chazz4623 Loc: Prairieville, La

Thanks Craig, I was thinking that 100pixels/inch would be viewable from 4'-5' on a wall (above my fireplace). I had thought some pixelation would be acceptable at that viewing distance. Maybe it would look blurred. A smaller size might be acceptable, I'll have to guess 24"x30" or slightly larger. I used to shoot film many years ago, my old 35mm Nikon N70 likely would have done the larger print. I have several old p&s 10-12-16 mp's and got a few nice moonshots that looked good on my desktop screen, so I let my imagination run away with me. Given the lack of knowledge I have of digital photography, perhaps I should just buy a commercially produced print. I was innoculating myself by the "please dont" comment. I neither learn nor retain information well anymore, many years of undiagnosed sleep apnea has taken its toll (or maybe its something else) and I'm 69 plus a week, so it ain't gonna get any better. Many thanks for your (and all UHH'ers) kindness. lol "Taking pictures"was a hobby since I was a kid with a Brownie Hawkeye box camera, its only been in the last several years that I have moved up the scale a bit. Maybe I'll use the old antique Mamiya/Sikor 35mm . The only non-manual thing in it is the built in light meter. If I can find the 200mm lens I had aroud here it might do the trick, and no pixel counting. lol Stepping back from the somewhat nicer but older model p&s's might help me get back to remembering camera settings and how the 'triangle' works. I admit, I got spoiled, and it's kept me dumb. Thats hard to admit, but mabe it helps. I have a friend with a reflector, I think its an 8", but its tucked away in his attic. I had hoped to convince him that it would be wothwhile to bring it out again.I do have a couple of tripods so at least I can support the cameras and take some moon shots with no magnification. If I get anything decent I'll try to post. It may require the digitals, I dont have a neg scanner but maybe its time I found one.

:roll: :shock: :thumbup: Thanks Guys

dlmorris Loc: Loma Linda, Ca

The messages got mixed up.... Just read the whole thing!

guts Loc: texas.

great shots Craig,Still holed up in the mountains haven't even taken the scope out of the truck raining alot and cloudy when not raining but I still love it up here.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Do not be afraid of you new D5300, it is a great camera and can give you excellent photos well worth printing at 13" x 19", which is as large as my printer goes and viewing from 5'. Anything larger and I would expect you may go to an expert who would give you advice on how to combat pixelation.
I would seriously ask this question in the "Main Photography Discussion". How do I take, process and save pictures to make posters 36" x 60".
You will get the information you need and I would love to read the thread so let us know if you do it.
Craig

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Hey Bill how's it going other than raining. I should be fogged in for the next 4-5 months except when I go to the Mountain and there it's windy as hell.
That's one reason I got a new mount that is sturdy as a rock.
Hope you get some clear skies soon.
Jim in NM blames me for all his cloudy nights, blowing in from the West Coast :lol: :lol: :lol:
Craig

chazz4623 Loc: Prairieville, La

Hi Jim, sorry for the delay. I have several questions. It seems that 100 pixels/inch wouldnt be cause for much concern for something hanging on a wall, but I really dont know. Its not to be critiqued by knowledgeable photographers. I can only guess at what it would look like from 3' or more away, I havent been to a gallery in years so I dont know the latest techniques, as you explain them later in this post. What is SW? I have no plans to use a cropped image for this, is there a reason one might have to crop an already small file? I just googled PhotoAcute, it seems to be a superb program, I downloaded, but it will take some time for me to learn it, so it might time out with my abilities and be just what the dr ordered.It may not be important, but they dont have a lens profile that I can use. That may not matter, but I will have to find out. Not everyone in the software business is making big money. Sad when good products cant get a spot in the market. Taking multiple shots in digital is no problem, film could get expensive as I remember.I'm thinking 20-50 images? Many thanks for your time Jim, if I can grasp the methods of creating these large astro graphs, it will make the effort worthwhile.

Albuqshutterbug Loc: Albuquerque NM

There is an old school trick that I learned along time ago that has served me pretty well.
If you open the photo in your processing software and resize the shot by 110% several times you can get a working photo that if you start clean, ends pretty darn clean.
I am attaching 2 photos from my latest Jupiter session.
I went from 300X300 to 1858X1858.
It will sometimes save an otherwise unusable print.
;)

300X300


1858X1858

(Download)

chazz4623 Loc: Prairieville, La

I dont see any loss of resolution or color. What size print? That looks too good to be regular photography equipment.

chazz4623 Loc: Prairieville, La

I am just staring to download the software that is available free on the net. I temporarily shot my budget on the camera and a couple of lenses. I have the 18-55 kit lens that came with the camera, plus the 55-300vr(I forget the other letter designations). I'm retired so I have to manage my camera purchases. I have at least a half dozen cameras if you include the p&s ones, an old N70, the D5300, and the old Mamiya 35mm. I had a Vivitar 35mm years ago, but it got stolen back then and never replaced. I think I'll check out re-furb next time I buy something, hopefully before everybody and their cousins start buying them and supply dries up. With the slowdown in sales, who knows what comes next. I have always wanted a Pentax 67ll, but nobody makes a digital back for them. With one of those, the resolution in astrophotography is moot. I hope I can learn the software well enough to keep it interesting. Again, thanks.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Nice shooting on Jupiter and I did not know you could upsize like that.
How did you do it, in what program??? I need to downsize shots too.
Craig

Albuqshutterbug Loc: Albuquerque NM

I did this in Microsoft picture manager because I was at work. (Don't tell anyone..)
I wanted to show that you don't need special programs to do some of this stuff. It's not perfect but it is useable.
To down size you would use 90% for the resize amount.

Albuqshutterbug Loc: Albuquerque NM

Its not from a print, its direct JPG. When I uploaded it I realized it was too small from the stacking program and wanted to upsize it a bit. It's very easy to do.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

I was hoping you wouldn't say MS Pic Mgr. Some times it changes the colors when I save.
Craig

Albuqshutterbug Loc: Albuquerque NM

Sometimes it does in a nasty way too.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

This makes perfect sense. Just to double the size, the resizing SW has to invent 75% of the resultant pixels. This is really pushing it.

To do 10%, your 300x300 goes to 330 x 330. For this iteration, the resizer SW is only inventing 17% of the pixels. There are multiple pixels being considered for each pixel invented. Your intermediate will look sharper than the one that was increased in one step.

And you do it again. Now is is 363 x 363 and again, only 17% of the pixels are invented.

And do this as many times as needed to get to the size you want.

My favorite Resizing program is Kneson Imagener (Unlimited). I like it better than Perfect Photo Suite 9 which I also have.