12 MP Image Enlarged to 13 x 19

The 12mp camera should be sufficient enough. My dads 10.1 nikon d60 says on the box, grreat quality for 13x19.

I've printed lovely 19x23 and even larger from my 8mp Canon 30d... You can print a billboard just fine with respectable pixel density. IMO, standard use cameras don't need more than 8mp, but I like having 12mp in my D300 for cropping.

I think I read somewhere that 12MP is equal in resolution to 35mm film. If someone here can corroborate that, that may help answer your question.

See: http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality

You can make HUGE prints from very limited sized originals, if you use the right printer.

Do the math. 12 MP is a resolution of 4,000 x 3,000, give or take

at 19 inches on the long side, that's 4000/19 = 210 pixels per inch resolution.

Without software interpolation, at 200 ppi the naked eye can make out stair-stepping in diagonal lines, but only at very close range -- its unlikely people will be viewing your print from less than 6 inches.

200 ppi is generally considered to be adequate for printing of photographic material. Of course, this depends on both the quality and the technology of the printer, and final results will depend on the quality of the original shot. 12 MP in a point and shoot with cheap optics and a noisy sensor != 12 MP in a DSLR with quality lens.

First off before everyone starts saying "my camera is really good" what we are talking about here (I think) are "fine art" quality prints made to a large size. The baseline here is a hand made silver gelatin, toned print printed from a medium format negative. The bar is very high.

The rule most people use is that for quality prints you need 300 pixels per inch. So don't think in terms of "megapixels" think in terms of how many pixels are along the longest edge of the digital file. To make the math easy I'll use my Nikon D50 as the example because it has a 3000 x 2000 frame size. So my files have 3000 pixels along the long edge. Applying the 300 DPI rule a 3000 pixel wide file can be printed 10 inches wide.

Going the other way a 13 x 19 inch print requires 3900 x 5700 pixels or 22.2 megapixels. But then you might disagree with the 300 dpi rule and think 250 dpi is "good enough" and get by with less pixels.

I've also shot 6x7 (with my Mamiya RB67) I can say right away the no Nikon or Canon camera, digital or film made today or in the past can compare with the quality you can get from a Mamiya RB67 or a Hasselblad CB500. Both Nikon and Canon make some very good professional quality optics but nothing they make is comparable with professional quality medium format equipment. this was true 30 years ago and remains true today. You can't compare 35mm equipment to medium or large format.

If you have a technical background you can work this out in terms on "lines per millimeter" (or "cycles" per millimeter) on the final print. The thing to remember is that is takes two pixels to make a cycle. So 300 pixles gets at most 150 lines resolution but Only in the vertical or horizontal direction. 45 degree diagonal lines are the worst case for digital systems. For these you need about three pixels per cycle. So your print made at 300dpi can hold about 100 lines per inch, worst case.

My guess is that your current wet darkroom system can do about 100 lines per inch on the final print. If I guess right then you are going to need to stay with 300 DPI prints when going digital. If I guessed wrong then adjust accordingly.

One other way to look at this. My best film images from my RB67 will need to be scanned at about 4000 DPI to capture all the details. High speed film has less detail and can be scanned at 3000 DPi with no loss of details. the 6x7cm frame is close to 2.25 inches square so it scans to either 6750 or 9000 pixels square making either a 41 megapixel file or an 81 megapixel file. even the 41MP file is way past the current state of the art in Nikon or Canon dSLRs. To match medium format quality you would need to get something like the Haselblad H3. The H3 is a 645 format dSLR with a CCD sensor that is the size of two 35mm frames, or 60 x45 mm. Nikon and Canon's "full frame" cameras are half the size of the 645 frame.

Bottom line is that you could do what you are looking to do, make 19 inch wide prints at 300DPI if you bought a 24MP full frame SLR but to equal the quality you got from fine grain black and white 6x7 film you are looking at a H3 setup (at a price of about $50K)

Why not just buy a film scanner. The Nikon "5000" will fully capture your 6x7 negs with enough detil to make wall sized prints. One bit of warning, yo need a very powerfull computer if you want to work with 100 megapixel files in Photoshop. My 2.16 Ghz 24" iMac is just barely able to handle it.

Macmonter said:

I'm a photo hobbyist experienced in doing my own b/w darkroom printing enlargements up to 11 x 14 from 6 x 7 cm negs. My quest was high detail, low grain prints. I would like to maintain these qualities when I transition to digital printing with enlargements as large as 13 x 19 in with either b/w or color.


What are the opinions of this forum's members about images produced in a 12 MP camera maintaining high detail and low noise comparable to what I got in the darkroom when the digital image is enlarged to 13 x 19 in. I accept that top-of-the-line Nikon/Canon lens quality is a must. Would I need a camera with a full size imager or would the smaller size be sufficient saving me big bucks.

I know that your opinions are subjective about what would be acceptable print quality, but I have no experience beyond my 3 MP P & S enlarged to an 8 X 10.

Click to expand...

Macmonter said:

It appears that I have 2 choices since there is no way I could afford to come anywhere near the quality of my wet prints with a fully digital system:
1. Use a hybrid system as you suggested by scanning medium format negs, or
2. settle for less quality and minimize the disappointment by buying the best quality slr I can afford (possibly the Canon D5)

Click to expand...

1st, it's the 5D (minor typo). Nikon likes to put the "d" first.

I would urge you to consider another option:

For a while, ship your film out to have it processed. Then, once prices on MF backs have dropped (or you can find a great deal used), you can go fully digital without compromise.

The problem is obvious: patience. On the other hand, you don't waste $1500++ on a Canon system that will otherwise rapidly depreciate (other question is: how much will shipping the film out cost you?).

CanadaRAM said:

Do the math. 12 MP is a resolution of 4,000 x 3,000, give or take

at 19 inches on the long side, that's 4000/19 = 210 pixels per inch resolution.

Without software interpolation, at 200 ppi the naked eye can make out stair-stepping in diagonal lines, but only at very close range -- its unlikely people will be viewing your print from less than 6 inches.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The 300 ppi "guideline" that people like to follow requires many assumptions to be made about the people viewing the photo.

Firstly, the person viewing your perfect 300 ppi photo is just 12 inches away from the photo. If the same viewer stands 2 feet (24") away, the photo will appear to be of equal resolution if printed at ~150 ppi (3500/# of inches). Besides, there is no such thing as resolution. Resolution depends on what you can see, and that depends on distance from the photo. If you use a microscope to view your photo, obviously 300 ppi resolution will look like crap.

Secondly, it assumes that the viewer's eyesight is perfect, and since eyesight degrades with age, only <4 year old children with 20/20 vision standing 1 foot away from your photo will be able to see these flaws. That, and people with glasses with brand new prescription lenses.

Thirdly, you assume that people who see your photo actually care about such things. The large majority of people don't care. That explains all the crappy photos on people's FaceBook accounts, doesn't it?


Can you see all sorts of pixellation on your LCD? My 13.3" MacBook has a pixel density of 113 ppi, and even at around 1.5 - 2 feet away from the LCD, I never notice any pixellation. There are no diagonal lines on my screen right now, but I don't think I'd see any stepping even if there were.




I have printed at 10"x15" a number of times using files from my 6 MP Nikon D50, and they look great. That would be 200 ppi. I have printed a 10"x 15" from a 6 MP that was cropped, you can see some pixellation if it's printed and viewed from within 1 foot. I believe it was printed at 150 ppi. I printed it because I thought it was a good photo, not because I can see pixels from 6 inches. It looks good sitting above my desk, where nobody ever sees the photo from less than 3 feet.

I have done 13" by 19" from a cropped image less than half frame (changed portrait format to landscape format from edge to edge) on a 7.5Mp dslr (Lumix L1) with outstanding results. Like others have said, it's what it looks like that matters not what ppi... and good glass makes up for lower pixel count in my experience. Most kit lenses won't afford you high image quality no matter how many pixels your sensor says.

Macmonter said:

ChrisA, thank you for your very detailed explanation of what I can expect from a 12 MP image enlarged to a 13 x 19 and why it won't compare to my old darkroom prints from medium format negs. I had been obsessed with high res, fine grain and used Panatomic X souped in Microdol diluted 1:3 for my b/w landscapes. It appears that I have 2 choices since there is no way I could afford to come anywhere near the quality of my wet prints with a fully digital system:
1. Use a hybrid system as you suggested by scanning medium format negs, or
2. settle for less quality and minimize the disappointment by buying the best quality slr I can afford (possibly the Canon D5)

I was hoping to leave my old KoniOmegaflex M in the closet and not have to spool 120 film onto reels in total darkness. I wouldn't send my film to a lab since I like total control and involvement in my print making. Going totally digital maintains my control but at a cost in quality. Decisions, decisions!

Click to expand...

A 5D will have good noise characteristics, but not the same resolution charactieristics as something like a Nikon D300 or Canon 1Ds mkIII- pixel density plays a role in detail. Digital isn't film though, the response curve of the medium is a line, not a curve- so a great deal depends on what you shoot and what results you really need. If you shoot still subjects, you may find that stiching images together gives you what you desire, or that a LF scanning back is necessary to get really crisp micro detail.

If you're shooting moving subjects, the Hasselblad is probably where you want to be detail-wise, but it's expensive to get to that level of detail.

Frankly though, you should try out a high pixel density dSLR before you decide either way- I get great fine art 13x19's from a 12.4MP D2x on their own merits, but I wouldn't stand them up against my old 645s, let alone 6x6, 6x7, 4x5 or 5x7s- but I haven't shot any of the other formats in years- so for me digital's advantages were good enough.

compuwar said:

A 5D will have good noise characteristics, but not the same resolution charactieristics as something like a Nikon D300 or Canon 1Ds mkIII- pixel density plays a role in detail.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that. I figured the actual resolution of the image between the cameras would be the same, but 5D may allow more fine details to come through due to the slightly larger dynamic range offered by the 5D's larger sensor, possibly allowing the camera to distinguish tiny differences in photon count between adjacent pixels as being "different" (i.e. less rounding of photon counts/interactions).

I'm no expert on this subject on how the light comes through the lens and hits an APS-C or FF sensor, so it was just a guess.

I just printed a 20x30 canvas with my 10MP 1dMIII, looks fabulous.

Abstract said:

I didn't know that. I figured the actual resolution of the image between the cameras would be the same, but 5D may allow more fine details to come through due to the slightly larger dynamic range offered by the 5D's larger sensor, possibly allowing the camera to distinguish tiny differences in photon count between adjacent pixels as being "different" (i.e. less rounding of photon counts/interactions).

I'm no expert on this subject on how the light comes through the lens and hits an APS-C or FF sensor, so it was just a guess.

Click to expand...

More photosites in an area give more detail at the cost of less light sensitivity. You actually get more "rounding" with larger photosites because each photosite can only have one "answer" and if it's area is 2x as large, then you get half as many answers for that particular region of sensor real-estate.

Consider this:

RGB
RGB
RGB

Click to expand...

RGBRGB
RGBRGB
RGBRGB

Click to expand...

If both patterns above took up the same amount of physical space, which one would give more detail? Which would have more photons hitting it? That's the point, more detail, less light (which equates to more amplification of the signal giving more noise.)

Light hitting the smaller sensor is also more perpendicular to the sensor plane, giving a bit more accuracy out on the edges, though is is really an artifact of lens size.

Here's a good real-world comparison:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm

The flying eagle in my portfolio is a heavy crop from a D2x, which has an extremely high pixel density. The detail in say an 8x10 print is still astounding because of that high pixel density. The trade-off is that I really need to be at ISO 100 or ISO 200 to get acceptable noise characteristics. At 13x19, the extreme crop starts to lose detail, so you can't put your nose up to it and be awed, it still looks great on the wall at a normal viewing distance, but the OP is interested in micro-detail, and if the image were a full picture, they'd get that with the high pixel density of the D2x, D300 or 1Ds series.

Macmonter said:

I, like Abstract, assumed that FF would produce print qualities better than the APS at the same MP rating, that's why I leaned toward the 5D with it's L series kit zoom lens (less than $3k at B & H). I assumed that the kit lenses on the APS's were of lesser quality and that even the "pro" lenses mated to an APS would not match a FF with good glass.

Click to expand...

I think you are right. If two sensors had the same number of pixels but one was larger you'd expect the larger sensor to have (1) less noise in low light situations and (2) sharper image because it is less demanding of the lens' optical qualities. (3) wider dynamic range, less cliped highlights and blocked up shadows. (4) different (shallower) depth of field because you'd be using 1.5 times longer lenses.

If you are looking at the Nikon line the optical quality of the kit lenses, even the inexpensive 18-55mm is very good and a good match to the camera sensor. You have to remember that with digital sensors the weak leak is the "anti-alias filter" that is between the lens and the sensor. These filters blur the image so as to remove detail that is finer then two pixels across. Without this you'd have all kind of banding and other artifacts. Camera companies do NOT like to advertise these filters. The filter is built into the sensor, typically it is a thin molded plastic that is glued over the top of the Bayer color mosaic filter.

What you really want is a sensor that has just enough, enough but no more than enough pixels to take full advantage of a good quality 35mm camera lens. These lenses can resolve 80 to 100 cycles per millimeter on the image plane. This works out to about 3600 cycles (or lines) across the full frame. In round terms a 24MP full fram sensor is required to take advantage of a good lens, and good technique. There is not much need, nor will there ever be for a FF sensor to have more than 24MP. This would be a 6000x4000 pixel frame and using the 300dpi limit would allow for prints up to 20 inches wide. This is about what we were able to do with 35mm film if we were very, very careful. Maybe in 10 to 15 years all high end cameras will have 24MP FF sensors while the low end ones will stay with 12MP dx/aps-c.

jwt said:

I think I read somewhere that 12MP is equal in resolution to 35mm film. If someone here can corroborate that, that may help answer your question.

Click to expand...

In the aps-c or dx sensor size it is close. It depends a lot on what kind of film. Some kinds of film is better but if 200 ISO Kodacolor is the standard then I'd agree.

It is best NOT to think in terms of megapixels. If you do then 12MP sounds like twice is good as 6MP. What matters is how many pixels are across the long edge of the frame. This it turns out is proportional to the square root of the total number of MP. So the 12MP camera is really only 1.4 times better. Every doubling of the MP counts gains you 1.4 times more resolution.

LOL ... always changing

In the past I remember everyone was saying 24 MP is equivalent to film -- and not even then. Someone tried to debunk this by suggesting that Digital, no matter how fine, will never match film because a pixel will never be as small as a molecule in the film grain.

Then started the whole ISO argument over at what ISO was mega pixel to film equivalent.

Do you print your 13 x 19 and look at them from 12 inches? or 4 plus feet?

like someone said ... even a 6 mega pixels can print a nice looking 13 x 19

with 12 mega pixel cameras ranging from $2k - $5k -- go the extra mile ... get the Phase one digital back for your medium format camera ... i mean whats 10K when quality is concerned

I have speed read through this thread regarding image quality/print size etc. the maths explanation is helpful but nowhere (unless I have missed it ) is there any discussion regarding the part the various image file formats have on the quality of the final image file or print
I would have assumed that jpeg file compression would have had a huge impact on the size of print that could be produced whilst maintaining the highest quality which the OP asked about.
I shoot raw exclusively as I always expect my next shot to be the best I will ever take, as a result I want all the image information captured by the camera to be available to me for post processing when back at the computer.

Macmonter said:

ChrisA, based on your statements it appears that waiting for the technology to make 24MP FF economically sensible is going to result in little improvement in resolution! A 12MP bought now will be almost future-proofed!

Click to expand...

The 5D is a remarkable camera, and it will take a long time for them to improve the IQ on it. The next revision will most likely be tacked on features like sensor cleaning and live view, and at best maybe even better noise control at higher film speeds. As it stands, however, depending on the light, you can shoot great images with the 5D even at ISO 800, sometimes higher than that.

With prices as low as $1799 from reputable dealers like Amazon and B&H, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a good competitor.

just wanted to add another angle:

since (i think) you mentioned shooting landscapes, you might experiment with shooting them in segments and then stitching them together in order to cheat the resolution problem. for example, you divide your scene into a grid of 9 segments (3x3) and photograph each on of those. then when combined, you get a much larger image at native resolution. it's what i do because i can't afford digital backs either! (still have my mamiya rz waiting though...)

Macmonter said:

I, like Abstract, assumed that FF would produce print qualities better than the APS at the same MP rating, that's why I leaned toward the 5D with it's L series kit zoom lens (less than $3k at B & H).

Click to expand...

That's why I provided the link. Lots of people have assumed, a few people have tested- a lot depends on what you shoot and under which conditions- if there were a cut and dried "works every time" answer, it'd be printed all over. Is PMK "better" than D76- depends on what the question is... Pixel density is important for detail. Pixel size is important for light gathering. Sensor size is important for vignetting and light path control. Pixel density is important for diffraction...

When I shot a bunch of LF and MF B&W, I preferred Delta 3200 @ EI 800 in PMK over anything else I'd tried. I was more than willing to put up with the hyper-toxic formula for results, but that's because I liked the smooth tonal graduations more than the edge detail of a high-actuance developer. Nobody else can say what's going to work for you- so go try a FF and APS-foo sensor from Nikon or Canon or better-yet both, shoot raw with each, then send all four images at max res to somewhere to get them printed by the same equipment. At that point, you'll be able to say how the results differ and what that means to your type of photography.

Macmonter said:

I assumed that the kit lenses on the APS's were of lesser quality and that even the "pro" lenses mated to an APS would not match a FF with good glass.

Click to expand...

I provided a "same manufacturer" link to do away with the "he said, she said" stuff. Pro lenses on APS-C (in my experience, which is about six years now) are right in the sweet spot, where the rays tend to be more perpendicular to the sensor, so you'll get better optical performance in the crop than out at the edges of full frame, less distortion, fewer color issues...

While I may end up with a D3, it'll be to shoot at ISO4800 pre-dawn and pre-dusk, not because my 400/2.8 will perform better on it, it won't. The center of pretty-much any pro lens is in the center- one thing you can absolutely rely on an MTF chart to show you.

Macmonter said:

I don't intend to start a "this camera/lens is better than that camera/lens" debate. However, all the responses to my original question have given me a better understanding of the differences between film printing and digital printing. Please, keep this thread going so I (and others) can learn more!

Click to expand...

Printing depends on so much more than just the sensor that imaged the scene.

Macmonter said:

I, like Abstract, assumed that FF would produce print qualities better than the APS at the same MP rating, that's why I leaned toward the 5D with it's L series kit zoom lens (less than $3k at B & H). I assumed that the kit lenses on the APS's were of lesser quality and that even the "pro" lenses mated to an APS would not match a FF with good glass.

Click to expand...

That's not correct: having a larger sensor size also means, you have to make trade-offs that reduce image quality. So usually you will not have better IQ with a larger sensor and a (compared to pro glass) mediocre lens.

Assume we have two cameras with roughly the same MP count.
Larger sensors will then give you larger pixels and better noise characteristics -- which is only relevant if you shoot high ISO. If you shoot at ISO 100 or 400, practically you will not see any difference in terms of noise. That's because noise is so well controlled these days.

The second point is that all crop sensors have the so-called sweet spot advantage. Any crop sensor benefits from this. Any lens has defects and some characteristics dictated by physics (e. g. vignetting and fall-off). The further towards the edge of the image circle you go, the worse things like sharpness get. Crop sensors don't see the regions where sharpness and falloff is worst (the edges of full frame), they are in the `sweet spot' of the lens. This is no longer true with the 5D or any other full frame camera.

For example, there have been comparisons of the Nikon D2Xs and the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II where they have compared the effective resolution (i. e. the resolution as measured from the image files produced by each of the cameras). Surprisingly, the D2Xs won up until f/5.6, although it had a lower MP count. This was due to the sweet spot advantage. (They've used macro lenses, so they've actually measured the camera + lens combo.)

IMO people should be pragmatic about it. Although I would really, really like to have a D700, there is a snowball's chance in hell that I will be able to afford one in the near future. Lenses are much more important, because I'd rather have three decent lenses and a camera with a crop sensor rather than one lens and a full frame sensor-based dslr and a big hole in my bank account. Full frame sensors need very good lenses (which usually are very expensive), otherwise it's like slapping $50 tires on a Ferrari. Otherwise, they will not give you the improvement you were hoping for.

To get back on topic, I've made large prints (roughly 30x40 cm^2) of even 3 , 4 or 5 MP pictures and they look fine on the wall. Of course you will see pixels if you get glose enough. But they are on my wall, they are very powerful images (at least to me) and no one I've met told me `well, look at the pixels!' I've also had 10 MP and 12 MP pictures printed. The 12 MP picture was printed to roughly 50x90 cm^2 which looks very good, too. The big one now hangs in my parents' living room, I gave it to them as a birthday present. Don't worry about MP and large prints, today's dslrs are definitely up to the job (unless you are a professional who needs the absolute, absolute best in terms of quality).