# Picture-Size 80x100 ?



## SR1 (Jan 13, 2006)

Hi,

In holidays I've been in a restaurant with some beautiful pictures on the wall.
I think the pictures were printed on a type of uv-foil and that was stuck on a hard plate.

The size must have been about 80x100cm.....

My question is: 
The quality was so fine...what settings do i have adjust that i can print that big pictures with the same size ?
btw. is it possible with just a "normal" digital-cam? (I own the Sony R1)

I took a snapshot of the picture....






Pat


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 13, 2006)

I don't know if you could get a print that size to be "fine", from a normal digi-cam.

The Sony R-1 has a bigger sensor, doesn't it?  That would be a big help...but I don't know about the lens on that thing.

To get really good looking, large prints...you need to start with something bigger.  Maybe 35mm slide film could be blown up that large and look good...but even bigger is better.  Medium format (or even large format) film would be a good choice for something like this.  

They do make medium format digital cameras, they are getting up to 40 MP, but they cost tens of thousands of dollars.

You could make a print that big from you camera and it would look good...but you would have to stand back while you looked at it.


----------



## markc (Jan 13, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Medium format (or even large format) film would be a good choice for something like this.


That would be my guess for something that size.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jan 13, 2006)

I say YES 
   80cm x 100mm is 31x40 inch

I have had 20x30 inch prints made for both 6mp DSLR (jpg) & 35mm film with beautiful results. Looking at the specs for the R1, it has a 21.5x14.4mm sensor size and 10mp. Thats the same as most DSLR. My guess would be yes also RAW files up size better

Kodak charges 22.99 USD for a 20x30 inch print, for a minimum resolution of 1600x1200 pixels jpg


----------



## SR1 (Jan 13, 2006)

thanks for the replies....
and special thanks to Jeff for the positiv reply... 

here are some infos, so you can maybe give me some more replies....

*Sony DSC-R1*

Sensor
&#8226; 21.5 x 14.4 mm CMOS sensor
&#8226; RGB Color Filter Array
&#8226; Built-in fixed low-pass filter
&#8226; 10.8 million total pixels
&#8226; 10.3 million effective pixels
&#8226; 3:2 aspect ratio
&#8226; 5.49 µm pixel pitch

Lens
&#8226; 24 - 120 mm equiv.
&#8226; 5x optical zoom
&#8226; Carl Zeiss T*
&#8226; F2.8 - F4.8
&#8226; 12 elements in 10 groups (4 aspherical) 
&#8226; Lens cap and flower hood included

Image Formats
&#8226; RAW (.SR2, records a JPEG at the same time) *
&#8226; JPEG (EXIF 2.2) - Fine, Standard
* Effectively a RAW+JPEG setting

Sensitivity equiv.
&#8226; Auto (160 - 400) 
&#8226; ISO 160
&#8226; ISO 200
&#8226; ISO 400
&#8226; ISO 800
&#8226; ISO 1600
&#8226; ISO 3200 

Noise Reduction
&#8226; Clear Color
&#8226; Luminance NR
&#8226; Slow Shutter NR (slower than 1/25 sec) 

Sorry, don't want to annoy anybody with my question, it's just important because i thought about it as a gift...

Pat


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 13, 2006)

Well you certainly will be able to have a large print made.  

The question is whether or not it will be up to your standards...and only you can answer that.  Maybe you should have one made and see if you like it.  

I find that when you give away a print as a gift, the resolution does not matter that much.

Also, keep in mind that there are other things you can do to maximize the sharpness of your prints.  Use a tripod and remote release (or timer).  Find the sweet spots of your lens...both in focal length and aperture.  Usually you will want to avoid the widest and longest settings and keep the lens stopped down at least a few stops from wide open.


----------



## markc (Jan 13, 2006)

As Mike said, you can make that sized print out of anything, but SR1 said it was very fine. I don't see getting that from digital at that size.

Doing some math:

10.3 Mpixels at 3:2 = 3930 x 2620 pixels.
100cm x 80 cm is 5:4, so the above needs to be cropped to 3275 x 2620 px.
(That ratio also makes me think 4"x5" large format)
That's 33 pixels per cm, or 83 pixels per inch.
Using the estimate of 5000 dpi for good film, a 4x5 would be similar to a 25,000 x 20,000 capture. Blown up to the same size, this would be 250 dots per cm, or 635 dpi. Even if you think that estimate is overblown by two times (which it's not, as my 2700 dpi film scanner wouldn't capture grain on the best film), that's still over the 300 dpi recommended printing resolution. The R1 doesn't come close.

I'm not saying you couldn't get a print you would be happy with using the R1, but it's going to be no where near the kind of print you can get from a large format neg. Then consider an 8x10 neg, which has 4 times as much info...


----------



## SR1 (Jan 14, 2006)

thanks, 
sorry but some words are still missing in my vocabulary...:blushing: 

So, do i would get this size in that fine quality with the Canon 350D ?
Just asking because a friend of mine owns one....

What do you think, what camera might have been used by the photographer?

Pat


----------



## hobbes28 (Jan 14, 2006)

I think what Mike said intially would be your best bet.  If you want the pictures to be really sharp, shoot with either a medium format camera or with a 35mm with slide film.  Either of those would be your "best" bet for enlarging a picture to that size.


----------



## Rob (Jan 14, 2006)

If you get it printed on stretched canvas style paper, then it'll look like "art" at that size anyway!

Rob


----------



## markc (Jan 14, 2006)

SR1 said:
			
		

> thanks,
> sorry but some words are still missing in my vocabulary...:blushing:
> 
> So, do i would get this size in that fine quality with the Canon 350D ?
> ...


To try and rephrase it:

For an enlargement of that size to be "fine", and considering the ratio, I really think it's a 4x5 large format camera like this one: http://gregrob.ca/4x5/

You may be able to make a very large image that you like from a digital camera, but it won't have fine detail.

Are there any details on that card next to the print on the wall?


----------



## markc (Jan 14, 2006)

And another comparison...

Making a 80x100cm print from a 4x5 neg would be like making a 8x10 from a 35mm neg. Both are 8 times the neg size.

Err... Both have had each side multiplied by 8. That would actually be 64 times the size.


----------



## SR1 (Jan 14, 2006)

Thanks a lot...think I understood it now...:hail: 

The was a sheet next to it, but just saying 80x100cm, uvfoil on a hard plate....not the cam or any other settings......and the price for it: 1500,-:er: 

Couldn't imagine, that such cameras are still in use....thought nearly every photograph works with DSLR Cameras today....and that nearly everything is possible with them..... 

So thanks a lot guys....

So the best resolution i got with 300 dpi and that makes a size of a DINA4 paper......right..?

Pat


----------



## markc (Jan 14, 2006)

I have several friends that shoot 4x5, including Scott Hendershot. That's all he uses.

At 300 dpi (118dpc), your camera would make a print at about 9"x13", or 22cm x 33cm. As I said, you certainly can go larger. It all depends on how much fine detail you want and how close you will be viewing the image.


----------



## markc (Jan 14, 2006)

I thought this might also help. Here is a relative comparison of negative sizes. For the R1, I came up with the equivalent using 5000 dpi for film again.


----------

