Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Giant Prints  
User currently offlineSluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

I was recently approached by a gentleman who is interested in purchasing a high res copy of one of my pictures for the purpose of printing it at 6 ft by 4 ft. As the picture was taken with a 6 MP D50, I'm a little clueless as to how that may happen. The original is a jpeg, any ideas?

Joey


I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9654 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2043 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

There are a lot of variables, mostly print method and paper type. In a perfect world you would want to print at 300dpi, but have seen decent results as low as 150dpi. To be safe I would recommend 180dpi or above.

The final size you will need will be based upon your target dpi.

6 x 4 is pretty big. You can calculate your file size by dividing the size in inches by the size in pixels. 6' = 96" I believe a D50 is 3008 x 2000 pixels (please correct me if I am wrong)

3008/96=31dpi. Not nearly enough. To reach the minimum of 150dpi (again, this is my opinion) you would need an image that was about 14,500 pixels wide.

Increasing your file size by a factor of 5 is going to result in a pretty marginal image. It would most likely be okay for signage or something viewed at a distance, but for fine art, no way.

I, and others, have used SI Pro (from Fred Miranda) with pretty good results for upsizing.


User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1746 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2034 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A six foot by four foot print is probably not going to be viewed up close, though. A good upsampling program like Genuine Fractals should help get it in the ballpark.

Where and how will this print be displayed?



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineSluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2009 times:

Not sure yet on the display, but I did just find the original, and for some reason, even though it was a nice day out, I shot it in RAW, Which i guess can't help.


I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
User currently offlineSluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2007 times:

Correction, it can't hurt.*

Sorry for some reason I can't find the edit button.



I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
User currently offlineFlyingzacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1867 times:



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
6 x 4 is pretty big. You can calculate your file size by dividing the size in inches by the size in pixels. 6' = 96" I believe a D50 is 3008 x 2000 pixels (please correct me if I am wrong)

Just a small alteration. There are only 72 inches in 6 feet. Therefore 10800 pixels wide is what is needed to reach 150 dpi, how to get the image that big is the real question though, but I guess upsampling, which was said before, should be the answer here.



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineIamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

Wait, do you really need another program to upsample? I'm pretty sure Photoshop upsamples by interpolation if you increase the image size. I just did a quick test with GIMP, and it did an ok job when I quadrupled the image dimensions. I think perhaps I could improve it a little more with some noise reduction and sharpening.

Anyway at 48" x 72", I get a 2000 x 3008 pixel native print being 42 dpi. A monitor should be have about 2.5 times as many dpi, for comparison.

Therefore, you can get a rough estimate of what the print will look like (without upsampling) by zooming in on a section of the image at 250% on your monitor. Step back until you can't see the pixelation and let the gentleman know he should be aware that very critical observers standing closer than that distance may notice the quality limits, but you'd be happy to sell the print to him as long as he's aware of that. Most people are so caught up in the scale of an image that big that they don't really know how to look for softness up close.

In my test image, it looks like the pixelation becomes difficult to discern from about 5 feet away.

And while we're on the topic, no existing camera is going to give you 300 dpi in a 4' x 6' print. Even a $25,000 Hasselblad H3DII-50 with a 50 MP sensor is going to print that at barely over 110 dpi. In other words, while a larger source file would be ideal, even professionals deal with the same problem, so don't think your 6 MP source file is a deal killer.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9654 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1730 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I think what you mean to say is 'no existing digital camera.'

I have had a 35mm transpos scanned at 4000dpi. The file sizes are about 75megs as TIFFs.

When you want to go big, film crushes digital.


User currently offlineIamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

Well, we could go back to the film vs. digital debate, but the nature of a pixel-based image compared to a direct image makes a real comparison difficult. You can scan at as high of a resolution as technology will allow or develop super-fine pitch digital sensors, but at some point the lens is going to limit the usable detail in either medium. At that point, the remaining advantage in film (aside from color and dynamic range which are where film really wins) is the gradual blur from one feature to the next, instead of pixelation.

Anyway, scanning a 35mm at 4000 dpi is actually only going to give you 5670 x 3780 pixels (~21 MP) which is going to print at 79 dpi.

But again, seldom will anyone be critiquing a print that big from up close. And upscaling properly should nearly eliminate the visible pixelation.


User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1746 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1662 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Iamlucky13 (Reply 6):
Wait, do you really need another program to upsample? I'm pretty sure Photoshop upsamples by interpolation if you increase the image size. I just did a quick test with GIMP, and it did an ok job when I quadrupled the image dimensions. I think perhaps I could improve it a little more with some noise reduction and sharpening.

Genuine Fractals is a great program for doing upsamples, better than Photoshop. While PS' upsampling routines have improved over the years, I've seen some gigantic prints made via Genuine Fractals that look very good. Even then, you're not going to be inspecting this with a loupe (it's most likely a banner that will be hung far from the viewer), and viewing distance is very important to keep in mind with printing.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
When you want to go big, film crushes digital.

All you're getting with that extra resolution in film is finely resolved grains... There's a certain point where the limitations of your format come into play - though on a good scanner with small grain film 4000 DPI starts to be right around the edge. Besides, a 4000 DPI 35mm film scan (which is normally about as far as I would go) as mentioned above in pixels is not all that much, when you think about it. It's less than modern digitals like the a900/D3x and far less than medium format backs like the P51 in terms of pure resolving power. You still have to upsample just like most digital files and you'll run into the same limitations.

Now, if you scanned a 4x6 piece of film at 4000 DPI... that's different.   I've done drum scans of MF and separations as a Crosfield operator and those are memories that I do not want to relive. Good riddance.

[Edited 2009-09-24 13:26:00]


From the Mind of Minolta
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Masterclass: Scanning Prints. posted Sun Mar 9 2008 13:28:40 by Spencer
Buying Prints Of A.net Photos posted Thu Dec 6 2007 22:11:43 by Jawed
30 Free Prints At Snapfish (UK Only) posted Sun Jul 15 2007 17:47:46 by EK20
DPI Resolution For Prints posted Mon Jun 11 2007 22:41:20 by Devildog2222
Large Prints Upload posted Tue May 8 2007 22:29:46 by SFO2SVO
Scanning Prints Vs Kodak CD posted Fri May 12 2006 02:39:31 by Flamedude707
Scanning Prints posted Thu Dec 22 2005 23:19:25 by Manc
Large Photo Prints posted Wed Aug 17 2005 00:27:00 by A346Dude
Adjusting Dpi For Prints? posted Sun Jun 12 2005 19:02:01 by BREmer
Scanning From Prints - Advice Please posted Sun May 1 2005 10:25:39 by UA935