Originally posted by barondla So true. An article a while back was talking about how 60mp files weren't big enough for really, really big prints. 100mp or more was needed. As I remember the details, the author printed huge prints (like 4x6 feet) of 100mp and down sampled 60mp, and 36mp files. Had people view them at average distance and vote for the best version. He claimed that even at distances where the eye shouldn't be able to tell them apart, the 100mp pic garnered the most votes. Fascinating.
Unfortunately I had the article link saved on a tablet that recently died.
Thanks,
barondla
And that is relevant to people who print 72 inches by 48 inches. If you're one of those people, listen to what he says, if not ignore it. a 16 Mp camera is 5000 x 3400 approx. A 36 Mp camera is apron 7000 x 5000. You double the MP count, but you don't double the pixels dimension.In fact instead to 2x they are only .4x
A 100 MP file is 11,000 by 9000 approx. 3 times the MP but not even double the dimensional pixel cost. So yes, the amount of MP needed for large files increases exponentially, but, it's impossible to say what that translates to.
But a few quick calclations. 72 inches at 100 MP (11,600 pixels wide) gives you a pixel density of 161 per inch.
7000 (K-1) divided by 161 equals 43.4 inches.
SO to match the pixel density recommended by this guy for maximum display you could print with a K-1 to 43.5 inches.
My own research suggests that for my own preferred medium, printing on canvas, I could go considerably larger, although I do try and print at least 150 pixels per inch with 200 being a preferred minimum and 300 or 360 being ideal.
But, my point is, if you have an image you really like becuse of its composition, colour values etc., you may be quite pleased with the image printed to as low as 72 pixels per inch which would be 100 inches on a K-1 image. It might not look as good as the same image printed from a 100 MP camera, but that fact will possibly be irrelevant to you as you sit there on a comfy sofa drinking a glass of wine admiring your image.
My 42 inch image hanging on my wall is 142 pixels per inch, less than my desired standard, yet the image looks great, (and for those of us who remember, digital prints started taking over from analogue when printers started to reach 144 DPI.) Everyone who comes in my place goes over and looks at it, some have offered to buy it, but not at the price I'm willing to sell it for. And it's not canvas so the usual argument about canvas being more forgiving doesn't apply.
This is not about what looks the absolute best, this is about what might make you happy. In my experience 110 pixels per inch can be sellable. It can make people happy enough to pay good money fo it, and we never sold those images for under $300 a print.