Photo resolution translation into size of print

[Cyrus Chvala]

It's all in how it is percieved. I used to have a 1.3Mp camera which
comes out as a 1024 X 768 image. Print that to a 4 X 6 inch photo and
you get 170 dpi. I printed a lot of pictures like that and almost
everyone I showed them to thought they were great. But I noticed that
it was slightly pixilated. But you couldn't see it unless the picture
was about 6 inches from your nose. The pixilation was most noticeable
with wisps of hair. When I try to point it out to the ordinary person
they couldn't see it even if I point at the picture where I saw the
problem. Now I am near sighted and can read small print very
comfortably which is not the norm. I suspect that most people just
aren't trained to see the difference which is fine. If they see a
great picture then it is a great picture even if I see something
different.

[BF]

I agree. I am very critical and want everything as perfect as it can be but
most people don't care or just don't know what good is. Nothing against
them, but what looks good to them might look terrible to me, but if they are
satisfied then that is all that really matters. I encourage people to look
at my pictures very close and try to find problems. A couple times they
found things that I missed which I think is great because it means that I
still have a way to go to achieve perfection, at least what I consider to be
perfection.






"Cyrus Chvala" <fun@metacyte.com> wrote in message
news:3f0d6b18.89204469@nntp...

> It's all in how it is percieved. I used to have a 1.3Mp camera which
> comes out as a 1024 X 768 image. Print that to a 4 X 6 inch photo and
> you get 170 dpi. I printed a lot of pictures like that and almost
> everyone I showed them to thought they were great. But I noticed that
> it was slightly pixilated. But you couldn't see it unless the picture
> was about 6 inches from your nose. The pixilation was most noticeable
> with wisps of hair. When I try to point it out to the ordinary person
> they couldn't see it even if I point at the picture where I saw the
> problem. Now I am near sighted and can read small print very
> comfortably which is not the norm. I suspect that most people just
> aren't trained to see the difference which is fine. If they see a
> great picture then it is a great picture even if I see something
> different.

[JPS@no.komm]

In message <3f0d6b18.89204469@nntp>,
[email]fun@metacyte.com[/email] (Cyrus Chvala) wrote:

>It's all in how it is percieved. I used to have a 1.3Mp camera which
>comes out as a 1024 X 768 image.

1.3mp is 1280*960 pixels. 1024*768 is 0.8mp.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><