1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Needing a picture enlarged

Discussion in 'Help Team' started by mygirljess2775, Feb 17, 2017.

  1. mygirljess2775

    mygirljess2775 New Member

    I have a picture which I had taken from my Samsung S3 and am needing it enlarged to 24 X 36 inches to put in a frame on my living room wall. I've sent the file to a couple on online sites that enlarge and frame pics but they've stated it can't be done as it ends up pixelated. Obviously this has to be exceptional quality so surely there must be some way of doing it? This was going to be a mothers day gift so I'm desperate find a way. Could anyone help me please?
  2. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    If two printing companies decline the job I'd be inclined to believe them. If you need very large prints a phone camera is not the best tool to use.
    RogerMac likes this.
  3. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Did you take it with the front or rear camera?

    Rear camera is 8mp, so around 3250 x 2440 or something like that. Assuming you didn't crop it, and it was taken in good light, then it should look reasonable at 24 x 36. If it's the front camera, it's 1.8mp, so you've got no chance.

    If you cropped the image, or post-processed it, or resaved it (or it was taken in dark conditions) then unless you tell us more, we can't help.

    So, how many pixels big is the image you sent to them? How did you get it from the camera to them? Are you sending them the full image, or are you sending them something else somehow?
    K Kapoor, RogerMac and Geren like this.
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    To get a good large print which you view from a distance - i.e not with your nose stuck up close - you need about 240 pixels per inch. Much less and you will start to see dots. For something you look at close you need at least 300 pixels per inch of information. You can work out the maximum print size in inches by dividing the pixel size of the file by, say 240. You can still have a big picture because something hanging on the wall looks good with borders so even if the picture won't scale that big you can still mount it in 24x36 frame by putting borders around it.

    You can also try to increase the number of pixels in the file with software. This was done a lot in the first days of digital cameras when the sensors had very few pixels. It might not be successful because it depends on the image content - it basically interpolates between pixels. If four pixels in a square (2x2) have all the same colour and brightness then it is easy to make that 9 pixels (3x3) but if the four are all different then it is harder to choose the extra 5 new pixels in a way that looks sympathetic. The programs look for patterns in the pixels to help them make their choice.

    The program that used to be highly rated for upsizing was called something like "genuine fractals" but it is sold under another name now and I cannot remember what.
    K Kapoor likes this.
  5. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Could you live with a smaller print if necessary as this may be the best option?
    RogerMac likes this.
  6. cliveva

    cliveva Well-Known Member

    You are trying to enlarge a very small image, you can only magnify it so far, then you are able to see the actual pixels. This is why we lug heavy cameras, with big sensors around:rolleyes:
    Software can help, it can be done in photoshop, though I have never needed to try it, so can not advise further.
  7. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    8mp isn't 'very small'. It is still, for example, higher resolution that most people's monitors.

    Which is why my question to the OP is whether they cropped or modified the image, and whether they're sure they're sending the original. It may be JPEG artefacts are the problem because the image is over compressed, rather than small. We'll never know if the OP doesn't respond (depressingly common with these types of posts).
  8. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Bit early for that - it is not a day yet since the query was posted!
  9. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    You don't need a big heavy camera to get a high pixel count. A 16MP sensor provides same amount of information regardless of the sensor size, all other things being equal. Here's a shot from my tiny Panasonic GM5 with the original inset at bottom left...

  10. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Another pernickety question I am afraid. Do you mean 24x36 picture size or frame size? I ask because a well presented large print would normally have a significant large plain border within the frame In fact looking at the watercolours and photos on my wall every one that is anywhere near 24x36 frame has at least 3 inches of plain border all round. This makes the image size about 18x30inches which might make a difference. Of course if you are looking for a 24x36 picture then a border and then a frame you are looking at a very dominant image..
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2017
  11. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    I have a feeling you are ignoring sensor size and the resulting pixel quality from a phone camera, quality of lens, noise?
  12. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    In terms of this discussion, sensor size is irrelevant. The obsession with it is a holdover from film - where the size of the exposed area was directly related to the clarity of the image. A digital sensor records the light level at each pixel, so a 16MP sensor of any size records the same 16 million items of data. What data reaches the sensor is controlled by the sharpness of the image passed through the lens, so yes, the lens is a controlling factor but we need to remember that at the sizes used in cameras the smaller lens is easier to compute and so may be superior to a lens for a larger sensor. What data can be extracted from the sensor is controlled by the quality of the amplification chain that loads the storage medium. The sensor itself varies only in the amount of energy that is captured by each pixel. A larger sensor can indeed provide larger pixel sites which means less amplification should be necessary but this is design dependent. It's quite possible that the electronics and firmware of a camera using a small sensor may be good enough to perform equally to those of a camera using a much bigger sensor.
  13. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    This isn't strictly true, and it's unrelated to the original query.
  14. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I quoted the post I was replying to. Which bit of what I wrote isn't strictly true?
  15. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    Sensor size is irrelevant
  16. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I've explained why it is largely irrelevant and provided an image to illustrate. If you're trolling, just say so and save time.
  17. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    Why am I trolling... I really object to that. Are you really trying to tell everybody that you will get just as clean a print from a small sensor and a cheap lens as you will from a larger sensor and good glass because that doesn't help the op who wanted to know why he cannot get a good quality 36"x16" print from his/her phone camera.
  18. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    There are at least two bits of the post you didn't read or didn't understand: "so yes, the lens is a controlling factor" and "A larger sensor can indeed provide larger pixel sites which means less amplification should be necessary but this is design dependent".
  19. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    Yes dear
  20. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    So you are trolling. Fair enough.

Share This Page