Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do I need more pixels?  (Read 8894 times)
Dan Berg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2009, 05:35:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot with a D2Xs and D300 both 12mp cameras. I print everything on canvas for my gallery. The smallest canvas is 17 X 22 the average 24 X 30 and I have recently been printing 24 X 42. Everything goes through Genuine Fractals 6 for the uprez. The images are stunning no matter what the size. Printer is Epson 7900. I really wanted the D3Xs but the $8,000 price tag killed that. With the output as good as it is from GF6 I would save your  money as well and get the software. I figure I saved $7700.00.
Dan Berg
Bergs Canvas Gallery
« Last Edit: May 31, 2009, 05:37:33 PM by Dan Berg » Logged

kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2009, 09:01:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Dan,
interesting.
I know GF was a hot things years ago, but from the reviews I've read, PS's bicubic smoother is just as good. Anyone dispute this with their testing?

The 7900 is an older model, mid size Epson right? Canvas you mean as opposed to photo paper?
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2009, 12:50:49 AM »
ReplyReply

The D3x will print 24x36 and beyond on high detail landscape subjects (I'm not sure how much beyond, because I have a 24 inch printer - I've printed up to 24x48 by cropping the short sides to produce a wider ratio print, but haven't gone beyond that) really cleanly and with superb detail on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta and similar papers, which even a 16 mp Canon EOS 1Ds mk II will NOT. I don't know the other 20+ MP DSLRs anywhere near well enough to comment on them, but the D3x has a great deal more resolution, even per pixel, than the older 1Ds mkII (a 16mp crop from a D3x will have MUCH more detail than a full 1DsII frame). I think the high per pixel resolutions due to the AA filter, but I can't prove this theory. A 5D resolves somewhat less than a 1Ds II, while a (much newer) D700 might be close to the 1Ds II. The medium format backs resolve more detail than even the D3x can, but I believe it would take a 44 inch printer to tell - a 24x36 off the D3x is stunning.
    I start with the 140 MB D3x file, but I still use Genuine Fractals to uprez to the final print size (24x36 at 600 dpi - a 1.67 gigabyte file)! The iPF 6100 I use is actually a native 600 input dpi device (I've confirmed this from multiple sources including Canon, because so many folks say that no wide-format printer is higher than 360 DPI), and interpolates smaller files using a rather unsophisticated algorithm (bilinear?). I'd rather let Genuine Fractals handle all the interpolation work and let the printer concentrate on what it does best - putting ink on paper!

                                                                -Dan
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 721


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2009, 03:15:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Berg
I shoot with a D2Xs and D300 both 12mp cameras. I print everything on canvas for my gallery. The smallest canvas is 17 X 22 the average 24 X 30 and I have recently been printing 24 X 42. Everything goes through Genuine Fractals 6 for the uprez. The images are stunning no matter what the size. Printer is Epson 7900. I really wanted the D3Xs but the $8,000 price tag killed that. With the output as good as it is from GF6 I would save your  money as well and get the software. I figure I saved $7700.00.
Dan Berg
Bergs Canvas Gallery


I bought the  Nikon D3X after selling my D3.  The D3x is expensive, but because it is Nikon had the opportunity to make a very good camera and spend some more money on its parts.- like a good lowpass filter.
. It is not only resolution - the colour depth is amazing.
The images are very clear and the colour is beautiful. I use the PCE lenses and they add the optical excellence that can address every pixel- even shifted. The Nano coating makes a lot of difference.
For me it will be my little Hasselblad and fast dslr at the same time- i can do eveything with it. I do not agree that you need a tripod to see the difference - i find the opposite- even hand held it give me a lot more quality. and with my old and cheaper lenses it appears their optical centre can deal with the 24 mp; the corners are the problem but with some pictures that is not an issue.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 07:32:58 AM by kers » Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Clearair
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2009, 07:44:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Wells
The D3x will print 24x36 and beyond on high detail landscape subjects (I'm not sure how much beyond, because I have a 24 inch printer - I've printed up to 24x48 by cropping the short sides to produce a wider ratio print, but haven't gone beyond that) really cleanly and with superb detail on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta and similar papers, which even a 16 mp Canon EOS 1Ds mk II will NOT. I don't know the other 20+ MP DSLRs anywhere near well enough to comment on them, but the D3x has a great deal more resolution, even per pixel, than the older 1Ds mkII (a 16mp crop from a D3x will have MUCH more detail than a full 1DsII frame). I think the high per pixel resolutions due to the AA filter, but I can't prove this theory. A 5D resolves somewhat less than a 1Ds II, while a (much newer) D700 might be close to the 1Ds II. The medium format backs resolve more detail than even the D3x can, but I believe it would take a 44 inch printer to tell - a 24x36 off the D3x is stunning.
    I start with the 140 MB D3x file, but I still use Genuine Fractals to uprez to the final print size (24x36 at 600 dpi - a 1.67 gigabyte file)! The iPF 6100 I use is actually a native 600 input dpi device (I've confirmed this from multiple sources including Canon, because so many folks say that no wide-format printer is higher than 360 DPI), and interpolates smaller files using a rather unsophisticated algorithm (bilinear?). I'd rather let Genuine Fractals handle all the interpolation work and let the printer concentrate on what it does best - putting ink on paper!

                                                                -Dan


I started a thread on Canon input resolution,
My first post.
Canon drivers and plug ins.
I did not get much response so am interested in your 600dpi method with the 6100.
I have one of these and see no advantage in printing at this input and fail to understand why it is default for the art media settings.
I also believe that the uprez used by the driver is now very good and my files at 300dpi are handled well by the printer when using said art medias.
I tested a trial version of GF this month, compared it to using PS.
If there was a difference at 200% it was my imagination. My thread also eluded to the value of some plug ins as dubious.
I am happy to be corrected on any of the above but not by whimsies, like that old dog, up rez in stages ha ha.




Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2009, 01:32:37 PM »
ReplyReply

The 16-bit printer plug-in for the Canon IPF's has bicubic interpolation as an option. I scale my files to 300ppi with the appropriate output sharpening, and then feed that to the plug-in and let it do the final up-rez to 600ppi using bicubic. I've tested and can't find any difference between this approach and scaling to 600ppi myself (except that the latter makes for a slower workflow and larger files).
Logged

Clearair
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2009, 05:12:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
The 16-bit printer plug-in for the Canon IPF's has bicubic interpolation as an option. I scale my files to 300ppi with the appropriate output sharpening, and then feed that to the plug-in and let it do the final up-rez to 600ppi using bicubic. I've tested and can't find any difference between this approach and scaling to 600ppi myself (except that the latter makes for a slower workflow and larger files).

Exactly.
I occasionaly add a little sharpening at the plug in due to the prints out resolving the monitor (logic is that the screen may look over sharpened but the print will not). I also brighten a little depending on paper used as some papers have less shadow detail than others even when all else is profiling OK.
These changes are subtle only and depend so much on the photo in question, is the detail there to begin with!
In all, the supplied profiles, the iPF6100's ability to self calibrate, and personal preferences on paper performance work well. If I am wrong in my idea about extra sharpening at the print stage will someone tell me.
Logged
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2009, 12:08:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Great comments guys. curious, those with wide body Epson, is anyone who used Colorbyte ImagePrint before and feels they don't need it now?
I know that my epson 2400 prints look horrible without it -- ie, just printing from PS software
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
mas55101
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2009, 03:47:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kevs
I have the 5D. Was not going to upgrade, but I am thinking of buying a wide format printer and was thinking images from a 22mil pixel camera might look much better than one from a 12 mil camera.

Am I right -- if printing very large?

I could upres in Photoshop, but what do others think? thanks.
--
I would suggest buying the printer, then test some prints.  Use good paper.  To cut right to the chase, print the biggest size you would ever want; don't resample; just let the resolution fall where it will.  If you like the print, you are done.  If not, try resampling and upresing.  If that doesn't work.  Buy a Mk2.

Case: As I write this I sit between two 40x60 prints.  They are different, but one was shot with a D700, the other with a 5D Mk2.  The 5d mk2 is great in every way.  The D700 shot is at dusk of a bridge with lights reflecting in the river.  All is fine except the darkest parts of the water, where the continuity just isn't there.  It actually looks kind of cool, but there just isn't the resolution for the shadows.

Think of it this way(and don't everybody argue using a bunch of numbers): with your 5d, you're shooting a 645 film equivalent; with a 5d mk2, you're shooting a 6x9.  It shows in big prints,

OK, I'm done.

MAS
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2810



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2009, 08:37:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Berg
I shoot with a D2Xs and D300 both 12mp cameras. I print everything on canvas for my gallery. The smallest canvas is 17 X 22 the average 24 X 30 and I have recently been printing 24 X 42. Everything goes through Genuine Fractals 6 for the uprez. The images are stunning no matter what the size. Printer is Epson 7900. I really wanted the D3Xs but the $8,000 price tag killed that. With the output as good as it is from GF6 I would save your  money as well and get the software. I figure I saved $7700.00.
Dan Berg
Bergs Canvas Gallery


I would agree high quality image captures from a 12mp camera can produce outstanding results.  I would point out that your frame of reference is within the confines of your own experience.  I would strongly suspect some and perhaps most of those same images captured with a D3x would be remarkably different but you haven't experienced that to this point.

Uprezzing 'creates' data, higher rez cameras capture that data.  Depending on the subject matter, final printed size, and how it is printed, it can make a big difference -even on canvas.

You never know what will present itself when shooting.  I would always prefer to capture the image with the highest quality device I can afford/carry with me, just in case.  There are no "do overs" most of the time, so I prefer to err on the side of great capture equipment as the priority.  Personally I'd rather capture with a 20+mp Nikon, Canon, or Sony camera and make do with a used 9880 printer (or not even print it myself) than live with a 5D and print with a 79/9900, and I'm a big fan of the those printers.  That's my take for the OP ... if you want to go wide format and print bigger, get the better camera.


Quote from: kevs
Dan,
interesting.
I know GF was a hot things years ago, but from the reviews I've read, PS's bicubic smoother is just as good. Anyone dispute this with their testing?

The 7900 is an older model, mid size Epson right? Canvas you mean as opposed to photo paper?

I personally haven't used Genuine Fractals for some time.  I think any differences are subjective and the overall quality of uprezzing depends far more on the quality of the original file than it does the software.  PS does a fine job, as does most of the current printer drivers.  However it certainly doesn't do a worse job and if you like the end results no reason to not use it.  It doesn't matter what software you use, you can't make detail out of nothing so it can only work so well.

The 7900 is not an older model, it is the most recent and highest quality in Epsons current line.
Logged

Robcat
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2009, 06:17:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kevs
I have the 5D. Was not going to upgrade, but I am thinking of buying a wide format printer and was thinking images from a 22mil pixel camera might look much better than one from a 12 mil camera.

Am I right -- if printing very large?

I could upres in Photoshop, but what do others think? thanks.
--
Sorry, you've probably made your camera choice months ago, but here's some experimental evidence:
Recently took 5D and 5DII into my studio with a still life setup. Switched bodies on tripod using same lens (24-70L), same focus, same settings, same lights, same everything.
Took images into Lightroom and corrected slightly (slightly different contrast due to different processor---very minimal). Images then looked the same (except noted after the fact that an ant had crawled on a leaf of one   )
Then printed the images at different sizes and put them side by side. This is more important than pixel peeping.
At 11 x 16.5, no difference at all---needed to find the ant to tell them apart
16 x 24, barely visible difference with overlapped images to compare one spot and peering at closer than arms' length
20 x 30, can see a slight difference in certain areas of the image. didn't need to look for the ant
So up to 16 x 24 the 5DII doesn't make a significant difference. Larger than that, you can start to see a difference. BUT, now factor in how far people are going to be from large prints. Your clients and friends are rarely going to put their nose up to a 24 x 36 print---they'll be 2 or 3 feet away. When I stood back that far from my test prints the 20 x 30 were indistinguishable.
As others have mentioned, keep your technique pristine and for most purposes the 5D will be fine. Super-sized prints for galleries need more.
Good luck
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2810



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2009, 10:00:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Robcat
Sorry, you've probably made your camera choice months ago, but here's some experimental evidence:
Recently took 5D and 5DII into my studio with a still life setup. Switched bodies on tripod using same lens (24-70L), same focus, same settings, same lights, same everything.
Took images into Lightroom and corrected slightly (slightly different contrast due to different processor---very minimal). Images then looked the same (except noted after the fact that an ant had crawled on a leaf of one   )
Then printed the images at different sizes and put them side by side. This is more important than pixel peeping.
At 11 x 16.5, no difference at all---needed to find the ant to tell them apart
16 x 24, barely visible difference with overlapped images to compare one spot and peering at closer than arms' length
20 x 30, can see a slight difference in certain areas of the image. didn't need to look for the ant
So up to 16 x 24 the 5DII doesn't make a significant difference. Larger than that, you can start to see a difference. BUT, now factor in how far people are going to be from large prints. Your clients and friends are rarely going to put their nose up to a 24 x 36 print---they'll be 2 or 3 feet away. When I stood back that far from my test prints the 20 x 30 were indistinguishable.
As others have mentioned, keep your technique pristine and for most purposes the 5D will be fine. Super-sized prints for galleries need more.
Good luck


I guess you never have to crop?  And you only shoot still life's in a very controlled situation?  And you can focus so well Live View is of no use?  Personally, after shooting the first time with the 1DsMark3, the 5d hasn't seen the light of day.  Finally gave it to my daughter.  The differences would be observable in nearly every situation I use it in.

I'm assuming since the OP is considering buying a wide format printer, he wants to print pretty big prints... he says "if printing very large".   True he didn't define very large, but 20 x 30 isn't that big ... in fact put it on a wall in many circumstances and it's actually kinda small. The 5D is a great camera and can deliver great results.  You can always stitch, a great option some of the time.  The 5D Mark2 is not an insignificant step up however, and I've got hundreds of images taken with 1Ds, 1Ds Mark2, and 5d's that just don't cut it when I get up to about 20x24".  Maybe I'm just picky, but I also feel pretty strongly that people don't go up to images like you describe because doing so offers nothing ... just a bunch of fuzzy detail.  From a few feet away there definitely should be an observable difference between a 20x30  image from a 5d and one from a 5d mark2 if printed on high quality media. ( I would agree with Dan, at this size on Canvas maybe not so much.)

I just don't see buying a big printer to print very large prints on makes much sense if all you have is a 5d, unless you are OK with stitching.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad