Your opinion is welcome.

[gooble]

I'm wondering what people think about this email conversation I'm having with Arizona Highways about the file sizes they require for submissions.

My initial email:


Hello,

I'm writing you about a question I have about conflicting statements in the Arizona Highways digital submission guidelines.

One part of the document states that "...at minimum, an 8-megapixel-capture model with RAW file capture capabilities" is needed.

Later it states that the images should be 300 ppi at 18 inches x 12 inches. These dimensions at 300 ppi come out to a 19 megapixel image.

So, is 8 megapixel the minimum, or is 19 megapixel the minimum?

If 19 is the minimum, then this unfortunately limits original digital file submissions to those photographers with very expensive medium format digital backs or those with the brand new, still expensive, 21 megapixel Canon 1Ds mark III.

BTW, An 8 megapixel camera would produce files of 11.7 inches x 7.8 inches at 300 ppi.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify this conflicting information.

Thank you,



Their response:



Thanks for your message.

I think you might be confusing megapixel capture with megabyte file size. We require RAW capture with a minimum of an 8-megapixel camera. When the RAW file is converted to a TIFF file at 300 ppi at 12x18 inches you’ll get a file within a megabyte size range depending on the native file captured by the camera. We are not as concerned with the MB size of a digital file as we are with the requirements for TIFF files, pixels per inch and image dimensions.

I hope this helps.

Thanks again for your message.



My reply:



Thank you for the response.

There may be something that I am still not understanding, however I was not confusing megapixels with megabyte file size. File size is irrelevant. In fact I did not even mention file size in my email to you.

Let me explain how I see it in more detail.

I have a Canon 20D that has 8.2 effective megapixels, or MP. This is 3504 x 2336 pixels. If I resize the image without resampling to 300ppi it is simple to calculate the dimensions in inches by dividing the horizontal and vertical components of the image by the ppi. In this case it is 3504/300 = 11.68 inches and 2336/300 = 7.79 inches. The only way I see to go from a 8.2MP image to 18 x 12 inches at 300ppi is to upsample that 8.2MP image to a 19.4MP image (300 x 18 = 5400 and 300 x 12 = 3600 which is 5400 x 3600 or 19.4 MP). So are you saying that you want images upsampled to 18 x 12 inches at 300ppi if the native resolution of the camera is not 5400 x 3600 pixels?

I hope this makes my question more clear.


I seems to me that he does not understand my question and did nothing to answer it. Anybody have an opinion?

[René Damkot]

You are right.
They don't know what they are talking about ;)

[number six]

Didn't he give you an answer?

"We require RAW capture with a minimum of an 8-megapixel camera."

-js

[gooble]

In response to this that I wrote:

So are you saying that you want images upsampled to 18 x 12 inches at 300ppi if the native resolution of the camera is not 5400 x 3600 pixels?


I got "Yes".

That doesn't make much sense to me but, whatever.