About a year ago, I found a large card board cut-out of Londo Mollari. I got him at an auction for a dollar, because no one knew who he was. He's about six foot tall, if I had to guess. Has anyone else found him, or another character like this?
Depends on the camera and the settings. Basically, what you get with a digital camera is a set amount of pixels - I generally take my photos at a 1024x768 resolution, medium quality (good enough for me) and the maximum for my camera is 2048x1536, I think - for your average photo needs, this is more than good enough.
But this also means that once you try to enlarge it by a lot, pixelisation kicks in. You can enlarge it a bit and not notice the pixelisation with a naked eye, unless you have a really good eye for that sort of thing, but not by too much.
With a regular photo, a lot depends on the scanner - the better the scanner (the better the maximum resolution it gives), the better the scanned image will be. But of course, there's only so much you can do by scanning in for example a 4''x6'' photo. Of course, if you have the negative for that photo and use a good professional scanner, you'd probably get better results with enlarging than with an amateur digital camera.
Or something like that. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif I'm no expert, I'm just talking from my personal experience, having both a fairly decent amateur user digital camera and a fairly decent amateur home user scanner.
I'm curious, now: then how do they make those large photos used in posters/cardboard Londos, etc? Is it as I said, that they take a regular photo, blow it up, and then "touch it up" with a professional who paints over these problems?
I know the cardboard characters look great in the lobby of the theaters. So someone must have the technology to do these blow-ups.
My guess - photo negatives enlarged. We really need a photography expert here. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif I know nothing about developing photos etc, but I think that with professional means, you can get very good blow-ups from negatives. After all, those commercial cardboard thingies aren't made by fans who've stumbled across some glossy photographs. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif Or am I wrong?
sometimes they take additional pics with high-quality professional cameras for the things like the big card-board londos, and things like that, then there's the cartoon's, those are easy, you just have an artist draw them that big, and copy it, and then for action sequences, 3d animation, or computer touch-up, but this is just some of the things, not all of the options.
I've also found another advantage, at least for me, to having a digital camera - the original investment was pretty big, but it's a lot more cost-effective in use than a regular camera.
I don't need to pay for film, or for developing the photos. Should I consider some photos I've taken good enough to want as a "hard copy" of them as well, I can simply have those printed out (maybe buy a photo printer in the future - in the meantime, any photo development place can make quality printouts from digital images).
The rest I can keep on the computer, or burn them to a CD (and having a few thousand images on one CD takes considerably less shelf space than albums/boxes for the same amount of photos, not to mention saving a few trees in the process).
I'm not a photo expert, but I have been published a bit. Photos for those lobby cutouts are probably taken on a large format camera, with a negative size of 4 inches x 5 inches, using slow (fine grained) film. This would allow a much bigger blowup before grain became a problem, than would a 35mm negative. There are unusual printing methods that show little grain, like cibachrome, but that is too expensive to use for the lobby cutout.
So is that how they do those big posters and such? High resolution film?
I did notice that about the one digital camera I have used. I was taking the picture of someone who wanted a good photo for her website. She didn't like the first one, so we changed the location (to get more light) and she did like the second one better. And, as you say, no need to go to a developer, spend more money, wait, just to find out we didn't have enough light in the first place.
That is a nice feature, I must admit. Of course, the old polaroid instant camera did as much for you. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
Yes, I know it was a low-quality photo, and it wasn't digital, etc, etc. But it was fun at parties, especially!