sq, forget
it, not even in the same street.

But, show the average person in the street a 10 x 8 from a 3 to 4 Mp digital
camera and they will be ecstatic, esp if the subject is something they like.
Photographers tend to look closely at prints, the average person just looks
at the picture as a whole. And they are quite right, when looking at a
painting people stand back, will sometimes go close to get the effect of it
disintegrating and then reforming as they step away again. More
photographers should be aware of this, stop looking at the techie info and
make more pictures, that is what the cameras are for.

Jem


I get close to a painting to see HOW it was done. Getting close to a
photograph also often reveals HOW it was made, If that is important to
the viewer. Otherwise, just stand back and enjoy it.

Ryadia wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote:

tk wrote:

I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the
minimum
amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is
this
accurate?


That depends on how you define 'good quality'. There are exceptions,
but most of the more decerning here recommend having at least 300
dots/inch in the print. That means you need about 3000 x 2400
resolution, or about 7 mp for that level of quality. I would say that
in most cases, fair to good quality 8 x 10 prints would require at
least 4 mp.


If what you say is true Ron (and it is not) a Canon 10D with a 6 Mp
sensor could not produce an 8x10 print. Rubbish! I frequently make A3
and A2 size prints from my 10D files. The new printer I have, along with
Photoshop produces prints (so far) 20" x 34" with no evidence of digital
break up. Http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia. I expect to make panoramas
24" x 60" from 2 or 3 images from the 10D next week. Do your sums on the
size/mega pixel thing for an image that size. Certainly need bundles
more mega pixie's than the 12 or 18 I'll be using - according to your
theory!

Ryadia

NOT my theory, just the concensus of the pros in the newsgroup. Most
people would be happy with 150 ppi and up, but then most people don't
routinely print 8 x 10 (certainly I don't), and if they do, they view
them from a few feet away, rather than scrutinizing them with a loupe as
the pros seem to do. BTW, ANY time you print from the computer, the
image data is modified by the driver software, and again by the printer
hardware.

"tk" wrote in newsJSVc.33854$Fg5.30664@attbi_s53:

I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the
minimum amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x
10 print. Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is
this accurate?



In addition to the comments others have made regarding your preferences,
there are two other things to keep in mind:

1) Not all megapixels are the same. Some digital cameras make nice clean
images, but some have bad compression and poor colors. A good quality
camera with 3.2 Mp will produce results that most people would consider
"good" or even "great."

2) Some subject matter can be compellingly reproduced with lower pixel
counts. If you want to see individual grass blades in a marsh shot you need
more pixels than if you want soft focus closeups of kids.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

Hold the camera steady, make sure your camera has really good optics, be
sure the focus is good, have some good editing software and you can get
fine 8x10 prints. Of course, the level of detail and the purpose of the
photo might require higher res, but by and large the needs of non-pro
snapshooters and even some of us who want to be a bit more serious can
live in the 2-4meg range, particularly since many of us only
occasionally print at that size and tend to stand back a few feet to
look at them.

tk wrote:
I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the minimum
amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
accurate?

Hold the camera steady, make sure your camera has really good optics, be
sure the focus is good, have some good editing software and you can get
fine 8x10 prints. Of course, the level of detail and the purpose of the
photo might require higher res, but by and large the needs of non-pro
snapshooters and even some of us who want to be a bit more serious can
live in the 2-4meg range, particularly since many of us only
occasionally print at that size and tend to stand back a few feet to
look at them.

tk wrote:
I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the minimum
amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
accurate?