DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> how many megapixels does it take?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/20/2004 05:20:05 PM · #1
HI
I'm still shopping for a dslr,, and wonder what is the minimum megapixel that is recommended for base images that will need to be 300dpi?
is 6.5megapixel acceptable?

thanks
 02/20/2004 05:21:25 PM · #2
It depends on what size you want 300dpi at. Any camera can get 300dpi at 1cm x 1cm for example.

Message edited by author 2004-02-20 17:21:50.
 02/20/2004 05:23:01 PM · #3
picky picky..

Ok, most of what I'm concerened about is for magazine work that requires an 8x10 at 300 dpi.
But I would also like to do larger format stuff.. up to 20 x 30inches
 02/20/2004 05:23:20 PM · #4
The 10D/300D can print 10.2" x 6.8" pics at 300dpi.

Edit: If you're really serious about shooting for a magazine, a Canon 1D mk2 may be a good option.

Message edited by author 2004-02-20 17:27:07.
 02/20/2004 05:26:49 PM · #5
For stock photography with the big companies, it is normally preferable to use a 12mp camera, producing files straight out of the camera at 16+ mb. I'm not sure if the same applies for magazines or not, but I guess the bigger the better.
 02/20/2004 05:33:17 PM · #6
right now the 10d is going to be a stretch to purchase... of course if money was not an option I'd not hesitate to get the 1d for a second.

ah well...

The magazine I'm working with is being very helpful.. :} it helps that they really want my images, that are tied to an article they want to publish,,,
but I'd like to be able to get on as a freelance w/ them and really need to upgrade from my G3 for that.

thanks guys!
 02/20/2004 05:33:50 PM · #7
Aww, man. I thought I was finally going to find out how many megapixels it takes to screw in a lightbulb.
 02/20/2004 05:36:49 PM · #8
Originally posted by fluxn:
Aww, man. I thought I was finally going to find out how many megapixels it takes to screw in a lightbulb.

6,290,000.. 6,289,999 to screw in the lightbulb, and 1 to make a hot pixel.
 02/20/2004 05:47:14 PM · #9
I've had several full page images published in magazines from D60 files. It is easy to up-size the images to an adequate resolution to meet an 8x10 @ 300dpi goal and the publishers are perfectly happy with the image quality (in fact it looks better than most 35mm film scans they work with according to them)

I'd suggest speaking to the person who does the layouts or printing and working with them to understand exactly what you need - but a 6Mp SLR will give you plenty of resolution for magazine work.

I've also successfully printed _good_ images at 20x30, again at 300dpi. Lens quality and technique are the main issues for printing to that size.

Scab-lab has had images from his D60 printed on billboards too - these cameras are more than adequate for commercial usage.

Message edited by author 2004-02-20 17:48:26.
 02/20/2004 05:48:59 PM · #10
All pixels are not created equally. Although you can't technically get 300 pixels per inch out of a 10D shot at 8x10, the camera is capable of producing exceptional, professional-quality prints at 8x10 and larger. 12x16s look stunning if proper technique is used. Noise, sharpening artifacts, etc all come out in large prints from point-and-shoot digitals. The 10D has exceptionally low noise levels at low ISO values, and with good prime or L-series lenses the true resolution of an image is very high. While tiny digital cameras are able to produce 5 megapixels of information, the lenses aren't good enough to make really good use of these pixels.

A 10D should be more than enough for your purposes. As always, use a tripod, mirror lockup, RAW file format, good lenses and a relatively dust-free sensor and you'll see truly exceptional results that will rival medium-format film cameras.

Originally posted by JC_Homola:
right now the 10d is going to be a stretch to purchase... of course if money was not an option I'd not hesitate to get the 1d for a second.

ah well...

The magazine I'm working with is being very helpful.. :} it helps that they really want my images, that are tied to an article they want to publish,,,
but I'd like to be able to get on as a freelance w/ them and really need to upgrade from my G3 for that.

thanks guys!


Message edited by author 2004-02-20 17:51:08.
 02/20/2004 05:52:32 PM · #11
Originally posted by Gordon:

Scab-lab has had images from his D60 printed on billboards too - these cameras are more than adequate for commercial usage.


I was just talking to someone about billboards from the D60. Up close they're choppy, but who gets up close to a billboard? Definetly not us lowly consumers!
02/20/2004 05:55:23 PM · #12
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Gordon:

Scab-lab has had images from his D60 printed on billboards too - these cameras are more than adequate for commercial usage.


I was just talking to someone about billboards from the D60. Up close they're choppy, but who gets up close to a billboard? Definetly not us lowly consumers!


I think up close any billboard looks choppy - dots the size of golf balls. Don't think it matters much if it is from a D60 or scan.
 02/20/2004 06:08:22 PM · #13
1 to make it a hot pixel.......snort funny very funny..

but back to the topic at hand.

so do you think the d60 is worth the extra bucks over the 10D?
 02/20/2004 06:13:46 PM · #14
Originally posted by JC_Homola:
1 to make it a hot pixel.......snort funny very funny..

but back to the topic at hand.

so do you think the d60 is worth the extra bucks over the 10D?


the 10d replaced the D60. They are roughly equivalent - the 10D is just a slight upgrade over the older D60. (some more focus points, bit faster buffering/ processing) They are basically the same camera, except the 10D is about $800 cheaper than the D60 was
 02/20/2004 06:20:08 PM · #15
duh,, oh, thanks Gordon for being tolerant of this old fool..

thanks again everyone.
 02/20/2004 06:33:29 PM · #16
I have had pictures done 16inch x 12inch taken on my MX2700 which is 2.3 mega with excellent results. here is one of them


02/20/2004 11:08:11 PM · #17
Hi chinstrap, i like to know how you did a 16x12 on a 2.3 , i would be interested in doing same too
 02/21/2004 08:20:10 AM · #18
Originally posted by General:
Hi chinstrap, i like to know how you did a 16x12 on a 2.3 , i would be interested in doing same too


Hi Gagan, I used to print a lot of photos out on my printer (epson 895). However I was not completely happy with the quality. Also I had to question why I was printing all these photos and then just putting them away. I came across a site here in the U.K. //www.photobox.co.uk I upload my images at the size they come out of the camera (The example was about 1.2meg) and then choose which ones I would like printed. The quality suprised me as I did not think I could get it that good at that size, but it's great. They do ship worldwide so it might be worth you trying them out.
You get 30mb free and when you place your first order they then give you 100mb. You can buy an additional 100mb for UK pounds 9.99 and at the moment they are doing a special - buy 100mb and get 100mb free!
The picture I posted was out of my MX2700 which gives 1200 x 1800 at its highest.
Hope this helps

Mike

Message edited by author 2004-02-21 08:21:40.
 02/21/2004 10:45:08 AM · #19
Hi chinstrap
thanks for quick response. I am in India , and here the labs expect you to create the size and than give them. I have 2 mega pixel which gives maximum 1200x1600, i have printed 5x7, got great printouts, i followed tutorial from DPChallenge on how to create printable images . i thought you created 16x12 your self.
Thanks for help, may be i should try them in future


02/21/2004 11:14:51 AM · #20
Check this tutorial. There are also tutorials on Resampling and Sharpening, both of which pertain.

The current advice for resampling is to increase the size in small (5% or so) steps until you are up to the desired size. The newest version of Photoshop is supposed to have a new algoritm which allows improved single-step upsampling. You can also use third-party software/plug-ins (e.g. Genuine Fractals) which are supposed to increase file size more accurately.

The success will also be based on the subject matter -- a nice sunset photo can probably be doubled in size with no problem. A shot of a fisherman with his nets and scaly catch would be more difficult.

Another consideration is viewing conditions. My camera takes the same size image as your's. I've made prints up to 20x30 (including some border) which, when viewed from a typical 1-2 meter distance, look just fine. Based on the reports from DPC Prints, you can get a decent print to one of these photo printers at as low as 150 DPI. I'd recommend making two versions of the same image, one at 150 DPI and one upsampled and adjusted to 300 DPI and see which form of resizing works better.

What part of India do you live in?
 02/21/2004 11:25:47 AM · #21
Gagan - apologies if I mislead you, I should have made it clear where I had my prints done.

Mike


02/21/2004 01:16:01 PM · #22
I just bought a 5 and then all the new models coming out seem to want to say 8, oh well, there goes another "industry standard" missed.
 02/21/2004 02:31:58 PM · #23
thanks GeneralE, I use same tutorial, i was not sure if my camera was good enough for such big prints , if i used same technique.

I mean if i try to make 8x10 after cropping a 1200x1600 for a 8x10 i get on average 150-170 dpi as starting dpi , idea of resampling by 5 % till i get 300 dpi, will it be worth or not.

Prints from where i get is pretty far from my house, so was reluctant to experiment.

They have a great machines , i think fuji if i am not wrong.

I had two more issues bothering me , once i resample using DPC tutorial i get great Printouts but when i view same on my monitor @ 100 % ,i get very hazy pictures but if reduce zoom to 50% or less to i get crystal clear pictures,
I am new to this field i was bogged by another issue , If do any manipulation for color correction or any other reason using PS is it worth as i am not using my own printer, i get prints from a professional lab, so idea doing any manipulation while using my monitor but nor my printer worth the effort of trying for accurate color reproduction.

Strange fact is my monitor is not correctly calibrated , i dont own any hardware to calibrate monitor but despite incorrect calibration and printouts by a third party Printers , i can say i am in situation where 90% of What I See Is What I Get , maybe it is miracle

I live in Delhi, and we have great labs and we get great prices for printouts, eg 4x6 = .22 $, 5x7 = .32 $, 8x10 = 1.6$.
These labs have excellent machines installed and they give great printouts.

Message edited by author 2004-02-21 14:37:05.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 06:28:29 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 06:28:29 PM EDT.