Of course this completely ignores the fact that a RAW converter interpolation will give you a bigger file with minimal penalty. A post conversion PhotoShop interpolation is almost as good. The gain realized in more pixels far offsets anything lost in the interpolation process. Thus, I print most of my *istD images at 11 x 17, 360 DPI, with excellent results. (Assuming the photographer doesn't screw thins up.:-)/ Paul On Aug 30, 2006, at 9:16 PM, graywolf wrote:
> That depends on what you mean by an 8x10? If you mean a matted 8x10 > (7.5x9.5 inches) at 300dpi you need 7.5mp in a 2x3 format sensor. So, > the 8mp figure is right in there, while 6mp is a bit small. My little > Oly is 5mp but in a 3x4 format so it produce a 256dpi image at that > size > (7.5x10 actually) as does the 6mp 2x3 format sensor in the Pentax > D-SLR's, but with fewer wasted pixels. If you want an 8x10 (or 8x12) > 300dpi full bleed image then you need a few more pixels. However 9mp > will do it with a tiny bit to spare. If you want 360dpi then you > need a > bigger sensor, and if you are will to settle for 240dpi a smaller one > will do. So, as I said, it it depends upon your definition of a near > perfect 8x10. > > -- > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > John Forbes wrote: >> What's needed is a simple number to indicate picture quality. >> Something >> that would, perhaps, indicate the best camera to use to produce a >> near-perfect 10x8. >> >> That's what most of us are really interested in, whether or not we >> actually want to print 10x8s. >> >> Of course, I realise that in the real world life is more >> complicated. But >> this is the number that pixel-counts are standing-in for. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
