1.2 MP for 16×20?

<p> I know it can't be done, but I need backup to why my company

cannot use their 1.2 MP Sony Maciva for a 16×20 enlargement. Do I

have this correct:</p>

 

<p>The max file size says 1280. So at 1.2 MP, this would be

1280×937.5. And to print at 16×20, you would only get a dpi of

1280/20 = 64, which obviously is way to low for any kind of quality

picture to be given as a gift to a retiring employee.</p>

 

<p>Did I get it right? Would you need at least 10MP to print 16×20

at 200 dpi?</p>

 

<p>TIA.</p>

 

<p>Note:I shoot film which is why I don't know this stuff...</p>

I'm sure you'll get all kinds of astute mathematical analyses as to how feasible this is or isn't. And a bunch of tips of how to up-res the files in .0001% increments to maximize quality.

 

But it's all a fool's-errand: any argument you make to your employer just makes you sound like a naysayer, like the boy-who-cries-wolf.

 

A much more useful response is to act interested and supportive, help them pick an image that's near-and-dear to the Executive VP in Charge of Doing PR On The Cheap, and send it out for a 16x20 print.

 

One of two outcomes: Either the EVPiCoDPROTC will think the print is perfectly fine (in which case you would have been wasting your breathe with technical arguments) or s/he will hate the print (in which case you can cluck sympathetically and shake your head at how the camera companies are ripping their customers off with those cheap 1.2 MP toys and then get a signed PO to go out and buy a really cool 8 MP prosumer model).

 

Either way, you come out looking better than you would if you'd just argued against doing it, and the company ends up getting prints that are good-enough to make them happy...

 

Sorry to sound jaded, but sometime I am!

 

Larry Walker

Hey Larry, not really an argument. They totally trust me and have asked me to take the picture in question (sunrise through his office window). But they will be getting ready to purchase a new office digicam and wanted to know a little of the specifics behind why it can't be done well. At least, the IT guy, who is in charge of the purchase, wants to know...

I would say that a fair 16x20 could be produced even with a little less than 10mp with the right interpolation software. Also given a subject that easily lends itself to interpolation.

 

I would expect an 8Mp to be able to get you the results you want. Doubt that a 5Mp can do 16x20.

Gary: Try it - take the picture. Put the camera on a tripod and shoot the picture. Do an upsizing - maybe 20 steps - just to do enough but not so much you waste too much time. Bring the file and have it printed. You will spend about $30 dollars and an hour of time.

 

The results will not be that bad, but with the right equipment could be awesome. I think this is an excellent learning experience for you. I am going to try it with my disposable Dakota and Epson 2000 - just for fun.

 

Just go through the excercise for yourself - it sounds like fun.

 

You can also shoot the picture with a low ASA slide film and have it printed. I would braket the photo - sounds like a tricky lighting set up.

 

Your math looks about right, but you will have to upsize to try to get the dpi number right. Still, real data is best and the more of it you have the better the final output will be (most of the time). When it comes to a 16x20, my 14n can handle it, my S2 starts to show its 6 mps.

The actual resolution is 1280x960. Assuming that the lens and sensor are perfect (a hard assumption to make), the highest dpi you can get is 60 dpi (960/16), which will start to lack detail if you're planning to view it from less than 5 ft away, no matter which method you use to resize/print. This is OK to do low-quality posters.

 

Put another way, assuming a perfect lens and sensor and no loss during compression, the biggest high quality (300dpi) print you can expect from such a camera is about 4x3 inches (that's half a 4x6).

 

Or, yet another way, you'll probably get better results by shooting with a cheap 35mm camera (maybe even a disposable) and scanning the prints.

 

Printing a 16x20 at 200 dpi requires almost 13MP after cropping, which depending on the sensor shape may require up to 16MP. We're in the realm of a Canon 1Ds or or MF digital backs here.

 

Now here's the good news: for a sunrise, you don't need a lot of detail, as long as you have very little noise. The best solution for this is a camera with a large sensor. A Canon D60/Digital Rebel/10D would do very well for this, but typically direct shots of sunrise/sunset are tricky to achieve with digital cameras because of the high contrast that's typical for such scenes (i.e. in the dark areas there's often too much noise to see any detail). For this specific instance it might make more sense to have a film scan done from a good 35mm negative.

My plan is to shoot the scene using my F100 and Velvia 50, stopped down to f/32 - f/64 range, and a combination of my 1 stop grad ND and 1 stop ND filters to get some shadow detail in the landscape and buildings below the rising sun and to then get the best slide scanned by my local pro lab for a quality print. Honestly, I was just looking for the reasons (beyond my gut instinct) that shooting the 1.2MP Maciva wouldn't work that well. FYI, the print will eventually be framed behind thick glass. The print is meant to emulate the scene outside the guy's window, and the glass will be for writing on, since the guy is always using dry-erase markers to make notes on his window, so the viewing distance will be from 1 ft and up.

As noted above you need to think about what distance will this be viewed? I've seen great 16x20 prints made from <=4 Mpix cameras. Be it that they were nice cameras (Nikon D1H, Canon 1D), but the prints were hanging behind the counter an at the distance I was viewing them, they look quite wonderfully sharp.

Gary: I just printed an 11x17 off my Epson 2000p from an upsized 1.3 megapixel jpeg. After upsizing it was a 55meg file. I resampled in one step - couldn't see much difference on the monitor when I did steps.

 

I was shocked at the quality from the Dakota Digital Single-Use camera. (I used the software hack found on the web).

 

It is not a world class print, but from 12 plus inches away it is very acceptable.

 

I am going to run the same test with the 14N.

 

Kinda fun.

 

If you are going to shoot the photo - take the extra minute to try it with the 1.2 Sony.

<em>

I would expect an 8Mp to be able to get you the results you want. Doubt that a 5Mp can do 16x20</em>

<p>

I must not have received that memo. I've been printing 16x20 for my clients with a D1x (5.3mp) and a D2h (4.1mp) for a while now. Funny how nobody complained (and these are *paying* clients I'm talking about).

<p>

The amount of theoretically plausible, yet incorrect statements on this forum is amazing.

I was not referring to a digital SLR that (as indicated above) has a larger sensor, generally top of the line optics aso. As proven by your paying clients obviously you are getting great results. Again: Not all pixels are created equal.

 

I would not expect a consumer digital P&S in the 5 Mp range to crank out results equal to your Nikon SLR's.

Gary:

<p>

Follow the advice above and have a 20x30 inch print made from a 1.2 MP file. Explain that digital photos are made from little colored blocks, kind of like little mosaic tiles. If the photo is enlarged too much, the blocks start to show. High res cameras create files with more blocks so the photos can be enlarged more. How is that for a highly technical explanantion?

<p>

I have made excellent 20x30 inch prints from 6 MP files from a Canon 10D, with the image resized in Photoshop. It can be done.

<p>

I've seen respectable 11x14 prints made from a Canon G3.

<p>

I have my doubts about shooting through a glass office window. My attempts to shoot through glass windows has met with widely varying results.

<p>

Jim

I have printed a 12x18 with 1,4mpixels. It looked much better than I expected. Give it a try, then if it doesn't work get a 300d with a good lens and print as big as you want.

 

Simone

Gary, if you shoot this with your F100 and Velvia, I wouldn't bother stepping down to f32 or more. f11 to f16 should be adequate and eliminate diffraction-caused fuzziness, which will show up in large prints. Of course, this also depends on focal length and whether you have any close-by objects that also need to be sharp (trees, buildings, etc). Assuming a 70mm lens and nearest object is across the street, I'd stop down about f16 and focus just past nearest object. Maybe a second shot at f22.

One thing that you could do is to print some "test strips." Take your 1.2 mp image and resize it to 16 x 20 in Photoshop (or your favorite image editor). Crop that image back down to a 4 x 6 size (select part of the image that you would like to see detail in). Print that image out on 4 x 6 glossy paper. You can even take a CF or SD card to the local camera shop and take images to come back to the office and print test strips to compare between different resolutioins and lenses. Also, this will let you have samples to show the IT guy, without spending a lot of money to see what quality you need. I use this tecnique when I'm color corecting an image.

Practically speaking, I've printed excellent 13 * 19s on my Epson 2200 with a good 2MP camera (little Panasonic FZ1 with a great Leica lens). I think the real stopping point is the glass, actually (I also have a 6mp Canon DSLR that, yes, will print a wonderful 16 *20). So given that the Sony's lenses tend to be pretty good, I'd say try it from the Mavica--the lens probably isn't that bad. One piece of software I'd recommend, BTW, is Qimage--it does the best interpolation I've seen yet.