 Pamela K |
Printing from 2.1 megapixel camera I know that this issue has been addressed before, but I'd like to reopen it. I have an Olympus C-2100 Ultra Zoom which unfortunately only records at 2.1 megapixels. This camera has great optics and makes really clear shots, but the low resolution makes it hard to get sharp prints. I'm currently taking my files to Walmart and they're coming out "OK" as 8x10s with minimal cropping. The Walmart I use has a great staff and they are willing to reprint anything that comes out wrong for free. The problem I'm having is more to do with slight pixelation than with the quality of the color or other development problems. I have Walmart print the picture out using their chemical processor rather than the printer, so it can't be a problem with printer resolution. Most people love my photos, and maybe I'm too picky, but I can see individual pixels when I look closely. Is it worth it to get a program like Genuine Fractals? How well does this program work? Is there a better solution? In an old (2003) discussion on this site, I saw someone suggest that simply increasing your image size 10% at a time in Photoshop would have the same effect as GF. Is this true? Increasing my image this way did not seem to increase my resolution much. Will I get the same results with GF? Could it be the Walmart processing that's a problem? I didn't seem to get that much better results when I went to a professional printer for an odd-size print (8x14). This print again looks really good from a distance, but I can tell the difference when I look closely. Thanks for any help you might be able to give. Pam
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Steven Chaitoff |
Pam, there are all sorts of interpolation programs that use different algorithms to get best results, but yes, if you want to do it by hand, the general way to interpolate is bump it up 10% horizontally & vertically a number of times. It probably won't do what GF can do for you, but it gets the job done. Just never double or triple the size of the image in one move. Also, I don't think it's processing thats causing pixelated images. 8x10 from 2.1 MPs is quite a stretch, especially if you have a lot of color information to deal with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pamela K |
Thanks, Steven. Do you know which program works the best? I'm not really happy with the 10% increases. My camera records at 1200x1500 pixels at super high quality JPEG. Without interpolation, what's the biggest size I should be able to print without seeing pixelation if I'm using chemical processing? How much bigger should I try to make the file if I want to print out good 8x10 prints? Of course, as I said, everyone I've shown the 8x10 prints to has liked them except me.... Pam
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Steven Chaitoff |
Pam, I don't know what the best software is, but people say good things about Fred Miranda's plugins. Here's a link Anyway, here's a table of general prints vs. res. vs. megapixel issues.
So 8x10 is in your range, but if you aren't happy with the results, then obviously they aren't good enough no matter who is looking at them. I think the answer is a camera with better esolution. Interpolation programs are great, but they can't create something from nothing. -Steven
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pamela K |
yeah, I'm planning to get a new camera as soon as I can afford a really nice SLR. I don't want to "upgrade" to something with better resolution but worse options that what I currently have. I haven't been able to find any 10x zoom cameras with macro capabilities, the optical quality of my 40mm lens, and an image stabilizer. Also, I have a lot of good shots that I was hoping to make something of. Thanks for the website, I'll definitely check it out. Also, this chart helps. Pam
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Damian P. Gadal |
Two things: 1. I've gotten nice 20X30 pictures from an Olympus C700-UZ 2.1 mp, but I had to do some work in PS first. Keep in mind it depends on the shot and the amount of detail in the shot. JPG photos typically come out of the Olympus at 72DPI and 20 something inches wide by a proportional height. I found that just by bringing down the width to something like 10.5 inches and bringing the DPI up only 150 DPI and saving the file, there was a huge improvement in the prints. 2. Genuine Fractals will do all of your upsizing with NO loss, but if you use it, I highly recommend shooting in TIFF mode and only upsizing by 200% as your file sizes will get very very big.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pamela K |
Thanks Damian. I'll try the size change. I can't really shoot in Tiff mode because it takes something like 5 min to record each image and I do wildlife photography. The animals don't usually stay still for 5 minutes and I rarely get a good shot on the first try... Does GF not work with JPEGs very well? Pam
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Damian P. Gadal |
Genuine Fractals will do JPGs no problem...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Damian P. Gadal |
One last thing, always keep your original image so that you have something to go back to should you need to...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pamela K |
Thanks Damian. I always do "Save As" and always back-up all images to CD before I mess with them at all (just in case). Thanks for all your help. Pam
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||