Best Possible Enlargement Size For G5?

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Cackling Pipes, Feb 11, 2004.

  1. The Canon G5 can go up to 2592x1944 what would be the largest acceptable
    printout that you could do. I mean acceptable, I believe there is loss
    around A4, I would like to get to A3 size....any tips?
     
    Cackling Pipes, Feb 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Cackling Pipes

    Rob Guest

    It depends upon your definition of acceptable vs the intended viewing
    distance, there are no hard and fast rules. If you simply wish to
    maximize the resolution for the particular output media's capabilities
    it's simply a mathematical relationship.

    Rob
     
    Rob, Feb 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. And that relationship is?....

    Acceptable in terms of sale, what would the average punter find acceptable.

    Also most places do lustre or gloss now for the same price, any advantages
    over one for picture quality?
     
    Cackling Pipes, Feb 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Cackling Pipes

    Rob Guest

    ....basic.

    Optimum print size (technical) = absolute pixel dimensions of the source
    file divided by the optimum print cluster density of the output device.

    As an example going back to your initial example source file of
    2592x1944 and outputting to a device with an optimum display resolution
    of 150 DPI the optimum print size would be 439 mm x 329 mm
    Reflecting back to my initial response; from grainy wall sized images to
    postage stamps. What is you prospective target "average punter", an
    in-law after wedding prints or someone who wants a nice print for their
    wall?

    Rob
     
    Rob, Feb 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Pictures of racers cars from the dragstrip........the pictures have been
    fine for magazines to use, just getting requests for prints of particular
    cars for personal sale.

    Eg
    http://www.dragster.com.au/modules/xcgal/albums/userpics/grantstephens/wsids
    ummernatsday1_060204/WSID_SummerNationals_Day1_060204_070.jpg
     
    Cackling Pipes, Feb 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Cackling Pipes

    Rob Guest

    Rob, Feb 11, 2004
    #6
  7. Cackling Pipes

    Scott Howard Guest

    Presuming you're too cheap to actually try it out by blowing something up
    to that size (which I certainly was! :) then you can try what I did...

    Take one of your images and on your computer blow it up to A3 size.
    Then crop out one or two 6"x4" sections, and take them off to your
    favourite printing place (eg, Harvey Normans, 45cents each).

    For less than $1 you'll have a very good indication of how well they
    will enlarge up to whatever size you want. In my case I was very happy
    with what I saw for an A1 enlargement (from a 6MP 10D), and then proceeded
    to actually get the same pic enlarged to that size. Comparing the actual
    enlargement and the 6x4 "sample" the quality is exactly the same.

    The only catch with this is that you need to keep in mind how closely
    you'll be looking at the final print. You might look at a 6x4 from only
    a few inches away, but odds are you won't be looking so closely at the
    end print.

    Scott
     
    Scott Howard, Feb 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Cackling Pipes

    Craig Taylor Guest

    You know you get too much spam when you took this meesage to be about penis
    enlargements...
     
    Craig Taylor, Feb 12, 2004
    #8
  9. Cackling Pipes

    Miro Guest

    Huh ?
     
    Miro, Feb 13, 2004
    #9
  10. Cackling Pipes

    Craig Taylor Guest

    In other words he should take a photo and get some prints done to test how
    large it can go without going to shit. Seems obvious to me...
     
    Craig Taylor, Feb 14, 2004
    #10
  11. Cackling Pipes

    Lokin Guest

    I have just got two A0 size posters done based on images captured by a
    6MB camera (D60).

    If I look very closely I can start to see the pixelation around the
    sharp edges. At the normal viewing distance, they are perfect pictures.
    It is quite possible the printer rendered the resolution up at the
    printing time. However I could not see the soft focusing effects usual
    associated with blown up pictures.
     
    Lokin, Feb 14, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.