----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 3:45 PM Subject: EOS Pixels and Print Size snip
> I print on an Epson 2200 at sizes of up to 13x19 inches. In reality, I tend to leave an inch margin or so around the image, so lets say an image size of 11x17 inches. "Conventional" teaching with scans (and I suppose that this could be part of the answer..that the conventional holds with scans but not direct digital acquisition) is that for critical sharpness you should be able to send 300ppi to the printer. Say this is overkill and you really only need 250 ppi. By my calculations you would still need 11 megapixels fo an 11x17 image at 250ppi. Yet everyone raves at the output of even the 10D at significantly less resolution. snip > Howard ------------------ Hi, I've got an EOS3 and a 10D, and an Epson 1270 A3 printer. Prior to getting the 10D I wasn't that enamoured with prints from my scanned slides - even when the slides were Fuji Provia 100F, and scanned at the full resolution of my Dimage Dual - file sizes of around 20MB. They were OK but didn't really enthuse me. That all changed with the 10D. A4 prints from files shot with prime lenses are simply superb, and A3 prints are full of detail and very satisfying. File sizes were around 2Mb - so what's going on? The 20MB files were Photoshop .psd files, and the 2MB files were .jpg (The Canon 10D's Large Coarse setting). In Photoshop the working file size is around 18MB. So the working file size is similar in both cases. Grain or more likely, the effects of aliasing the grain during scanning, was much more noticeable in the images scanned from film, and this took the edge off my prints. The 10D is so noise free that visual disturbances of this sort simply don't show up at normal ISOs. (I restrict my work in Photoshop, so using the jpg setting doesn't lose me too much quality. I do use RAW when necessary, but it's mainly to help guard against poor colour balance or similar.) Prior to getting the 10D, I was convinced that Canon's zooms were similar in quality to my prime lenses. The 10D shows this to be not true - even for the 28-135 USM IS which has quite a good reputation amongst non-L zooms. Images from my prime lenses (L and non-L) are simply more detailed. I can't answer for L zooms, as all that I have considered appear to me to be somewhat heavy for my usage. Using Genuine Fractals I have resized a 2MP image from my first digicam and printed to A4. The results were surprisingly acceptable, so there's more to this business than just a simple pixel count. I haven't tried scanning my slides with a 4000 or higher ppi scanner - perhaps this would knock the slide grain down due to better control of aliasing. (If my memory's correct, magazine printing needs 300 pixels/inch, whilst inkjets seem to be OK with 200 pixels/inch.) Hope this helps Malcolm Milton Keynes, UK www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
