Is 5.0 megapixels enough?

<ephedralover.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176485927.034124.89630@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>I have a Canon SD450 5.0mp camera and wanted to know if I will be able
> to have some 11x14 or 16x20 prints made from some pictures I plan on
> taking. Is 5mp enough to get these size enlargements without too much
> distortion? I am not looking for studio quality prints, just pictures
> to put on my walls.
>

There are a lot of different opinions on this and it really just comes down
to what will satisfy you. The "lower limit" for printing at good (another
subjective term) quality is about 180 pixels per inch. That number, I think,
comes from the resolution needed to get a decent print from a printer with a
120 line screen (120 lines of resolution per inch). I.e., your input should
be 1.5 times output resolution to get a good result. This number is probably
outmoded for most modern high resolution inkjet printers, but its not a bad
lower limit to use.

I have printed what I consider to be acceptable 13x19 prints from my 6.0
megapixel 10D. Those prints were made without any cropping of the original
image and would probably have been perfectly acceptable for hanging on a
wall. So for your camera, I would think that an 11x14 would come out at good
quality (not very good or excellent, but non-photographers won't find fault
with it). 16x20 will probably look pretty good too as long and you aren't
examining the print very closely. It will help to start with a well-lit,
properly exposed, noise-free image.

I was in Sears before the holidays and noticed that their portrait studio
was selling very large posters using 5.0 megapixel images made in thier
studio. On close examination, pixelation was noticeable, but those kinds of
prints aren't really made for close examination and they looked pretty good
from normal viewing distances.

Eric Miller