rest of the thoughts... The 3,000x5,000 jpeg is about the limits of what would be sharp in a 24x36 print. Overall, It will head to the daughter's college apartment wall as decor.
Thanks agaon for the insights. Bob S. On 12/7/05, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shel et al, > > Thanks for the insights on printing. It is more complex than I imagined. > > As for the information I have used, I think it is closer to 6.5mb than 2.2mb. > I stiched 4 images, each 2000x3000 pixels into 1 image 5000x3000 pixels. > If there was no overlap, it would be 8000x3000 pixels so I discarded > 37% of the info as redundant. The jpeg isn't a TIFF, but I have no > doubt that it could be a 40mb TIFF file as Rob or somebody said. I'm > sure a RAW file would be better, but the stiching program uses jpegs, > and I presume your right Paul that this is about the limits > > On 12/6/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But Bob used three smaller JPEGs stitched together to arrive at a total > > figure of 6.5mb. That's not quite the same as a single file of 6.5mb, and, > > as I asked before, it would seem that the effective amount of information > > in the large, combined file is the equivalent of 2.2mb or so. > > > > Shel > > "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: David Mann > > > > > Looking at the typical compression ratios I've been getting with my > > > web pics, a 43Mb TIFF reduced to 6.5Mb JPEG would be pretty good. > > > Hopefully the printers didn't try making major adjustments to the > > > JPEG... > > > > > > >
