Orion Vianna wrote:
I looked up some info online about print quality dpi vs width/height
inches.
Here is a quote from this site
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/resolution_and_prints/resolution_and_print_size_1.html
"IMAGE RESOLUTION FOR PRINTING
Minimum resolution for magazine-quality printing is 300ppi, so a VGA
image of 640x480 will only allow for a decent print of 3.2 x 1.6
inches (640pixels/300ppi=2.1 inches by 480pixels/300ppi=1.6 inches).
640x480=0.3Mpixels.
If you want to make a good 8x10 print under the above standards, it
will be best to have a 300ppi image with a size of 2400 by 3000 (8x300
by 10x300), a 7.2Mpixel scan. So now you know exactly the why of the
quest for higher Mpixel rating from scanners (and digital cameras),
even when interpolation may acceptably invent pixels where there are
none. "
I took Graphic Design I at DCC this past spring, and our instructor (an
experienced commercial artist) said that we should scan things in at
least 300 dpi, but some printers only print 150 dpi. (Our work was no
bigger than 11"x17").
I may be totally missing something but a 12000x12000 image will give
me exactly 40x40 inches of quality print.
40x40 is much smaller then whats on the side of buildings in the
city... I love to know how they deal with such huge file sizes...
Those don't need to be 300 dpi, because the viewer would be a
considerable distance away. The farther away the viewer is, the lower
the resolution necessary. Reminds me of when I saw Seurat's "/Sunday
Afternoon/ on the Island of the Grande Jatte," with hand-painted dots,
which looked meaningless when viewed close up.
Adam
_______________________________________________
Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org
http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug
Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium
Dec 2 - MythTV
Jan 6 - Git
