File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hey /p/ i was wondering how big of print i can getn out of 8.o megapixel canon rebel xt?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:02 13:17:38Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1440Image Height983
>> Anonymous
16x20 is probably the largest without starting to lose considerable quality.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173156
You can make a really good 16x20 from a 5 megapixel point and shoot. A Rebel can certainly go larger than that.
>> Anonymous
>>173210
I have the same DSLR you have.
>>173212
>How exactly the hell does it follow from "7-8 MP crops from my DSLR look good at large print sizes" that images from a 5MP P&S won't look good?
Because
1) 5mp is not 8mp lol
2) P&S sensor quality is not as good as a DSLR sensor
3) Most of the time, the actual resolution of the sensor is much lower than stated, and is extrapolated through a horrible amalgam of semi-hardware and software methods in-camera, so if it's an actual 5mp p&s and not a 10mp p&s set at 5mp, the quality will be even worse in addition to the reason in #2.
4) Most of the time, the image files from a p&s are
a) Compressed (no raw option)
b) Compressed poorly (bad JPEG implementation)
c) Altered (poorly) before compression (poor noise reduction, etc.)

I thought you were uh... I thought you knew this stuff? Do you just buy equipment to take pictures and not learn the technical aspects behind the equipment? If so, maybe you need a Pentax amirite.
>> Anonymous
>>173217
>Most of the time, the actual resolution of the sensor is much lower than stated
Got any source to prove that claim?
>> Anonymous
ITT: Under age photo lab tech with nerd rage trolls a photographer because he sucks at taking pictures...
>> Anonymous
>>173217
cameras are for taking pictures not learning a bunch of bull shit none of which sounds true.
shut the fuck up fag
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173217
Even if all of that is true, your logic still fails.

It's like saying "My Porsche can go 80mph, so therefore your Ford Focus can't." If you were to say that your SLR *can't* make a print of size X, then that would imply that a P&S can't make a print of size X, but the fact that your SLR *can* tells us nothing.

Making a 16x20 from a 7-8MP crop is using your SLR well below its maximum capabilities. Therefore, it in no way follows from your argument that a 5MP P&S can't make a decent 16x20.
>> Anonymous
>>173220
I know from experience that some low end cameras with high MP count look like shit in full resolution. That is why I am always telling my family members to turn their 8MP cameras down since the extra space taken up by each photo isn't justified at all by the image quality. However, my Canon A520 (4MP only) and most any current powershot (don't know about the super slim ones) will give you the actual resolution stated.
>> Anonymous
everyone here got trolled by the same anon = op
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173230
>No, it's not, really. That's the point. A 3200x2400 image, printed at 300ppi, looks best at around 16x20" and lower.
No, a 3200x2400 image, printed at 300ppi, is 10.6x8". "ppi" stands for "pixels per inch", you see.

Have you ever tried making a print from your DSLR at larger than 16x20? You might be pleasantly surprised at the results.

>>173232
>So, read them too, because they talk about the exact in-camera sensor-data interpolation that I was talking about.
Decent cameras generally don't do interpolation (with the arguable exception of the Sigma foveon-based ones). A lot of really crappy ones do, and scanners frequently interpolate to double the size in one direction, but decent camera makers don't do that.
>> Anonymous
>>173240
>Decent cameras generally don't do interpolation (with the arguable exception of the Sigma foveon-based ones).
Actually, most do. Just about all point and shoots over 5 or 6mp and under $300 use some kind of sensor interpolation. Look into it.
>> Anonymous
if i remember correctly, the difference between actual pixel count and interpolated pixel count ranges around 0.5 megapixels or so, does it not? that is a rather insignificant amount. also, people need to stop looking at their prints with a microscope.
>> Anonymous
>>173240

no, it's papers per image