[Dan]

Haha, I have 2 measly 17"s at home. The 27 iMac is at my school. It's an i7 also.

It's AMAZING, but makes my camera look bad haha.

The 27" iMac has a "whopping" 3.7 megapixel display (2560x1440). If it makes your camera look bad you need to work on your technique. Of course you can "pixel peep" at 100% using any display, but that has nothing to do with display size.

Dan

[Ira]

Doing the maths certainly comes out that way - but it really depend on the picture itself. An editor would not be worth their salt if they rejected a picture just because it was 10Mp instead of 15Mp. - eg: some pic of an extraordinary once in a lifetime weather event where the pic is mainly sky - is 10Mp that inferior to a 15Mp pic in this instance?

Then again do people remember that video linked in the thread -

How can they print that big with only 12mp?

From the UK TV The Gadget Show -
where they blew up a shot from a 12Mp Nikon D70.
(I don't seem to be able to view the video now from the USA....
- but I had saved a copy back when the thread was current
Hopefully people in the UK still can see it?)
but the gist is they printed to 17x10 metres(!)
and on the video the print looked not just "acceptable",
but great even on close ups, easily beating out the ISO400 35mm film shot......

So how big will a 10Mp print?

The DPI 2 times the printing screen is an old general rule, and they get away with less nowadays because of the RIP software (Raster Image Processing) before they etch the plate. And nowadays, they do DTP--which can mean direct to plate or direct to press, and they don't engrave the plate as an intermediary step. (No output of 4 pieces of film and engraving from that.) But this uses interpolation and cheats.

You can do almost anything these days because of interpolation technology and regular people won't notice the difference, but if Ansel Adams was alive today and offset printing an 11 by 14 piece at 266 line screen, he would demand an 11 by 14 image at 600dpi.

It's simply of matter of when the screen is applied to create the pattern the ink dots will follow, you need the resolution or it gets all pixelated. Good example is simply trying to offset or web print ANY 72dpi image--it stinks, and it's noticeable.

[UnknownVT]

I was referring to 'set' pieces, photos shot under controlled conditions for maximum rendition, hence the references to W & Playboy.

I certainly wasn't arguing against you - I guess I should have made that clear -

The maths and magazine specs are correct
and I often have to face that -
where lots of people will ask for shots at 300dpi without any other attributes.

I think mostly this stems for the days of photo prints and the most prevalant size was 6x4 - so @ 300dpi means 1800x1200 px (about 2Mp image -see later).

A pro would submit 10x8 - so 300dpi would yield 3000x2400 px - close enough to 6Mp hence the rush to use digital when 6Mp dSLR arrived.

That depends on the viewing context, as well as the subjective (non-resolution) qualities of the photo. On another thread, Marc S. (I think) shows some musician pics printed as publication covers, shot with a 2mpx P&S.

LoL! that was my pic in Post #56 in Pentax K-x or Canon 550D?

shot from 2Mp P&S - published as CD cover -

EXIF attached
- this was used on a CD cover
Mr. Frank Edwards: Chicken Raid

[Ira]

LoL! that was my pic in Post #56 in Pentax K-x or Canon 550D?

shot from 2Mp P&S - published as CD cover -

EXIF attached
- this was used on a CD cover
Mr. Frank Edwards: Chicken Raid

THAT'S A FANTASTIC SHOT!!!!

But here's something related:

Do you know if the CD cover was printed conventionally or digitally? For smaller run jobs, they go digital (dramatically less set-up costs and per piece costs depending on the quantity), and those dpi rules get thrown out the window.

[Shub]

The 27" iMac has a "whopping" 3.7 megapixel display (2560x1440). If it makes your camera look bad you need to work on your technique. Of course you can "pixel peep" at 100% using any display, but that has nothing to do with display size.

Dan

Haha, I probably do have to work on my technique.

But I meant like, looking at high ISO pics on my 17" makes them look spotless. The bright 27" display of the iMac shows them a lot just because of it's much larger resolution than my 1280x1024x2 lmao.

[UnknownVT]

But here's something related:
Do you know if the CD cover was printed conventionally or digitally? For smaller run jobs, they go digital (dramatically less set-up costs and per piece costs depending on the quantity), and those dpi rules get thrown out the window.

Thanks.

Sorry, I have no idea - this was back in 2002 - and Music Maker Foundation was only just starting to produce CDs, so all the art work was probably farmed out to someone - all I know was they asked me for the shot and I sent them the PP 2Mp file - so probably the short run digital method.
But think on this a CD cover is 5x5 inches - which even at 300dpi is a mere 1500x1500 ppx
so 2Mp at 1600x1200px is not that far off.

BTW - that pic also hung as a 10x7.5 print at the venue where it was taken.
====
and some may have seen this shot before
(it's because it's one of my favorites) -

EXIF attached -
also from the same 2Mp p&s

[Dan]

Haha, I probably do have to work on my technique.

But I meant like, looking at high ISO pics on my 17" makes them look spotless. The bright 27" display of the iMac shows them a lot just because of it's much larger resolution than my 1280x1024x2 lmao.

Ahhh, yes, that makes sense. If there's any noise in the image it will certainly look worse at higher resolutions.

Dan

[RioRico]

LoL! that was my pic in Post #56 in Pentax K-x or Canon 550D?

I knew I'd flush you out!

As I've also mentioned before, presentation is everything. I've shot 912x1216 pixel B&W's (EDIT: greyscale) on my first digicam, a 1mpx Sony DSC-P20. Shooped a little for sharpness & contrast, cropped down to 900x900. Printed xt 56x56mm on glossy paper. Then contact-printed similar shots from 6x6 Verichrome Pan negs. Matted, glassed, framed these together, hung on a wall. Observers need a magnifier to distinguish them.

Of course, the P20's sensor has MUCH lower pixel density and thus noise than modern P&S's. Compare pixel densities in mpx/cm^2:

Pentax K20D, 4.13
Sony DSC-P20, 6.23
avg 5mpx cam, 13.76
avg 10mpx P&S, 42+

The denser, the worse. I'll bet your 2mpx Canon P&S isn't too dense, eh?

[UnknownVT]

I'll bet your 2mpx Canon P&S isn't too dense, eh?

Nope..... just the user

Don't forget p&s have tiny, tiny sensors - according to dpReview the S100 was 9 MP/cm².

Actually I was quite shocked to see how noisy the images from the Canon PowerShot S100 Digital ELPH were, when I had to crop and look at the pixel level - I didn't remember it being that noisy - but this could have been after a couple years' of use - can a sensor deteriorate?

From the 2Mp Canon PowerShot S100 Digital ELPH

overall shot - sunny, almost ideal conditions to get an optimum quality exposure/shot

detail - a little over-sharpened to emphasis the noise -

EXIF attached (caveat: PhotoBucket can drop metadata)

[simico]

From the UK TV The Gadget Show -
where they blew up a shot from a 12Mp Nikon D70.

Interesting, because D70 has a 6MP sensor
Ps: video is not available from here...

[audiobomber]

I think a lot of this had to do w/ the weaker AA filter of the K10D...I noticed a lot sharper images (viewed at 100%) than from the K20D...

Are you talking about viewing K10D photos at 100% vs K20D images at 100%? If so, that would hardly be a fair comparison.

[UnknownVT]

Interesting, because D70 has a 6MP sensor
Ps: video is not available from here...

You're right - but sorry, it was my typo -
it's a Nikon D700 12Mp FF

[kenyee]

Are you talking about viewing K10D photos at 100% vs K20D images at 100%? If so, that would hardly be a fair comparison.

Not 100% but close to it...maybe 75%.
Zoomed out (downsampled in size), you don't need quite as much sharpening in the K10D images.