Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: How to make a 70"x90" print from İQ180 file?  (Read 1967 times)
ziyatacir
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


WWW
« on: January 06, 2012, 02:56:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello all,
İ like to make  prints sized 70"x90" printed by Oce LightJet at minimum 200,preferably 240 dpi using my files from İQ180 back.
Since my files are 480 mb at 16-bit,İ assume İ have to take multishots and stitch. Shocked
Help is really appreciated.
Thank you all.
Ziya
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7231


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2012, 03:01:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

You can test with a crop, a 10% crop at 7"x9" will exactly correspond to the full size image. But don't look at it at 10" distance.

Best regards
Erik


Hello all,
İ like to make  prints sized 70"x90" printed by Oce LightJet at minimum 200,preferably 240 dpi using my files from İQ180 back.
Since my files are 480 mb at 16-bit,İ assume İ have to take multishots and stitch. Shocked
Help is really appreciated.
Thank you all.
Ziya

Logged

ced
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 263


« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2012, 05:05:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Lowering the dpi to 200 is going to give your file roughly half of your output size so scaling the image 2X partly done in the raw conversion and partly done in PS it should be no problem at all.  Part scaling can also be done by the printer, stitching can improve the situation IQ wise but I think it may not be necessary.
You need to run a crop like Eric mentioned through the whole scaling with print process to get an idea if it meets yours & your customer's expectations.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2012, 06:11:02 PM »
ReplyReply

If the RIP and printer are good, you don't need to scale the file at all. Just give it to them and let them do the work. The only thing I might do is some unsharp masking to tighten up the image.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2012, 07:17:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I wouldn't think you'd need to stitch, but a lot depends on the subject and how close viewers will get, etc.     You can output directly from C1 at 200% which works pretty well, but there are quite a lot different upsampling methods.  I liked photozoom pro (formerly S-Spline) for organics - plants, people, landscapes, and the other one whatever Genuine Fractals got renamed to for man made objects or other things with straight lines.  These days I just set C1 to 200% with modest sharpening and take it from there.  It's probably not as good as one of the dedicated programs but not bad at all.   I think the Lightjets have a print engine that also upsamples rather well so something to check on first.   I kind of remember that they will work with files as low as 100dpi.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2012, 06:45:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello all,
İ like to make  prints sized 70"x90" printed by Oce LightJet at minimum 200,preferably 240 dpi using my files from İQ180 back.
Since my files are 480 mb at 16-bit,İ assume İ have to take multishots and stitch. Shocked
Help is really appreciated.
Thank you all.
Ziya

Don't know if this helps, but given the quality of your MFDB, I wouldn't hesitate to print bellow 200dpi. I am not familiar with the OCE, I own an Epson 9000 myself and the size is restricted to 112cm there, but I do much printing using all its width as the smaller side of the print which sometimes is cropped, I've come to the conclusion that the natural "upsampling" of the plotter does a better job than upsampling the file. My back is the Imacon 528c with which I do painting reproduction in microstep (16x) and print in on canvas at 1:1 with the original, thus the output is of similar size with yours, thus I thought my findings may apply (?) to your needs as well. One thing I've noticed though is that when printing from files of my D700 and compare with the same size print from my D7K, the print is clearly better from the D700, this led me to conclude that printing from better pixel definition is of more quality that resolution as such. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2012, 08:49:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't know if this helps, but given the quality of your MFDB, I wouldn't hesitate to print bellow 200dpi. I am not familiar with the OCE, I own an Epson 9000 myself and the size is restricted to 112cm there, but I do much printing using all its width as the smaller side of the print which sometimes is cropped, I've come to the conclusion that the natural "upsampling" of the plotter does a better job than upsampling the file. My back is the Imacon 528c with which I do painting reproduction in microstep (16x) and print in on canvas at 1:1 with the original, thus the output is of similar size with yours, thus I thought my findings may apply (?) to your needs as well. One thing I've noticed though is that when printing from files of my D700 and compare with the same size print from my D7K, the print is clearly better from the D700, this led me to conclude that printing from better pixel definition is of more quality that resolution as such. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Just a P.S. to the above: Here is the rules I have come up to now (without abandoning the case that it will change in the future), out of testing and outcome experience:
    1. High quality printing is from 16 TIFF converted from a 16 bit RAW, I never print (my pictures) in JPG.
    2. I never up-sample or down-sample a file, unless it drops down to 72dpi.
    3. I never put a paper in "production", unless the material's profile is not of 98% accuracy (it can't be measured - its a personal judgement). To "built" the profile, I use the I-One as a first calibration and then "retune" and then again and again..., using "past analog experience".   
    4. If a print drops below 72dpi and there is need to keep the image size, I print it on 720dpi (with 2880 on the plotter), no matter the size that print will shrink and then reshoot the print at 16x-microstep or scan it at 4800dpi (choice depends on my judgement of DR that the print contains).
    5. The screen from which the print should be judged should be of the highest quality and with optimum calibration. I personally use the Eizo GM 241 (I have the profile retuned from the manufacturers one), there are a few more of its standards.
    6. Stitching captures is the best method of up-sampling, thus my next investment is the Kapture group stitching adapter (contax back fit) for my recently purchased FujiGX680 system, my other being the Contax 645 from where I share the back. 
I hope this helps, it 's all based on my believe that a photograph is only the printed thing on paper (never the screen image) and that the photographer should visualize the final print before capture, let me know what you think, Regards Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
 
   
Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2012, 06:28:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I regularly print 56x75" prints from P65+ files, just sending the printer the images at 120dpi, (no resampling) and hand that off to the Epson 11880. works very well.

with an IQ180, you should manage your larger size easily.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad