Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Climbing Photography:
30 inch by 40 inch from 8 megapixel
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Climbing Photography

Premier Sponsor:

 


skankers


Apr 15, 2009, 8:59 AM
Post #1 of 4 (1132 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2009
Posts: 12

30 inch by 40 inch from 8 megapixel
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I pushed my luck I thought when I ordered a large print as I remembered after ordering it that I had used my smaller 8 megapixel camera so it would not get soaked(mist trail) and the photo came today and the detail of the people on the bridge(my family group)was excellent, even though it was a 30 x 40 inch print, and the sensor was not that large(Olympus C8080). The optics on that lens were supposed to be excellent. I feel like I lucked out.


pico23


Apr 15, 2009, 9:24 AM
Post #2 of 4 (1114 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2377

Re: [skankers] 30 inch by 40 inch from 8 megapixel [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

so that is like a 37in diagonal?

Which means you should be viewing it from about 5-6 feet

8MP from a digital sounds about right at 100px per in. Assuming it was at low ISO and the original was sharp and blur free.

Actually the bigger you go the less pixel density is used .

So at 30x40 it's probably only using 100ppi at most.

The other thing subjective. I used to work at a print lab, and some people were happy blowing up a wallet sized print to a 20x30 poster. Looked horrible but they were happy. Others printed 110 film to 11x14 which again looked horrible but again they loved it. On the flip side I was at Peter Licks gallery in Las Vegas and while not every one of his $5000 images was flawless (and by flawless I mean various things including resolution and detail), there were quite a few 60+ in prints I could put my nose up to an not lose any detail.


marc801


Apr 15, 2009, 9:55 AM
Post #3 of 4 (1096 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2747

Re: [pico23] 30 inch by 40 inch from 8 megapixel [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

pico23 wrote:
so that is like a 37in diagonal?
Nope. 50" diagonal.
Remember the Pythagorean theorem?
Diagonal = SquareRoot((A squared)+(B squared))


pico23


Apr 15, 2009, 3:02 PM
Post #4 of 4 (1047 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2377

Re: [marc801] 30 inch by 40 inch from 8 megapixel [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yeah, I do now....not sure what the "F" i was thinking, but lets just say, it's probably not a good idea to post replies on a few hours of restless sleep.


Still the rest of the calculations hold true, he just gets a few extra feet of proper viewing distance.


Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Climbing Photography

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$49.46 (10% off)
$62.06 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook