pixelation
Sep. 18th, 2005 05:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danaerisWell, my dresser is now painted a lovely slate blue and ready for the next stage in my evil home renovation plans: the découpage. Problem is I have to find a picture first, and that is proving more challenging than I had expected.
The surface to be decoupaged is 30" x 45"
To have photo-realistic resolution, that would require an original photo with resolution on the order of 7200 pixels x 10,800 pixels (that's to get 240 ppi, without ressing up using digital image processing software)
I'm not sure I need photo realistic resolution, but either way, it doesn't look like I'm going to get it. The largest resolution I'm seeing on Google Image Search is about 2000 by 3000, or 1500 by 2000. Those are pretty rare. More likely to be what I'm dealing with is 1200 x 1600.
The highest of 2000 x 3000 would give me a res of about 67 ppi, which might work out okay, maybe.
The 1200 x 1600, once I had cropped it to 1120 x 1600 would be more like 37 ppi.
My 5 MP camera, according to what I've read, can produce images of 2592 x 1944 pixels. That would give me, once cropped to the right dimensions, 2592 x 1728, or 57.6 ppi, which MIGHT be enough. But, cherry blossoms won't be in bloom at the RBG until May.
Of course, I haven't yet looked into getting an actual photo and scanning it at a copy shop on a high-res scanner, or just photocopying and blowing it up right off the bat. I have no idea what kind of scanning resolution I could get at a Kinkos type shop, though.
I gotta say, I sure am learning a lot from this!
All this ppi stuff is rather frustrating/confusing, nonetheless. Rarr! It should do what I tell it to!
The surface to be decoupaged is 30" x 45"
To have photo-realistic resolution, that would require an original photo with resolution on the order of 7200 pixels x 10,800 pixels (that's to get 240 ppi, without ressing up using digital image processing software)
I'm not sure I need photo realistic resolution, but either way, it doesn't look like I'm going to get it. The largest resolution I'm seeing on Google Image Search is about 2000 by 3000, or 1500 by 2000. Those are pretty rare. More likely to be what I'm dealing with is 1200 x 1600.
The highest of 2000 x 3000 would give me a res of about 67 ppi, which might work out okay, maybe.
The 1200 x 1600, once I had cropped it to 1120 x 1600 would be more like 37 ppi.
My 5 MP camera, according to what I've read, can produce images of 2592 x 1944 pixels. That would give me, once cropped to the right dimensions, 2592 x 1728, or 57.6 ppi, which MIGHT be enough. But, cherry blossoms won't be in bloom at the RBG until May.
Of course, I haven't yet looked into getting an actual photo and scanning it at a copy shop on a high-res scanner, or just photocopying and blowing it up right off the bat. I have no idea what kind of scanning resolution I could get at a Kinkos type shop, though.
I gotta say, I sure am learning a lot from this!
All this ppi stuff is rather frustrating/confusing, nonetheless. Rarr! It should do what I tell it to!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-18 10:30 pm (UTC)Anyway, you might want to consider breaking up the area and treating it like a collage. You'd need multiple images, but you could stitch them together to cover the area with proper res.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-18 11:43 pm (UTC)All is not lost. With interpolation, I may be able to make this work. Although, I may have to wait until the local trees bloom again in May.