Saturday, Jul 07, 2012 at 09:04
Thanks for the response Graham.
I wasn't given a pixel size. Just a minimum data size. I do not know enough at this stage how to ask it any other than what I said. Maybe I was too bamboozled to think that far.
However with your hint at 600dpi let me try again.
From an email on this I just learn't that a photo can be flipped horizontally to artificially look more like a panorama instead of a "doubled up" photo. Learning already! So we will not worry too much about the width unless a panorama photo is found.
One step at a time.
The finished height has to be about 600mm. ie 24 inches. With a finished resolution of a minimum of 200 dpi that means the "part" of the photo that is used has to have at least 24 x 200 pixels vertically. = 4800 pixels. So where do I go now? How from the data sixe (2Mb) how can I tell how many pixels the photo has in it?
The properties shown in Picassa for the photo below shows a pixel depth of 24. That throws me.
Our experiments so far:
So far we have been playing with cutting a slice out of a "normal" photo and stretching it. So if I took a "normal" photo and then cut out just the top section of the trees (see photos below) and stretched it to a height of 600mm that would suit the height problem and making several copies and "flipping" horizontally every second one we could get a wall full of ferns. But I cannot "see" what it would be like. My "non graphic" logical mind cannot see if it would be suiable. Confusing. You betchya.
We have a Canon EOS550 now and maybe we can take one ourselves.
I am way open to any information.
FollowupID:
765552