Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The human eye can see about 250 too 300 dpi at average viewing distance, average viewing distance would be holding an image in your hand. Any more detail than that cannot be distinguished without moving the image closer.
For 8*10 that would equate to an image that is about 5 to 7 megapixels. 8*10's are usually viewed from farther distance so even 3MP is sufficient for reasonable quality image especially if it's resized correctly.
-----edit--------
Just so it's not misunderstood, the dpi setting on cameras usually default to 72 and this is irrelevant. It's just metadata, the real size is determined by the pixel count. Pixels have no physical dimensions and that's where DPI comes in.
I don't have a smart phone, yet, but unless I can print a photo that's at least 11x14 with good quality I'll continue to hold off getting one. I'm also down on the disappearing memory card but that's a different smartphone story.
I can judge by the megapixels.
In competition the judges sit very close to the prints.
I don't have a smart phone, yet, but unless I can print a photo that's at least 11x14 with good quality I'll continue to hold off getting one. I'm also down on the disappearing memory card.
I can judge by the megapixels.
There are several factors in effect when asking about the enlargeability of an image.
No, you can't really judge by the megapixels, at least not by those specified. Pixels can vary by absolute size as well as "pitch." Light is ultimately a physical thing with a physical size, and when we get down to the size of pixels, dimensions start to make a difference. Big pixels are better than small pixels--they actually collect more light per pixel. A camera with a huge sensor bearing fewer large pixels will produce a higher quality image than a camera with a tiny sensor with tinier--but more--pixels.
Collecting more light at the sensor is like moving an audio microphone closer to your mouth--you're collecting more of the actual source signal. If you are forced to collect less source signal, then you have to crank up the gain electronically.
But whether you're talking about an audio collecting sensor or a light collecting sensor, there is always a floor of electronic noise created by the sensor, the recorder, and everything else in the system. When you crank up the gain, you elevate that noise as well as the signal. If the signal was already so low as to barely be above the noise level, then when you crank up the gain you perceive the noise in the recording (whether audio or visual), especially in the quiet (audio) or dark (visual) areas.
As has been correctly noted above, the average human fails to perceive discrete units of detail at about the 300 units per inch range at normal reading distance. Actually, the best way to express than is by seconds of arc (which I think is three seconds of arc, if my memory serves)--expressed as seconds of arc, it covers all distances.
When the units of detail (pixels, dots, whatever) are tinier than 300 per inch at normal reading distance, the eye sees them as a solid function. Larger units of detail will be perceived as individual units. As I said, it's better to discuss this in terms of seconds of arc, because distance from the image is always a factor in play.
Moving closer to an image is the same thing to your eye as enlarging it. Moving farther from the image is the same thing to the eye as reducing it. The same image that is unpleasant at 20 inches might look fine when viewed from ten feet.
Even the subject matter counts. Some subjects have inherent detail that people expect to see in any picture of that subject. How truly sharp does a picture of an egg have to be, compared to a picture of a cat?
There are several factors in effect when asking about the enlargeability of an image.
No, you can't really judge by the megapixels, at least not by those specified.
If I have an 800x600 photo (the size I'll use for a C-D message insert), for example, I know I'm not printing an 11x14 photo from it. If I have a 1400x933, for example (a cropped projector sized image), I know I'm not printing a 19x13 photo from it. That's all I meant.
I have a large color printer (prints 19x13 - largest). What I don't have is a smartphone or I would just try it to see what I get. All I want to know is whether anyone has printed a minimum 11x14 sized photo from a cell phone, if they were happy with the quality and what cell phone they used.
From where I'm standing, a photo from an iphone 6 is on the edge of usable for a 14x10.5 print at 300dpi
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
