Topic awaiting preservation: Camera Megapixels and Large Print |
|
---|---|
Author | Thread |
Bipolar (III) Inmate From: Australia |
posted 08-18-2004 01:11
Just wondering, im thinking of buying a camera. Im not looking to spend a fortune but i know i want a super zoom one - so im looking at the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z2 (10x Zoom, 4MP) .. It says at 4mp that gives u images up to 2272x1704 pixels... Im wondering how big a poster u can get out of this. |
Bipolar (III) Inmate From: Mpls, MN |
posted 08-18-2004 01:48
The resolution really depends on the type of output device. Now I have tired dazzle, they require only 100dpi, and I was very happy with the quality, at this resolution however small type and fine lines would be an issue as would be fine details like wiskers and hair, but for typical poster viewing distance it should matter. |
Bipolar (III) Inmate From: Australia |
posted 08-18-2004 03:10
Hmm sounds good, i might just do that! |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: The Lair |
posted 08-18-2004 04:06
okay, the huge posters you see in store windows and on Times Square, are not done using digital cameras. They are done using special professional negatives, where the negative itself is about 10"x8", so you can enlarge it to virtually any size you want without no visible loss of detail. |
Bipolar (III) Inmate From: Australia |
posted 08-19-2004 06:19
Yeh i suspected as much, im only looking to spend about $800AU tho so that does limit my options. I guess since i am photographing individual products, most times these will be put into a bigger picture, its not like im taking a photo that i need enlarged to A0 etc really. So i should get away with it for now! |
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist From: Houston, TX, USA |
posted 08-19-2004 23:13
i've done 11" x 17" posters at 150dpi that i got printed at kinko's and they looked fine for the most part. with a poster you're not going to be right up close to it so you can get away with a lot lower resolution than you might expect. |
Bipolar (III) Inmate From: Australia |
posted 08-20-2004 00:44
Yeh, currently i am looking at one of these |