Jonathan,
First of all I do not claim “expertise” in this area and would much appreciate hearing from others that contemplate this question.
I don’t think that the images are RAW has much to do with it. At that size of a final print you probably can get away with a file that is 100 ppi or about 4 ppm. So your sensor is 4256 pixels in the long dimension. It means that at 100 ppi you could make
a print that is 42 inches (1000 mm) long that is “passable” at respectable viewing distances. You may be able to get away with even lower specs and approach your desired size but I don’t know for sure. The kids images were probably made so they would take
up a larger portion of the frame than if they had been standing in the real landscape so their files would need to be prepared so they match the background image in terms of ppi and then dropped into the background image. The “quality” of the background and
that of the kids then would be the same.
Anyone else?
Andy
On Aug 22, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Jonathan Turner <pictures@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|