Digital Cameras
Cameras
Photography

If you want to enlarge a picture to 20x30 is an 8 pixel camera good enough?

828384

Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
2006-09-09 05:00:11
2006-09-09 05:00:11

Yes. I just photographed some of my stepmother's beaded jewelry (close ups), photoshopped the image and she was able to print it through snapfish as a 20 x 30 without any problem. She had taken it to kinko's who said the resolution wasn't high enough (72), but the snapfish print came out clear as ever! My camera is a 5.0 so I am sure that an 8 will be more than enough. Some things to keep in mind: make sure your resolution/photoquality is as high as it can be, simply because you will run into less issues this way (but the file will be larger!!) Happy shooting and good luck! ~madigan

1
๐Ÿ™
0
๐Ÿคจ
0
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
0
๐Ÿ˜‚
0

Related Questions

User Avatar

20x30 inches is 600 square inches or 3870.96 square cm

User Avatar

assuming you mean 20ft by 30ft, you just find the area. To find the area, simply multiply both sides, so 20x30 = 600 sq ft

User Avatar

There are: 20 feet times 30 feet = 600 square feet

User Avatar

The answer will depend on what units the floor is measured in: 20x30 square inches? sq feet? sq metres? Since you have not bothered to provide that information, I cannot provide a sensible answer. Furthermore, there are various sizes for sheets of plywood as well.

User Avatar

A Euro Pillow is 26x26 inches, a Queen pillow is normally 20x30.. :)

User Avatar

600 square feet (20x30=600)

User Avatar

I think that 23x38=874 because you can split it up like this:(20x30)+(3x8)+(3x30)+(8x20)=874.

User Avatar

20 in x 30 in is equal to 50.8 cm x 76.2 cm.

User Avatar

Square is simply multiplying the length times the width. An example: A room is 20 feet long and 30 feet wide. Multiply 20x30=600 square feet.

User Avatar

This question beggars belief! To start with, 20x30 cannot be a square. The length and width of a square are the same. Second, there are no units associated with the dimensions of the rectangle (if rectangle it is). 20 in * 30 in, 20 ft * 30 ft, 20 miles * 30 miles? Third, inches is a measure of distance whereas 20 * 30 is a measure of area. The two things have different dimensions and measure different things. There is no simple way to convert from one to the other.

User Avatar

First, find out how many square feet are in the room. 20 X 30 = 600 Then, a square yard is equal to three square feet so divide the square feet by three. 600 / 3 = 200 The answer is 200 square yards. You are welcome.

User Avatar

In the case I would first write ALL factors of 600 and find the differences. 1x600 2x300 3x200 4x150 5x120 6x100 8x75 10x60 12x50 15x40 20x30 24x25 The one that subtracts to give the answer is -20 and 30

User Avatar

first put both in terms of the same mesurment. tiles in inches, patio in inches. patio is 240 by 360 inches. how many tiles will fit in the 240 inch measurement? 15 how many tiles will fit in the 360 inch measurement? 22.2 so you call it 23. 23X15=345 tiles you will need in a 20x30 area.

User Avatar

The answer is 236.22 inches (approx.). Inches and centimeters are both units of linear measurement. Inches are used in the imperial system whereas centimeters are used in the metric system. To convert from cm to inches, multiply the cm unit by 0.393701.

User Avatar

To determine your pool's surface area in square feet use the following: Round pools Area = RXR x 3.14 ex if the pool is 24 round take 12x12x3.14 Rectangle Area = LxW so a 20Feet x30Feet Rectangular would be 20x30=600sft SA For those pools which are odd in shape Area =(A+B)xLx.45 A & B being the width in different sections if different in dimensions On the web you can usually find calculators that will do this for you. Pool Safety and Care tips at www.prospectpoolsllc.com/blog

User Avatar

The equation for finding square footage is length x width x height.Once you have that number subtract any large areas you do not intend to paint (windows, doors etc - height x width)Determine if you intend to do one coat or two, (two is recommended so double your area).Generally speaking a gallon of paint will cover approximately 400 square feet. When in doubt, err on the side of caution and order a bit more than you need. This will give you the extra you may need for touch-ups or in case of a minor spill or miscalculation.

User Avatar

No two paintings are alike, even if they were painted by the same artist, and completed the same day. Where they were displayed and how they were treated are huge factors on their present condition. That is why there is no simple answer to that question. Size, condition, age are some of the factors that increase the cost of conservation. They can be as low as $200, which is often the minimum charge, and as high or even higher than $100,000 for paintings of significant historic value. Conservators fees are all over the map. They can be as low as $80 per hour or as high as $400.00 per hour. For a treatment on a 19th century 20x30 inch painting that can take 50 hours, you do the math!

User Avatar

Wall studs are to be 16" on center in most places. 20 feet x 12 inches (# of inches per foot) = 240 / 16 (spacing of wall studs) = 15 15 x 2 (both of the 20 foot walls) = 30 30 x 12 = 360 / 16 = 23 x 2 = 46 Add 4 extra for the corners so 4 + 46 + 30 = 80. That's just the walls. The rest will depend on any doors or windows you have because those will require adding extra jack & king studs to carry the load as well as how you decide to handle the roof.

User Avatar

When we all shot 35mm film, we all produced images with the same aspect ratio (3:2), and the ever popular 4x6 print is based upon that. '''In the digital world, however, digital cameras do not all share this 3:2 aspect ratio, and as a result, all digital photos do not convert well to 4x6 prints. The most common aspect ratios for digital cameras are 3:2 (most digital SLRs) and 4:3 (most compact point-and-shoots). Some cameras allow you to choose your own aspect ratio. Aspect ratios differ between manufacturer and even between models from the same manufacturer. Awesome, huh? ''' What is aspect ratio? Aspect ratio is simply the relationship between the width and height of your image--as you see in the chart below, we get the aspect ratio of an image by reducing the numbers to their lowest common denominator.Print Size ---> Aspect Ratio4x6 ---> 3:25x7 ---> 7:58x10 ---> 5:420x30 ---> 3:2 Some day, this discrepancy may sort out--maybe labs will print in other aspect ratios and maybe manufacturers will agree on an aspect ratio. Until then, here are a few things you can do to prevent an Insolent Cropping Crisis:# If you know what size you like to print, get a camera that agrees with that aspect ratio.# Some labs (try Snapfish) allow you to select "true digital size" and will not crop your image.# Print with a lab that allows you to select your own crop when you want to -- try myPhotopipe.com.# Be vigilant when taking your photos and leave enough "safe space" around the edges so that an auto-crop won't cut off anyone's head or eyeball or some such. # Write to your congressman. If they have time to pioneer HDTV, they have time to save us from crappy crops.Origianal Post by Susan Moriarty at www.picturesnob.com

User Avatar

== == == == 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.


Copyright ยฉ 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.