Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Resolution upsampling for output question  (Read 18036 times)
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« on: December 10, 2011, 05:42:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Great video!

Would upsampling in Lightroom to 720 for a native print of say 420ppi be beneficial for my Epson 3800. Or does this upsampling only apply to the latest generation of printers?

Thanks Dave
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2011, 05:52:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes...depending on the image. Any Epson printer that has Finest Detail as an option can benefit.
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2011, 06:48:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Jeff.
Logged

s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2011, 09:39:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a similar question. Should you upsample to 720 (for a Epson) for any starting resolution? If I have a crop and the resolution is below 200 - still upsample to 720?

Sverre
Logged
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2011, 02:04:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi

In one of the video's there's the statement upsample to 720 (for epson, 600 for canon and hp) from 300ppi and higher, for lower resolutions upres 50%.

I have another question : Is there another printer/paper profile needed if printing with finest detail on?


Alain

Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2011, 02:29:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I have another question : Is there another printer/paper profile needed if printing with finest detail on?

Nope...same profile assuming the profile was made with 2880 resolution.
Logged
s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2011, 02:46:26 PM »
ReplyReply

It was a discussion a few years ago that yous should match the printers native resolution - 360 ppi for Epson. The target was to skip another upsampling/downsampling in the printer driver.

Is this still a target for resolution bellow 300 or should you upsample with 50% even if you end up off 360?

Sverre
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2011, 03:11:58 PM »
ReplyReply

For Epson upsample to 360, for Canon/HP upsample to 300 if the native resolution of the are below thos targets. If the native rez is above, go to 720 for Epson and 600 for Canon/HP.
Logged
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2011, 03:24:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Nope...same profile assuming the profile was made with 2880 resolution.


thanks
Logged
s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2011, 03:25:52 PM »
ReplyReply

For Epson upsample to 360, for Canon/HP upsample to 300 if the native resolution of the are below thos targets. If the native rez is above, go to 720 for Epson and 600 for Canon/HP.

Thank you Jeff!

Must say that your excellent video combined with the opportunity of asking the source question is fantastic  Cool

Then I can make two presets - one with 360 and another with 720 for my Epson.

Sverre
Logged
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2011, 03:29:52 PM »
ReplyReply

For Epson upsample to 360, for Canon/HP upsample to 300 if the native resolution of the are below thos targets. If the native rez is above, go to 720 for Epson and 600 for Canon/HP.

Hi Schewe

This is different than said in the printing from lightroom video. 


BTW. It's the way qimage is printing for a long time.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2011, 04:17:11 PM »
ReplyReply

This is different than said in the printing from lightroom video.  

No it isn't...if the native resolution is below 360, upsample to 360. If the native rez is above 360 but below 720, upsample to 720.

Actually, the discussion about whether or not to upsample is discussed elsewhere...this segment dealt with is it worth upsampling high native rez images to 720 (or 600).

(Edited to add second line since under review of the video, I didn't specifically mention under 360PPI images in this segment)
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 04:31:48 PM by Schewe » Logged
s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2011, 11:38:29 AM »
ReplyReply

...
Then I can make two presets - one with 360 and another with 720 for my Epson.
...

With my Nikon D300 this will be 720 ppi for 4'x6' and 360 ppi for letter/A4 and above.
Then I don't have to think - only choose size of paper  Cool
Logged
Nigel Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2011, 02:03:59 PM »
ReplyReply

With my Nikon D300 this will be 720 ppi for 4'x6' and 360 ppi for letter/A4 and above.
Then I don't have to think - only choose size of paper  Cool

Sverre,

I assume you mean 4 inches x 6 inches (4″x6″) not 4 feet x 6 feet (4′x6′) as you wrote.

By my calculation a 360 ppi print from a full D300 frame will be about 7.91″x11.91″. Letter is 8.5″x11″ and A4 is about 8.27″x11.69″, thus if you are printing the full frame with borders the native print resolution will be slightly greater than 360 and it may be worth testing 720 ppi for high frequency images. If you are printing borderless all bets are off, as the printer driver scales the image up larger than the nominal size in order to avoid any white borders - the amount is not specified hence you would not actually be printing at 360 or 720 ppi.

In addition your assumption of a changeover at around letter/A4 size is only true if you don't crop your image or if you don't stitch more than one image - in either of these cases you need to use the real dimensions of the image to be printed.

Regards
Nigel
Logged
s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2011, 03:27:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Nigel,

Quote
I assume you mean 4 inches x 6 inches (4″x6″) not 4 feet x 6 feet (4′x6′) as you wrote.
I'm European used to the metric system - sorry!

Quote
If you are printing borderless all bets are off, as the printer driver scales the image up larger than the nominal size in order to avoid any white borders - the amount is not specified hence you would not actually be printing at 360 or 720 ppi.
I've used borderless up to now. Heard comments in the video suggestion have some margin for the feeder mechanism. If I loose control over dimension used it seems like another reason stop using borderless?

For 4''x6'' the borderless format is still handy - can other confirm that the quality is reduced using this format or is this an issue only for large print?

Regards
Sverre

Logged
Nigel Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2011, 02:51:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Sverre,

I'm European used to the metric system - sorry!

My comment was not intended as a criticism of you, but I just wished the dimensions to be clear - I am European also, but have the advantage of being from England and had an education using mixed imperial and metric units and still tend to use a both for different things!

Quote
For 4''x6'' the borderless format is still handy - can other confirm that the quality is reduced using this format or is this an issue only for large print?

All standard inkjet printers from Canon, Epson or HP enlarge the image slightly when printing borderless. The manufacturers do not specify the percentage or if the percentage changes for different print sizes in any public documents I have seen. Because of this, trying to print at an exact printer resolution does not work as the enlargement factor means that the print is actually made at a slightly lower resolution. If the factor was known it might be possible to select a different resolution that would scale to the correct printer resolution (this might not be possible as only integer resolutions are usable). To determine the input resolution required it would be necessary to print a test pattern at various resolutions to determine the input resolution that resulted in the desired print resolution - this would have to be checked for any possible changes with paper size.

The purpose of printing at specific print resolutions is to produce the maximum quality print for extremely high quality work. Most users of the printers are not worried about the ultimate quality and do not bother to use the optimum resolution. All the current printers contain good print sizing algorithms that produce very good quality results even if the optimum resolution is not used. I would anticipate that your 4″x6″ prints are probably for a use that does not require the ultimate quality and that perfectly acceptable prints will be produced by either printing at native resolution or at 720 ppi. I would suggest that you compare the results of borderless at native resolution and 720 ppi with each other and with a 720 ppi print with borders and see which you prefer. (Note that if you are printing from Lightroom and the native resolution is greater than 720 ppi there will be no difference between the two borderless prints as LR only prints up to 720 ppi and down-samples all higher native resolutions to 720 ppi.)

Regards
Nigel
Logged
s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2011, 03:10:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Nigel for sharing your experience  Cheesy
Logged
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419


« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2011, 10:26:59 AM »
ReplyReply

No it isn't...if the native resolution is below 360, upsample to 360. If the native rez is above 360 but below 720, upsample to 720.

Actually, the discussion about whether or not to upsample is discussed elsewhere...this segment dealt with is it worth upsampling high native rez images to 720 (or 600).

(Edited to add second line since under review of the video, I didn't specifically mention under 360PPI images in this segment)
Hi Jeff,
  watching both LR3 tutorials and these newer ones I too understood to upsample by 50% while lower than a certain threshold.
I was quite confused as I always thought to upres to the greater 360X multiplier just to avoid the job to be done by the printer/driver itself.

My question is: when upsizing from 360 to the final resolution (I'm speaking from the printer point of view when it receives the file from LR) will it use a serious algorithm or not?
I mean, should I always send 720 ppi files to the printer so that LR manages to upres better that the printer itself?
In worst case scenario, beside a longer time to export/send the file, it won't change nothing when printing from lower resolution, isn't it?

PS: forgive my english, I'm italian.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2011, 12:41:13 PM »
ReplyReply

My question is: when upsizing from 360 to the final resolution (I'm speaking from the printer point of view when it receives the file from LR) will it use a serious algorithm or not?

What do you mean by "a serious algorithm"? In Lightroom, the upsampling will be done via an adaptive bicubic algorithm...bicubic for small changes and bicubic smoother for larger changes with an interpolation in between–which is something Photoshop can't do.

The rule I use now is to upsample to 360ppi for anything under 360 native. For anything above 360, I upsample to 720.
Logged
Robert-Peter Westphal
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2011, 02:40:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

What I don't understand - in the Lieghtroom 3 videos Michael and Jeff explain that the option 'finest detail' is useable only when printig business charts. In the From Camera to print and screen vieos, Jeff explains that this option is th right one to use when upsampling an image to 720d(roplets)per inch.

Where is the point where I losed you ?

Many thanks and best wishes

Robert
Logged

'visit my completly renewed gallery at http://www.naturfotografie-westphal.com '
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad