Other When will smartphone cameras be capable of poster-sized prints, sans loss of quality?

[Ralfi]

Travelling over recent years, I find the convenience of snapping shots with the iPhone trumps that of my dedicated camera, especially since the iPhone camera keeps improving every couple of years or so.

But, seeing as I’m not a selfie/Instagram addict, I don’t want quality photos restricted to small screens for people to go ga-ga over.

I want my scenic photos to be blown up & framed on my walls, hence the thread topic.

How far off are we from being able to print our iPhone’s photos to at least A3 size with zero loss of detail?

 

[Poonaka]

Travelling over recent years, I find the convenience of snapping shots with the iPhone trumps that of my dedicated camera, especially since the iPhone camera keeps improving every couple of years or so.

But, seeing as I’m not a selfie/Instagram addict, I don’t want quality photos restricted to small screens for people to go ga-ga over.

I want my scenic photos to be blown up & framed on my walls, hence the thread topic.

How far off are we from being able to print our iPhone’s photos to at least A3 size with zero loss of detail?

I haven't tried it but according to this site: https://www.prepressure.com/library/paper-size/din-a3 12 megapixels is enough for A3. So I assume any modern iPhone should be able to do it. But like I said, I haven't tried it.

 

[stafil]

I haven't tried it but according to this site: https://www.prepressure.com/library/paper-size/din-a3 12 megapixels is enough for A3. So I assume any modern iPhone should be able to do it. But like I said, I haven't tried it.

I think the problem is not the megapixels but the size of the sensor, which is tiny.

 

[rjedoaks]

It is the cropping that is an issue. The photo itself is plenty good enough for framing. Isn’t there an phone that has 42 mp? Of course not apple.

 

[dwig]

...
How far off are we from being able to print our iPhone’s photos to at least A3 size with zero loss of detail?

This is a non-sensical question. With the proper software, it would be easy to print an A3 size print from any original file, any at all from any digital camera ever made, without any loss of whatever quality the original file may have had.

That said, any enlargement will might reveal the quality limitations of the original file. These limitations may be great or small depending on the original image and the "original" display used for comparison. The greater the size difference between the "original" display (read: your phone's screen) and the enlargement the greater the possible difference.

I've made 24"x36" prints from phone images, most recently from an iPhone eXceSs, that were quite decent. It does require that the original camera image be properly exposed, shot in good outdoor lighting (to avoid the noise produced by the dinky sensors in low light), and exhibit no motion blur from poor handling technique.

Also, if your camera can shot RAW then do so. Acquire software than can process the RAW into TIFFs (never JPEG) and learn how to use it. JPEGs always lower the image quality relative to the RAW. The JPEG sharpening and compression artifacts are generally unnoticed on the little phone screen, but can become quite visible when enlarged to A3 and larger.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I think the problem is not the megapixels but the size of the sensor, which is tiny.

Indeed, megapixels were pushed for marketing but the real quality is in the sensor and lens combination. I have a Nikon D300 with a 10 megapixel sensor that will take a better picture than any smartphone based on specification. The lens on a phone is just too small to compete with proper cameras and probably always will be.

 

[Ralfi]

I've made 24"x36" prints from phone images, most recently from an iPhone eXceSs,

Do you think it makes a difference with where you have them printed, as in the equipment used to print them, or is it entirely to do with the source image?

Many of the digital print centres here are in places like Target which have been doing it for years & I’m not sure of their gear & whether it’s updated regularly.

I also have the X, & my last attempt at having something printed didn’t turn out great. I may need to go through my shots & pic out something of higher quality perhaps, as you described...just makes things difficult at places like Target (or all of them) as you don’t know how it’ll turn out until it’s printed & by then you’ve waited 20-30 minutes & handed your money over...

 

[JPack]

I think the problem is not the megapixels but the size of the sensor, which is tiny.

This is the correct answer.

The total amount of light that goes to make up your image is the most important factor in determining image quality. You can either improve lighting conditions or improve the size of the sensor.

 

[dwig]

Do you think it makes a difference with where you have them printed, as in the equipment used to print them, or is it entirely to do with the source image?
...

The source image's quality sets an upper limit on the quality of an enlargement. The method you use to export a file for printing can have a negative impact as can the lab's printing software. The bottom line is that each step can have an influence on the final result. There is no one "guilty party".

 

[fred98tj]

This is the correct answer.

The total amount of light that goes to make up your image is the most important factor in determining image quality. You can either improve lighting conditions or improve the size of the sensor.

The “total amount of light that goes to......” is simply not true.
Many things determine the image quality and the “total amount of light” isn’t particularly one of them.