George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Coker,
Not a myth, but surely not the panacea they make it out to be, it is a selling point primarily nothing more.

George

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

6 maga pixels will allow you to make an enormous picture or zoom in and print 8 x 10.

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

I used a Kodak 2.2 MP and enlarged to 16 x 20, but I used Photoshop filter and the paint strokes covered the pixellation so looked great when I was done.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Docrob; I'm glad to see someone mention the 10% increase in any one step, a process some call "stair interpolation". It works surprisingly well if done that way within reason. I have taken 8 mb images to 16 x 20 with acceptable results using this method.

TheBirdMan Loc: Southeast Missouri, USA

Everything (almost) that has been said it true but try it out for your self by loading an image ~ Click on "Image" at the top of the Edit page ~ the small window that opens will show the size of the image ~ Place a check in the box for "Resample the Image" at the very bottom of the small window ~ You will see two sections ~ Pixel Dimensions and Document Size ~ Highlight the width number in the Pixel Dimensions section and change it to a larger number (you simply type in the new number)~ (I am assuming you have shot the image in landscape format which will make the image wider than tall), the bottom smaller number will change automatically to match the ratio. Click Ok and what the image increase in size. You can make it any size you want however all enlargements like this create the conditions described by the others who have commented here.
Have fun.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Yes, the sensor physical size and sensor electronic design also matter. I guess what matters most depends on what you are trying to do. For a given design and physical size megapixels relate to picture quality but for most reasonable enlargements not much.

Our camera club limits the image size on projection night to 1000 pixels across and 600 high so as to match most photo contest requirements. We have to resize our images down or they send them back. They look wonderful expanded to about five feet high on a screen. The winner last night was a close up photo of a wolf that showed amazing detail in the fur and eyes. Notice that is less than one Mp.

Of course the audiance is back at least ten feet or more from these images.

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

yep I just interpolated a 20mg file to 167mg for FTP uploading

lindapic

Thank's Birdman, This was a big help to me..I use elements 10
Now maybe my prints will look better.

TheBirdMan Loc: Southeast Missouri, USA

Welcome

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

It's a little more complicated than that. You can adjust the size as normanhall explains by taking the same pixels and printing them closer together or farther apart - the 8x12 or 6x9 scenarios he describes. However, you have the option of resampling or not (in Photoshop, and I assume in Elements). If you don't resample, changing the dimensions also changes the resolution and vice versa, just as normanhall described. If you do choose to resample, you can, for example, blow up the size of the image while saying you want to keep the same resolution. Photoshop will add pixels in this case, but it will interpolate the results, which usually results in softening the image. You'd probably want to sharpen after doing this. Will this improve the quality of the image? You might have to work at it, and there are going to be limits.

If you don't resample and blow up too much, you'll definitely lose quality.

I hope this clarifies more than it confuses.

Coker Loc: Havana, IL

I do agree. Something I did discover. 800 ISO is becoming the new 400 ISO. If your HISTOGRAM is right on the money, even at 800 ISO there is no delectable noise or ISO grain. Give it a try.

Ncash56

Read this article: http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I'm not exactly sure what you're describing but post processing software doesn't create new pixels to fill gaps out of thin air. The process is called interpolation and is accomplished by specialized software packages that do only that. There are several. One was called Genuine Fractals but has changed name recently.

If you have 10 million pixels to work with and you want to create a large print at 300ppi that requires 12MP, post processing software will NOT create 2 million more pixels for you to maintain 300ppi. The 10 MP will be spread out with more gaps between the pixels and the picture quality suffers. Try printing an 8X10 from a 2MP file and you'll see what I mean. The pixels are spread very far apart and "pixelization" takes place (the holes are visible) creating a print that sucks.

Resizing and resampling has to do with reducing the number of pixels for smaller prints or for Internet use, not to create non-existent pixels to fill holes and make bigger prints.

With that said, the thread author should be able to make nice 8X10 and even reasonable 11X14 prints with 6MP anyway.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Go to Image Size in Photoshop, check the Resample box and double one of the dimensions, and the file will resize to four times its original size. New pixels are added. That doesn't mean the image will improve in quality, or even retain the original quality. The interpolation is the software's "best guess" as to what goes where. Other programs that do a better job. But you're right, if you spread the original pixels out over a larger area, the image will degrade, and adding pixels isn't going to improve it.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

"That doesn't mean the image will improve in quality or even retain the original quality" is the rub. So why bother? Printing an original resolution non-interpolated file might actually create a similar or better quality. Not cropping the smaller resolution file would also retain the megapixel quantity of the original. I think I'd rather have a crisp but slightly pixelated print rather than a softened and blurry less colorful print.