Assuming a steady hand or tripod, how many mega-pixels.......

[jammer_jammer]

....should a camera have in order to print decent prints up to 19 x

13 inches also assuming that the viewer would be standing at a

reasonable distance to look at a print that large.

[mark kasumovic]

18 megapixels would do the trick if you want very sharp photo's, anything less would suffer

some loss of quality, although I'm sure some would argue that. It is however a matter of

taste, 18 megapixels would make the photo's sharp if being scrutinized from closeby, given a

reasonable distance from the photo, you could probobly get away with less.

[Ed_Ingold]

Not all pixels are equal. A 6MP DSLR with good glass will make a better 13x19 inch print than 35mm film. You would not expect as good performance out of a digicam. I've made and sold many prints this size using a D1x (5.47MP), and no one ever asked if they were digital (which I told them anyway). A 12MP camera is as good as medium format until you go to 24x30 inches or larger.

[oceanphysics]

I've seen 20x30 inch prints from 8MP cameras that were absolutely stunning. Anything less is just a case of somebody not knowing what they're doing.

[jeffrey moore]

".....although I'm sure some would argue that."

 

You got that part right.

[roger.a]

have a look at this thread

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FmTP&tag=

 

if the link doesn't work it's "max size of 5D prints" in the EOS forum

[Troll]

I get perfectly sharp 12X18 B&W inkjet prints from my 5 MP Olympus E20 (@600 DPI). These can be viewed at 12". Trying to print any larger begins to show slight fuzzyness. I believe that color can go a little bigger, but I've never printed any that large. This is about the same maximum size that I can print from most 35mm negatives.

[jtk]

IMO (from direct comparison) it takes 12MP to reliably look as good as fine 35mm scanned at 4000ppi in big prints. Canon 5D does that, 20D and D70 fall short.

 

4000ppi Nikon scans of various Fuji chromes look like medium format at 13X19, especially when using good prime lenses.

 

8MP APS sensors may rival 35mm to perhaps 11X14 in most situations, can even look great at huge sizes, depending on your taste. They're not "equal" to 35, but they can *seem* to resolve more detail in some situations, will lose *a lot* of subtle tonal detail in as many situations.

 

Digital has a bland, "airbrushed look" that becomes more and more evident as the print gets bigger...not a bad thing, but obvious. The "look" can be improved in post processing.

[gary_ferguson1]

19x13 is as big as I usually print. At that size, with a tripod mounted camera,

good quality prime lenses, and a detail rich subject I can almost always see a

difference between my Phase One P25 back on a Hasselblad and a Canon

1Ds MkII at a twelve inch viewing distance. It's not a difference that would

often determine the success of the print, but it's there and it's observable.

 

Move down a print size to A3 with a reasonable border, and using a hand

held camera, then I can rarely see the difference between a Canon 1Ds MkII

and a Canon 5D.

[will king]

I print 13x19 on my Epson R2400 from shots taken on my 20D (8MP) and they look great. Someone said that it also depends on the glass. I would concur. You don't need 18MPs. Anything that above 8-10MP for 13x19 is just superfuous and expensive!

[emre]

Finally, it depends on your standards. Some people don't like to print bigger than 8x10 on 35mm!

[kelly_flanigan1]

For a 13x19 inch detailed map, with a font from hell and dinky street names, the microtype might have to use a 400 ppi image; thus 5200 x 7600 pixels, or almost 40 megapixels. Practically few folks here are printing detailed maps, thus the requirements might be 1/4 or 1/10 of this figure.

[mark kasumovic]

I agree that in terms of aesthetics you can get away with a lot less than 18 megapixels,

however, technically, anything less than 18 MP's will force you to enlarge the pixels and

therefore create some sort of quality loss. If you were shooting landscapes, a 19x13 print

from a 5 MP camera would be very disappointing compared to a medium format scan or even

a 35mm scan. Ofcourse, it all comes down to how rich you want your print to be in the end.

[gary_ferguson1]

"Some people don't like to print bigger than 8x10 on 35mm!"

 

I'm sure Emre had his tongue in his cheek, but he makes an interesting point.

 

One of the by-products of digital is that we're all printing bigger (A3 is the new

8x10), but the general view is that maximum enlargement size is a function of

the pixel count. This might have been true in the very early days of digital

when 1-3MP cameras were the norm, but now we have a relative abundance

of pixels and the old guidelines regarding enlargement limits should, IMO, be

dusted off and considered again.

 

After all, the photographic fundamentals of depth of field, diffraction, and

camera shake haven't changed, and the damage they do to print quality is

chiefly determined by the degree of enlargement, not the number of pixels.

[b_hall1]

I often notice very good digital photos from cameras like the Coolpix and Powershot...in sharpness and in color. And I often notice dull soft results from DSLR's. However, there is a class of photographer that does get stunning result with DSLR's...

 

Enlargement size is related to pixel-count-file-size of the camera. Then perfect result is assumed. Of course this is just administrative measure...not perfect result.

 

The bottom line is do you have a digital result worth enlarging...

[mike_earussi1]

As long as you don't have any fine details to give you away, you can extrapolate as large as you want and still have sharp edges and no "grain." What you can't do is create new information. Try it for yourself and see how large you can get.

[b_hall1]

Somewhat related, lab printing of digital files is often laser or LED exposure of photo paper. Then the photo paper is processed in chemicals.

 

In other words basic inkjet printing either failed or was never used by labs ? Also, the dots of ink have white spaces between them while laser or LED are said to be continious tone...(Of course there is an advanced injet printing...that perhaps adds a protective coating over the ink.)

 

So...required enlargement size along with expected quality might be reached with laser or LED printing...

[beauh44]

I've got 13X19" prints made by my 6 mp Canon 10D that look as good as 13X19" prints I've made with my 1Ds Mark II. Go figure.

[aaliceronm]

I have never seen a 35mm picture yet that had enough detail to print larger than about 11"x 14". I am currently using the Canon EOS 1DS MKII which was tauted as equal to medium format - it isn't. My medium format film camera is a Mamiya 6cm x 7cm and I find even with this camera that it is necessary to join multiple shots (after digitizing of course) together to get good detail. I have never understood why people that are unwilling to put out the bucks for good equipment still pretend that they are getting great results with cheap poor equipment.

[daniel_taylor]

It's always the same when questions like this come up...you need this, no you need that. This beats that, no that beats this.

 

How far you can enlarge a given "format" (MP + sensor size or film type + frame size) depends greatly on subject, viewing distance, artistic intent, lens, shooting technique, and post processing/printing technique.

 

It also depends on what your target audience will accept, which is typically far less demanding than is assumed. People just do not "see" prints the way photographers comparing systems do. Most viewers will find an image beautiful or attractive because of qualities that, for the most part, come through even at lower resolutions. True, sharper and more detailed prints do have more impact, but that's not to say that prints from "lesser" configurations do not have any impact or value.

 

So what's the answer to your question? It depends.

 

Shopping for a camera and need a better answer? OK...a 6 MP DSLR (on most subjects with good lens and technique and post processing) can meet the criterea you've set.

[jammer_jammer]

WOW! I'm surprised at all the response.<p>

 

Sorry for the late thank you. I caught up in a bunch of stuff and almost forgot I posted this question.<p>

 

Thanks a lot everybody. : -)

[scott_eaton]

<I>4000ppi Nikon scans of various Fuji chromes look like medium format at 13X19, especially when using good prime lenses.</i><P>I guess you don't shoot medium format, and don't own a dSLR. Anytime you want to put your 4000dpi Nikon scanner and 35mm up against my RB67 and 2000 dpi scans I'll be happy too. Photo.Net law # 37: the smaller format film you use, the more resolution it has. <I><P>However, there is a class of photographer that does get stunning result with DSLR's... </i><P>Yeah...those of use who don't use cheap zoom lens kits, know how to use USM properly, and avoid wide-zoom kits. I've made 5' - 3' LightJet prints for trade shows with my 6mp 10D, and was stunned at how good they look - provided I use exellent glass and conservative post processing. Get closer than 10', and they are obviously soft, but they don't have that annoying 'Fotomat grain look' like 35mm film blown up that large. Maybe I need to get me one of dem' 4000dpi Nikon film scanners though to make 35mm look like MF. <P>Yes, you can interpolate digital capture to death and upscale it without a losing any data, but remember that you are adding data that didn't exist in the first place. At a certain point the image does degrade, or you have to keep walking backwards away from the print. <P>13x19 is otherwise my practical limit for 6-8mp digital capture, and also note that modern ink-jet printers have far more resolution than LightJet/Frontier type printers where a fuzzy beam of light writes the data at no more than 300dpi. You've probably noticed that 800x600 resolution on a 19" CRT looks much better than 800x600 on a LCD. Crude analogy, but it's similiar to what happens when you blow up digital capture and why you can get such large sizes from the files.

[b_hall1]

Someone might think that something like a Nikon DX lens series proves that good result with a DSLR is not hardware related...