Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A3 print size IQ180 file any downressing problems?  (Read 3050 times)
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« on: February 02, 2011, 04:49:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I noticed in the review Michael said that an A3 print would be better than a lower res back. I don't see how this can be as the file would need to be downressed by you (or the printer would do it itself) losing all that extra resolution and possibly causing quality problems in itself. Have you actually made a side by side comparison between this back and a lower res back at A3 size?
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2011, 05:10:54 AM »
ReplyReply

How can you make this calculation without knowing the resolution of a given printer?

For example, a 600dpi printer prints 70 megapixels on an A3 page.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2011, 05:21:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Almost all inkjet printers and commercial presses print around 300 dpi. Correct me if I am wrong.
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2011, 06:05:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Almost all inkjet printers and commercial presses print around 300 dpi. Correct me if I am wrong.

This is incorrect. We had a long discussion about this very topic elsewhere, some time ago. Many HP printers can output to 300 or 600 ppi. Many Epsons (including my R2400) can output to 360 or 720 ppi. Whether you can see the additional detail at 720 ppi with the naked eye is another matter (you certainly can with a loupe).

John
« Last Edit: February 02, 2011, 06:07:43 AM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2011, 06:08:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Is there any quality difference between a native 720 dpi file and one that has been down rezzed to 360? outputted to an Epson?
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1118


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2011, 06:46:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Just FYI the native size for the IQ 180 is 34.43 x 25.87 or 10328 x 7760. I have yet to make a print from one of the files we shot but I do agree with Michael's comment that there is a difference in image quality from the P65 to the IQ 180 with the 20 mpx increase. I thought it would be slight at first until I shot and processed the IQ 180. It is a noticeable difference that I am surprised to see but I admit we should be looking at prints here and large ones at that.
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2011, 07:04:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Well Guy, you are one of the few people who has actually used the 180, so your opinion counts  Wink

The rest of us are merely speculating, as usual, but it is good fun. Anyhow, the printing nitty-gritty goes like this -

For the 80 MP sensor (and I live in Epson-Land, so forgive my bias) if you output at 720 ppi then the print will be 14.3 x 10.7 ins with no printer interpolation, and that will fit nicely on a sheet of A3. The file will probably look just as good to the naked eye output at 360 ppi, which will print to 28.6 x 21.4 ins. No uprezing or downrezing.

John
« Last Edit: February 02, 2011, 07:06:44 AM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1118


WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2011, 07:22:38 AM »
ReplyReply

John I don't like to post how much I like something often but will take exception here. The damn thing is about the nicest back I ever had the pleasure to shoot. Obviously the 80 mpx is smoking hot but reality is the tech is even better IMHO. I honestly may just do a lateral to the IQ 140 because what you really want is the tech and maybe not so much the MPX but again it will come down to need here. Some folks will just jump on the 180 just because which is great and if you study the pricing with upgrades Phase is making it a small difference in price to get one over the 160. The best deal going is from a P65 to a IQ 180 just the way they priced this out so those P65 folks IMHO should just make the jump up instead of a lateral move . It is the new sensor and without measuring the DR it looks at least a 1/3 stop better over the P65 but I would would say 1/2 stop but that maybe a stretch without measuring it. It is very very good

What you are really buying here is all new technology with the LCD and lets not view this as just a LCD which i know folks are doing. Sure the LCD in itself is sweet as pie but I can't describe in the printed words how nice the features are that go with it. The buttons for Histo, highlight control and such are just so intuitive but the real catch or hook is the 100 percent or better said 100-400 zooming that you can actually see the detail and focus. Now add the focus mask , live view and other features you start wondering how we did without this. Now we have but in all honesty it makes the shooting experience much better and more than anything you can confirm what you are doing. Not to mention it helps free your head from the technical challenges we face in the field. Tech cam users can actually see what the hell they are doing now without all these hardware aids. Anyway getting off topic but  as far as downsizing a file like this , I just don't see it as a big issue. What i do is process at a lower percentage in C1 which i think is a better technique than downsizing it in PS. I would rather work at the raw level myself. Than taking a Tif and down sizing it . I just feel that is a better way to go. I never had any trouble downsizing like that
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2011, 07:32:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Guy

Yes I would agree that if you already own a P65+ then the upgrade to the IQ180 is very tempting. In fact, you would pretty much be crazy not to take it up, providing you had a need for it.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2011, 10:47:51 AM »
ReplyReply

So I still haven't had a response to, has anyone compared 2 A3 prints, one from a 180 back and one from an older lower resolution back?
Logged
Peter Devos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 474


« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2011, 11:33:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Please, don't get me wrong. I am a photographer that shoots images with back's from 16 to 50Mp, i make prints up to 44" wide on my Epson 9800 and make a living doing that. I was just wondering what is the point in knowing if a 80Mp back will produce a better image on a A3 print than any other 39+ back. I mean, are there in any place on earth clients that can see a difference in image quality on a A3 print? Is there a photographer that had a client say:" sorry, i cant accept this image because it is only shot with a P40+ and we demand 80mp for our A3 spread".
I can surely believe one can easely see the difference between a Canon 5dM2 and a A22 on a Aptus3 print ( aptus will be better, even a Lightphase H5 will be better when it comes to tonalities)... But between 60Mp and 80Mp on a A3 print?HuhHuh
I do not want to hurt anybodies feelings, nor trolling or so. I am just wondering why people might be interested in such things. I have never met a pro photographer who was asking these things before.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2011, 12:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

of course you can tell the difference between a canon and an A22. In the review Michael did state that on an A3 print you see a difference. This is interesting to me, I was wondering if he did (or anyone else) has done a comparison with actual prints.
Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1144



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2011, 12:26:09 PM »
ReplyReply

So I still haven't had a response to, has anyone compared 2 A3 prints, one from a 180 back and one from an older lower resolution back?

Yes, but from an Aptus-II 12 and compared to lower resolution backs (Leaf and others)

Where the higher resolution back shows its strength (even on A4 prints) is where there are structures or patterns in the subject that cause reconstruction errors such as moire (optical pattern and/ or colour) with lower res backs and that do not cause any errors (or very little) with the Aptus-II 12.

To make it simple:

If these errors show in a 300dpi* native size 60MP print they are likely also to show in a scaled down print

If these errors DO NOT show in a 300dpi* native size 80MP print, then they are not likely to show in a scaled down print

Even if you cannot see the actual detail in a small print, the "texture" or the "feel" of the subject looks better, at least to my eyes. This is also true for things like shadow and highlight detail.

Yair

*I've picked 300 since this is the default res that most applications use for processing and printing
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1118


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2011, 01:24:58 PM »
ReplyReply

In all honesty Jack and I left our P40+ and P65 + in the trunk. We spent our time shooting the IQ180 can you blame us. But on final production unit we will do this as we have to remember this is a prototype unit that is going around without final firmware which right now maybe meaningless since this unit is not ready for prime time. I can tell you the color was off right off the bat. But Phase is taking everyones raws and going to Denmark with them to analyze all the images and make adjustments. I can't speak for all the reviewers at this point but pretty much general consensus if we polled everyone is you can see a difference in resolution on screen.
Logged

chrismuc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2011, 10:04:26 PM »
ReplyReply

A remark regarding comparing resolution of digital picture and printers:
A single pixel of a digital cmyk picture has 4 x 8 bit color depth (or maybe 4 x 12 bit when stored as 16 bit tiff and assumed that the sensor would deliver 12 bit brightness steps per color channel) while a cmyk printer (offset, color laser printer, older inkjet) only has 4 x 1 bit (dot or no dot) color depth for each ink dot. The modern inkjet printers add light cyan, light magenta, grey and so on, so they might have roughly 4 x 2 bit color depth.
So it's not so easy to "translate" a certain sensor pixel count x color depth into a file pixel count x color depth into a printer resolution x color depth x print size.
Christoph
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2011, 03:16:03 AM »
ReplyReply

of course you can tell the difference between a canon and an A22. In the review Michael did state that on an A3 print you see a difference. This is interesting to me, I was wondering if he did (or anyone else) has done a comparison with actual prints.

Well, I can’t really imagine that anyone is going to shell out $44,000 just to get a tiny bit more smoothness or shadow detail in their A3 prints. After all, my calculations show that you only need 20 MP to print at A3 using 360 ppi with no printer re-sampling at all. And although higher resolution files might possibly show a bit better tonal transition or slightly less digital artefacting, the fact remains that an 80 MP back is chucking away a lot of the detail it has captured if you are only printing to A3.

So it might be rather more interesting (and relevant) to consider what an 80 MP back might be really useful for. How about (and you are welcome to add to this) –

•   Really large non-stitched exhibition prints.
•   Aerial photography (hand-held obliques).
•   Product photography on a tech camera (fabrics, jewellery, etc).
•   Rectified building recording.
•   Work which requires very precise retouch as part of post-prod.
•   Artwork and copy camera work where exact reproduction of fine detail is crucial.

Because, let’s face it, there are not going to be too many people using one of these for their holiday snaps  Wink

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2011, 04:01:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I can’t really imagine that anyone is going to shell out $44,000 just to get a tiny bit more smoothness or shadow detail in their A3 prints...

...or on the printed page.

Truth is you'd struggle to see differences between a 22MP and 80MP back on an A3 print or a dps.
Logged

Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2870


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2011, 07:33:21 AM »
ReplyReply

A remark regarding comparing resolution of digital picture and printers:
A single pixel of a digital cmyk picture has 4 x 8 bit color depth (or maybe 4 x 12 bit when stored as 16 bit tiff and assumed that the sensor would deliver 12 bit brightness steps per color channel) while a cmyk printer (offset, color laser printer, older inkjet) only has 4 x 1 bit (dot or no dot) color depth for each ink dot. The modern inkjet printers add light cyan, light magenta, grey and so on, so they might have roughly 4 x 2 bit color depth.
So it's not so easy to "translate" a certain sensor pixel count x color depth into a file pixel count x color depth into a printer resolution x color depth x print size.
Christoph

Actually it's pretty easy. Look at the prints :-)

After all the eyes are the only real measurement device that matter in the end.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad