Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Camera MP size and interpolation?  (Read 693 times)
mburke
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« on: August 12, 2011, 10:57:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I just viewed the C2P module on mp size and print size and was wondering how interpolation affected what was said. Michael indicated that a 10mp camera should only print up to about 13 x 19. I have done quite a few up to 20 x 30 that really look good. I have also done some cropped canvas at sizes like 14 x40 that have won some awards. I shoot with a Nikon D200 and usually under iso640. Michael and Jeff seemed to be indicating that you have to have larger mp cameras. How cast in stone is this opinion?

By the way, the videos are excellent. Can't wait for more.

Mike
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6910


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2011, 11:08:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My experience is that 12 MP is quite solid for A2, around 16x23". I'd say that 24MP is visibly better but sometimes the difference can be quite small. But it also depends much on technique.

I have a small writeup on the issue here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/24-how-many-megapixels-do-we-need

BTW, I have a 70x100 cm (27x39") print on my wall and it is reasonable sharp at 1m viewing distance!

Best regards
Erik


I just viewed the C2P module on mp size and print size and was wondering how interpolation affected what was said. Michael indicated that a 10mp camera should only print up to about 13 x 19. I have done quite a few up to 20 x 30 that really look good. I have also done some cropped canvas at sizes like 14 x40 that have won some awards. I shoot with a Nikon D200 and usually under iso640. Michael and Jeff seemed to be indicating that you have to have larger mp cameras. How cast in stone is this opinion?

By the way, the videos are excellent. Can't wait for more.

Mike
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 11:41:16 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6432


« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2011, 11:15:49 AM »
ReplyReply


But it also depends much on technique.

And subject!
Logged

Francois
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2011, 11:26:59 AM »
ReplyReply

And subject!

... and how picky you are ... and from how far away you view it ... and if there is glass or acrylic in front ... what kind of paper you use ... what kind of vision you have ...

If you like it, use it.
Logged
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2011, 12:20:43 PM »
ReplyReply

And a lot depends on who is doing the looking. The real wake-up call is trying to get an image past a stock photo inspector. They inspect nearly every pixel for noise, artifacts, and any other up-res evidence.
In the real world I agree you can really do decent work with very small files, especially with landscapes. I enlarged a full frame image from a customer's small (5 mp) camera and blew it up to fill a queen-size bed headboard on Epson canvas. It helped that it was of a couple walking on a beach at sunset with very little detail. Any stock photo inspector would have rejected it in about two seconds and called other inspectors over to have a good laugh. My client absolutely loved it. So I guess it just depends.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad