George s. form 2008-04-01 12:19:45
I know there has been much talk about image size/resolution but I would like to ask a question. if the original image is 3072 x 2048 can it be resized to print a 11 x 14 or even a 13 x 19 inch photo while still retaining enough resolution so that the final outcome (print) is of good quality? the reason I am asking this is I am going to purchase a new camera (Canon EOS 300D) and the size of the image when taken in RAW or JPEG large/fine is 3072 x 2048. in the rare event I take a great picture some day I would want to print it for hanging on my wall at either 11 x 14 or 13 x 19. given the image/file size that this camera produces is what I want to do possible or is it wishful thinking on my part? does anyone have an experience with this camera, if so i would love to here your opinions. thank you all so very much.
Ray 2008-04-01 12:19:54
At 13 x 19″, your pictures will be below 180ppi (13×19 = 160ppi). If you don’t intend to show them
from very close, you won’t have a problem. I have severals 10 x 8 here that I printed from my
former digital cam (1600 x 1200) but nobody noticed the difference because they’re on a wall and the
closest people can get to them isn’t close enough to tell wether they’re seing pixels or not.
Btw, good choice on the camera. I have a 10D (almost identical) and it does wonders! A friend of
mine bought the 300D a few weeks ago. He’s in love with it, although he said the supplied lense
isn’t really good.
Also, you might check the files and see for yourself before you buy. Bring a CF card with you at
the store (if you’re not buying online), do some shots, and bring them home.
Mac_mcdougald 2008-04-01 12:19:56
3072×2048 = 14 x 9.3 inches @ 219ppi = 19 x 12.6 inches @ 161ppi.
You’ll have to test on your printer to see if those resolutions are good
enough for your taste.
Note that if you must have 14×11 exactly, you’ll be cropping to get it,
which will reduce ppi even more.
Mombu 2008-04-01 14:48:59
You can get an acceptable 11×14 with the 300D. 13×19 might be
pushing it depending on how it is viewed and what your
expectations are. I have the 300D and love it. If you have any
specific questions about the camera just let me know and I can
try to answer them.
Have A Nice Day,
I would like to ask a question. if the original image is 3072 x
2048 can it be resized to print a 11 x 14 or even a 13 x 19 inch
photo while still retaining enough resolution so that the final
outcome (print) is of good quality? the reason I am asking this
is I am going to purchase a new camera (Canon EOS 300D) and the
size of the image when taken in RAW or JPEG large/fine is 3072 x
2048. in the rare event I take a great picture some day I would
want to print it for hanging on my wall at either 11 x 14 or 13 x
19. given the image/file size that this camera produces is what I
want to do possible or is it wishful thinking on my part? does
anyone have an experience with this camera, if so i would love to
here your opinions. thank you all so very much.
Leen_koper 2008-04-01 22:12:32
George, no problem at all. At 300ppi your image will print about 8 x 12 inches. Bicubic upsampling will deliver good quality up to 4x, so you will be able to print at 32 x 48 inches.
Today I printed three portraits at 16 x 20 without any noticable problem. One of these portraits even was crop of about 60% of the original image.
The best way to upsample seems to be 10% increments at a time.
Ray, in my opinion an 8 x 10 image is way to small on the wall. You have to come too close to be able to judge what’s in the image. I am convinced, that an image on a wall should be viewed from the place where you usually sit. In my situation that is in front of my stereo set. ;-). The further away the image, the larger the print.
If an image is good at 8 x10 it will be good at 16 x 20 too. No, it will even be better.
But that’s just only my personal opinion, of course. 😉
Jim_hess 2008-04-01 22:12:45
OK, so I have a 5 megapixel camera. If I upload my photos to an online photo lab such is Ofoto, it reports back that my pictures can be printed as large as 20 x 30. Do these labs have some kind of image enhancement process that makes this possible? They even reported back that I can get that size of prints from my 2 megapixel camera. But I have only ordered 8×10 prints so far.
Susan_s. 2008-04-02 00:39:27
Don’t forget that not all pixels and not all images are created equal! Leen uses wonderful digital SLRS with large sensors, and top quality lenses mounted on heavy tripods that produce razor sharp images with very little noise, and so can be upsized an amazing amount. My G3 (4megapixels, decent lens but a small sensor) does A4 images easily and I’ve done very acceptable A4 images heavily cropped (my printer only goes to A4). My 2MP Kodak – tiny sensor, quite heavily compressed jpgs so lots of noise and aretfacts doesn’t do anything as well – small prints only.
The 300D has a decent large, low noise 6MP sensor – especially if you use a good lens and a tripod and have a well focussed image you can probably produce some very large prints without any trouble. However often an image that looks well focussed small isn’t quite as good when you start blowing it up….!
Leen_koper 2008-04-02 00:39:41
Susan, I use a Fuji S2 Pro, a camera that is at about the same level as the new Canon cameras. But, yes indeed, I use a heavy tripod as this is the basic requirement for sharp images.
I’m just only dreaming of a Hasselblad H1 with Xpress back…
Mombu 2008-04-02 00:39:43
When you use your S2 to get such large prints are you using the
6mp file or the interpolated 12mp? Has it made a difference? I
just got a tripod last week in hopes of improving the sharpness
of my shots and am now looking for a monopod for those long
hikes. Any recommendations?
Have A Nice Day,
level as the new Canon cameras. But, yes indeed, I use a heavy
tripod as this is the basic requirement for sharp images.
Grant_dixon 2008-04-02 00:40:05
One should be aware of a things before deciding to enlarge there images
over and above the resolution of the camera.
1) How close?
The Human eye’s central vision is between 40 and 50 degrees depending on age
or who is telling the science. If you hold an 8×10 at 12 inches you are
filling your whole central vision, closer you loose some to peripheral
vision. If the images is 16×20 the distance is 24 inches and a 32x 40 it is
48 inches. The amazing thing is that the 8×10 and the 32×40 will look
equally as sharp at their respective images. So now you know why bill
boards look sharp. So if you can make a sharp 8×10 and really want to have
it turned into a mural don’t fret just step back and admire you work.
2) What is the subject that you are presenting?
No mater what imaging magic you do you can’t increase resolution. What you
have is what you have. When you increase beyond the resolution of your chip
by using Bicubic upsampling then Elements makes an estimate based upon the
eight adjacent pixel and guesses what the new pixels will look like. It
doesn’t add resolution but make transition guesses. Elements pick the
pixels out of the air (well based on algorithms) and it will cause what
appears to be a softening of the image. While this adds nothing to a
wonderful textured subject it is a bonus for portrait photography. With
digital you can create soft focus just by over enlarging. Only those that
have over they years tried this with sharp optics can fully appreciate this.
I remember tricks , printing through a nylon, breathing on a lens, Vaseline
on an optical flat, defused light and finally soft focus lenses all in the
pursuit of making the subject more wispy.
Don’t believe me? Try taking an image, with some lines in it, crop a small
area say 30×30 pixels and duplicate the image. Resize one using Bicubic
upsampling by 1200% and magnify the other 1200 times. Examine these two
images side by side from as close as you want then move back across the
All that being said just don’t expect to crop your crisp 8×10 down to 2×2.5
and blow it up to 32×40 because even at 4 feet it will look soft.
Leen_koper 2008-04-02 03:15:41
JHJL, I almost always use the highest resolution available, although I know these 12 mpx ar 50% interpolated pixels, but the Fuji system of interpolation works fine. I realise there is hardly any difference in quality between a normal 6 mpx camera and this Fuji.
Grant, you are right about the viewing distance and the upsampling, especially when it comes to portraiture. Nevertheless, my environmental portraiture and wedding shots are often full of details in the background. Upsampling can be so successful, because adding pixels in “unstructured” parts of the image, like skin or the sky, doesnot harm an image at all. And most parts of our images usually don’t have any structure.