gremlinpdp Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 when using a canon eos 10d to capture images at maximum resolution (maxiumum raw to tiff file) what is the largest print that can be done while retaining perfect quality? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 While I don't have the 10D - and thus can not answer directly - be noted that "perfect" is a subjective term. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Perfect is an interesting term. The Canon 10D is; Effective pixels: Approx. 6.30 megapixels (3088x2056). Our old digital color copier is 600 dpi; yes they use the term dpi; and not pixels/inch in the copiers spec sheet. We routinely print maps and sharp photos at half the "600" number; or 300 pixels/inch when sized in Photoshop. This would be a 10.3x6.85 inch print @300 pixels/inch. We have also made large 32x40 inch posters from 4x5" negatives; 35mm; 6, 3.3, 2, 1.3 Megapixel cameras; plus lowly 640x480 pixel VGA; 110 negatives; and even quarter VGA 320x240 pixel files. Many of the last entries are not "perfect" inputs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmijo Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 What print size you can make with suitable quality depends quite a bit on the output device. I routinely print images from my D60 up to 13x19 on my Canon S9000 printer and they're beautiful. At that size and on that device, I find that the printer resolution is more of a limitation than the original image. Using a loupe I can easily see the printer dot patterns used to make up various colors but it's difficult to discern pixels. I've also had 16x20 prints made by ezprints.com and they've been quite good as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 The Canon 10D is enough for a billboard; because the viewing distance is not close. A super giant "Bulletin" size is 14x48 feet; those 3000 pixels over 48 feet are at 5.2 pixels/inch. A "30 sheet Poster" is 10.5x 22.67 feet; those 3000 pixels are at 11 pixels/inch. Smallish "8 sheet posters" are 5x11 feet; those 3000 pixels are at 3000/(11*12)= 23 pixels/inch; which is complete overkill. The industry requirement is usually 6 pixels/inch; according to our local Billboard customer; who has worked in that industry for 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Katz Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 I don't know what "perfect quality" means. What is the largest print you have made using 35mm film "while retaining perfect quality"? You can expect to make 11" x 17" prints that rival well done prints from 35mm slides. When a photo needs to produce the finest detail, IMHO prints from 100 ISO 35mm slides are noticely better. In other types of photos, the lack of visible grain/noise makes the digital prints superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david8 Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Ditto above responses, but if you're going to make prints on an epson inkjet, for example, the lowest print file resolution would be 240dpi....thus, 3088/240=12.8" width, call it 13" width....not too shabby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_graeber Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 it will size to 8x12@256ppi. good enough for injket printing without extra interpolation. so 12x18 (why pring 13x19? i can buy precut matte for 12x18) is not a big leap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_h Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 I have seen 4"x6" prints captured at max resolution from the nikon D100 (comparable to the eos 10d) printed from a $100K plus printer and was very disappointed with the results. The prints were much better than prints from the Cannon S9000 but still were not good enough in comparison to the prints from negatives. Closed-up prints look ok, but those that were taken from far away do not have the fine details like prints from negatives. Digital is good for many other things, but I think if you want prints, you better stick with prints from negatives. I have not seen prints from the D1s so I don't know how it would turn out. just my 2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raivo_vanags Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 from <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml">Luminous-Landscape on D60</a>:<p><i>35mm Photographers: If you've been waiting to make the move to digital but haven't felt that the cost / quality / image size equation worked for you yet � well, I think the time has come � especially if you already own some Canon EOS lenses. On A3 (11X17") and smaller prints the D60 is a champ and there's little advantage to film anymore.</i><p>from <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml">Luminous-Landscape on D30 vs Film</a>:<p><i>"Hi Michael, I've come across your article on the D30 versus film, I agree absolutely with all your conclusions, and I can add something. I own a drum scanner capable of 10,000 ppi and 4.6 D and also made tests with Provia 100F, scanning at 5000 ppi (the theoretical limit of film resolution). At that res the grain shows clearly so the D30 prints is vastly superior. The most approximated look to a D30 file is a 4x5 transparency drum scanned to match the size of a print from the D30+GF Pro (30x40 cm). So I too am impressed by the performance of the D30. It seems that all we used to know about photography no longer applies !!"</i><p>So is 10D worse than D30 and D60?? <p>P.S.I haven't used none of the cameras mentioned above. <p>Best, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.alaskanphotographs.com Posted April 4, 2003 Share Posted April 4, 2003 I asked a similar question a few weeks ago when I was considering buying a 10D, here is the link to that discussion: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004hKm I ended up buying the 10D, and I am a very happy man! Including all of my test shots in less than 2 weeks I've shot 700 photos! I have yet to print anything bigger than 8x10, and they look great. I'm looking in to buying an Epson 2200p or a Canon i9100 to make that size print. Read the other post, you'll find some great info. Good Luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_jacobs1 Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 If you have a printer, download some full res samples from a 10d from a site that has reviewed it (I'm sure you can find some) and find out for yourself. This is what I did before I was convinced to buy the D60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munchydoan Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 I don't know what "perfect quality" means, but I think the maximum size will depend on the content of your photo. I recently enlarged an environmental portrait of a a couple to 20x30 through printroom.com and the quality of the print was simply astounding. It was shot with a 10D 100mm ef f/2 at iso 400 and there is simply no grain and digital artifacts are BARELY visible if you look closely. But at that size you're not sticking your nose up to view it. The detail is not all there at that size, but it doesn't matter for this photo as the composition, facial expression and lighting were the dominating features of the image.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now