Yes, a considerable amount of interpolation is needed to make an 11 x 17 from a 6mp file. But that's one area where the PSCS RAW converter shines. When the file is upsized while converting to tiff, the results are very good. In fact, it was only after a local pro showed me the quality of interpolated results that could be achieved that I decided to go digital. I agree that some subjects are less amenable to this process, but I still contend that the reulsts, in general, are at least the equal of what can be achieved scanning a 35mm slide or negative. I don't think, however, that all RAW Converters are created equal, and interpolation is definitely one task at which the Adobe software excels. Paul
> Paul, I think @ 6MP, image quality @ a printed 11"X17" size is somewhat > dependant on the image itself. The data @ that file size has to be > interpolated > to allow enough data to print @ 11"X17". > I've read that for a full 13"X19" print, @ 300dpi printer resolution, without > interpolation, a 12 to 14 MP camera output file is needed. > > Kenneth Waller > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:08 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Pentax News > > Thibouille opined: > > I agree but it doesn't change the fact that IMO if one wants roughly > > the same quality on digital than on 35mm film, it'll probably take > > 20-30Mpix on a 35mm sized sensor. > > That may be true in theory. I don't find it to be true in practice. In my > experience, an 11 x 17 print from a carefully processed an interpolated *ist > D > file looks every bit as good to the naked eye as a 35mm print. YRMV. > > > > > > ________________________________________ > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com >
