Announcement

**YALE** · 09-03-2014, 08:02 AM

Plotter printer, or call a professional printing company, and have them do it.

**Silverback** · 09-03-2014, 08:06 AM

at 200DPI printed - 31.5 x 10.35 inches

at 300DPI printed - 21 x 6.9 inches

**Silverback** · 09-03-2014, 08:08 AM

Not sure you'd want something like that printed at 100DPI

**Jewrrick** · 09-03-2014, 08:08 AM

When do you need it? I can stay at the office a little late tonight and mess with it on our plotter.

**yellowstang** · 09-03-2014, 09:10 AM

I can do an 8x10 black and white for you right now.

**TeeShock** · 09-03-2014, 09:19 AM

Thomas Reprographics printed a colored 36"x80" diagram for me and laminated it. 3 copies cost around $2k.
That's a ton of color too.

**GhostTX** · 09-03-2014, 09:36 AM

Megapixel calculator:

Megapixel calculator

http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp

Megapixel calculator: estimate aspect ratio, TIFF, BMP, JPG file size from pixel dimensions

6300 x 2070 pixels = 13.1 Megapixels

From the web:

So long as you have 100 to 150 DPI (dots or pixels per inch), you have plenty for a sharp print viewed at arm's length. This means a 6 MP camera can make prints 30" (75cm) wide and still look great. When was the last time you printed that big?

Ideally you'd like to print at 300 DPI to look super-sharp even when viewed too close with a magnifier. You can figure this by:

Long print dimension in inches = 4 x (square root of megapixels)

Long print dimension in centimeters = 10 x (square root of megapixels)

For example, the square root of four (megapixels) is two. 4 x (two) is eight. Thus the biggest print you can make without losing sharpness as seen through a magnifier from a 4MP camera is 6 x 8" (15x20cm). From a sixteen MP camera likewise you could go to 12 x 16" (30x45cm), and still look at the print through a magnifier.

Just a moment...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

3 megapixels: Some people use the comparison with an A4 print. A 3 megapixel camera will do this happily.
6-8 megapixels: For cheap consumer negative film. People who own the 6-megapixel Nikon D70, or the Canon D60, say that a 20x30 poster print from one of these is roughly equivalent to that from 35mm film. Make of that what you will.

12 megapixels: Another arbitrary figure sometimes offered.

24 megapixels: Ken Rockwell's comparison of the 24-megapixel Nikon D3X showed that it resolved details about as well as Velvia 50 film scanned commercially. This is probably the answer that fits the real world of photography better than any others.

How many megapixels would it take to equal a 35mm film maximum quality? - Answers

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_megapixels_would_it_take_to_equal_a_35mm_film_maximum_quality

== == == == The short answer is that a modern 24-megapixel digital SLR offers around the same level of resolution as a good film scanned in a modern minilab. Ken Rockwell has tested the Nikon D3X to this effect; see related links below.Now for the long answer.It's quite easy to work out the maximum theoretical resolution of film; manufacturers document this for their films. It's measured in lines per millimeter (L/mm); each one of these is roughly equivalent to two pixels in one direction. So all we need to do is multiply the width of the film (in millimeters) by the L/mm figure, multiply that by two. Do the same for the height, and there you'll have the maximum resolution at which a film, shot in perfect conditions, can be scanned, without interpolation (made-up pixels -- something we'll come back to later).((lpm * 36 * 2) * (lpm * 24 * 2)) / 1000000If we're going to make a comparison with a high-end digital camera, it's not fair to take a cheap consumer negative film for the comparison. For our comparisons, we'll use the professional Velvia film, at 160 lines per millimeter, we end up with a figure of about 88 megapixels. (If you wondered why we multiply by two, this is because one line = two pixels.)Yet, this figure does not show you how many megapixels a digital camera would need to achieve the same resolution. Most of a digital camera's "pixels" simply do not exist; they do not capture both red, green, and blue on each pixel, only one colour each. They then use Bayer interpolation to make up the rest. Ken Rockwell claims this "lie factor" as being about two. You may prefer different figures, but we'll use this. So, the final "megapixel" count becomes about 176. You could even up this somewhat if you take into account the fact that digital cameras love nuking any fine details with noise reduction, but we'll leave that aside for now.(Ken Rockwell ends up with a figure of 175 for the same film. Depends on how you round it.)This comparison is unfair to digital, though. This assumes that you're shooting test charts specifically designed to extract the maximum resolution from a piece of film; moreover, it assumes that very fine amounts of barely-resolved detail are just as significant as coarser details resolved near-perfectly. The real world doesn't work like this. Some people look at the MTF curve of the film, and see at what point the curve drops below 50%. This would leave you resolving 50 lines per millimeter, or about 8 megapixels (16 if Ken Rockwell's "lie factor" is accurate). You may choose another, just as arbitrary, percentage, look at your film's MTF curve, and do the math yourself.(An explanation of MTF curves is beyond the scope of a quick answer, and not particularly interesting anyway. Sorry.)This theoretical resolution does not translate into the real world very well.For one, you're assuming that your lens is able to resolve this much detail. It might not be, in which case it's wasted. Moreover, if you're going to make a fair comparison of resolution, you will do so side-by-side on a computer screen. You have to get the picture off the film onto a computer. Yes, you could compare prints, but then you'll be comparing your optical printing system versus your computer printer, which isn't fair. That or comparing how well your printer prints certain things.It isn't fair to shove a cheap print (itself made digitally!) into a cheap flatbed scanner, compare it to a digital file, and conclude thereafter that film sucks and digital rules. Yet, neither is it fair to assume that any photographer will be ready and willing to spend a small fortune on an 12,000 dpi drum scanner and then spend 30+ minutes on scanning one slide (or failing that, spending a hideous amount of money to have someone do it for them). More likely that they'll own a CCD film scanner, or drop it into a minilab to have it scanned for them.In short, the moment you leave the laboratory and take the comparison into the real world of Photography, too many things get in the way for a simple resolution comparison to be made. Here, then, are various "real world" figures that some people here have offered. * 2-3 megapixels: Visual equivalent in a 4x6 print to 80-85% of the population, on a camera with a decent lens. * 3 megapixels: Some people use the comparison with an A4 print. A 3 megapixel camera will do this happily. * 6-8 megapixels:For cheap consumer negative film. People who own the 6-megapixel Nikon D70, or the Canon D60, say that a 20x30 poster print from one of these is roughly equivalent to that from 35mm film. Make of that what you will.* 12 megapixels: Another arbitrary figure sometimes offered.* 24 megapixels: Ken Rockwell's comparison of the 24-megapixel Nikon D3X showed that it resolved details about as well as Velvia 50 film scanned commercially. This is probably the answer that fits the real world of photography better than any others.== == There are varying advantages and disadvantages of film that cannot be captured in a megapixel figure, so barring some massive change in digital camera sensor technology, a fair comparison will never be possible.* The size to which you want to print an image matters.Digital breaks down in a nasty and unusable fashion when it reaches its resolution limit. Film gradually gets crummier till you reach a blurry mess somewhere around 40X enlargement. * Film has much greater dynamic range than digital. Another thing that doesn't fit into megapixel figures, but is very important. * Digital has noise issues. Film has grain issues.* There are good films and bad films, and good digital cameras and bad ones. As stated earlier, any comparison you make has to compare like and like. Don't compare a point-and-shoot digital camera (regardless of megapixels) with an expensive professional slide film. Don't compare a cheap negative film from Wal-Mart with an $8000 digital SLR. * Megapixels are irrelevant. Nearly any digital camera can be used to take amazing shots. Nearly any film camera can do the same. This has nothing to do with megapixels. If you're not doing enormous enlargements, or only viewing your pictures on a computer screen, then don't worry about it.

**Silverback** · 09-03-2014, 09:44 AM

for anything with text, I wouldn't go lower than 200DPI, 300DPI would be optimal, or it will start to look fuzzy

**slow84lx** · 09-03-2014, 10:30 AM

You need to start with a high res image. The fine type in relief is going to be the problem with this image, it will not print smoothly at a large size without a good prepress operator massaging it. It can be printed as large as you want it but you may be limited to the size of the substrate depending upon how you want to display this picture. The choices for sustrate range from paper board, foam boards, reinforced vinyl, to fabric. Substrate, print method, budget, & personal preference will determine laminated surface & display method.

I have been in the printing industry since the late 80's. If you want more information send me a p.m. with your number and we can discuss this evening.

Announcement

Printing "picture" - how large can it be printed?

Printing "picture" - how large can it be printed?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment