8MP print size limits

[Bill Jaynes]

Hello,
I'm trying to find the practical limits of print size with images from my KM A2. I'm new to printing and not sure of the best ways of sizing the 22MB psd files for 13X19 inch prints.
Without using any resolution software, files sized to 180dpi have printed surprisingly well at 1440 on our Epson 2200. They come out about 18X12 and the "grain" is small and reminds me of sharp Tri-X prints from 35mm at 11X14 inches. I'd like to get some 13" roll paper and print more of a panorama aspect. Is anybody getting good results from 8MP files at larger sizes?
Bill

[boku]

Hello,
I'm trying to find the practical limits of print size with images from my KM A2. I'm new to printing and not sure of the best ways of sizing the 22MB psd files for 13X19 inch prints.
Without using any resolution software, files sized to 180dpi have printed surprisingly well at 1440 on our Epson 2200. They come out about 18X12 and the "grain" is small and reminds me of sharp Tri-X prints from 35mm at 11X14 inches. I'd like to get some 13" roll paper and print more of a panorama aspect. Is anybody getting good results from 8MP files at larger sizes?
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frankly, I think you have about reached the extent of quality enlargement. Use judicious noise reduction at the beginning of workflow and Bucubic Smoother upsizing to 240-360 dpi before sending it to the printer for best results.

I wouldn't attempt panaramas with that camera - I had one. It's good, but 12x18 is about all she wrote for me.

[daniel voges]

Frankly, I think you have about reached the extent of quality enlargement. Use judicious noise reduction at the beginning of workflow and Bucubic Smoother upsizing to 240-360 dpi before sending it to the printer for best results.

I wouldn't attempt panaramas with that camera - I had one. It's good, but 12x18 is about all she wrote for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi, I am also new to printing, do the people that buy 24" printers all use MF backs or scanned images.?

[Thomas Krüger]

Hi, I am also new to printing, do the people that buy 24" printers all use MF backs or scanned images.?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you are doing stills or landscapes have a look at [a href=\"http://www.autopano.net]Autopano[/url] or another program based on PanoTools (PTGui, PTMac, PTAssemblr) to stitch your images. Also an interesting link is Xrez.com.

[PeterTinson]

I have just attended the Focus on Imaging show at the NEC Birmingham UK,
There on the Epson stand they were printing a portrate of a girl taken with a Nikon D2X 42 inches wide by aproximatley 60 inches long.
This was done by setting the resolution to 180PPI and then using Bicubic smother to take it to aprox 5% larger than required and then reducing it using Bicubic smother to output size, then applying highpass sharpening with a radus of 3.5 pixels and an opacity of 64%.
The result was stunning all the small facial hairs and skin blemishes were visable.

[daniel voges]

I have just attended the Focus on Imaging show at the NEC Birmingham UK,
There on the Epson stand they were printing a portrate of a girl taken with a Nikon D2X 42 inches wide by aproximatley 60 inches long.
This was done by setting the resolution to 180PPI and then using Bicubic smother to take it to aprox 5% larger than required and then reducing it using Bicubic smother to output size, then applying highpass sharpening with a radus of 3.5 pixels and an opacity of 64%.
The result was stunning all the small facial hairs and skin blemishes were visable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Peter, that is a huge print, so even a 44" printer could be useful for 12 mega pix camera. Probably depends a lot on the quality of the image.

[jimhuber]

I use primarily a Canon 5D and have an Epson 9800 printer. 20 by 30 inch prints of pretty much any subject are very good, and I once printed a 32x48 of a shot from Antelope Canyon that looks quite good, but there's almost no fine detail in the shot so that amount of enlargement was possible.

I've used a Rebel XT in the past, and I agree that 12x18 is the limit for most subjects with 8 megapixels.

[BCRider]

...Without using any resolution software, files sized to 180dpi have printed surprisingly well at 1440 on our Epson 2200. They come out about 18X12 and the "grain" is small and reminds me of sharp Tri-X prints from 35mm at 11X14 inches. I'd like to get some 13" roll paper and print more of a panorama aspect. Is anybody getting good results from 8MP files at larger sizes?
...

I print with a dj130 24" printer.  13x19 is a very nice size for 6-8mpixel.  I rarely print smaller than that.   I have no problem going larger and have printed stunning 24x36 prints with only 6 mp but you have to have a well focused image, subject matter that lends itself to that size and learn how to sharpen for large prints.  My most common size would be 18x24 of which 90% of my images look great even upon close viewing.

[boku]

Note - you did not say anything about stitched panaramas. My advice was based on cropping to a panarama aspect ratio as you described.

Even stitched, I would not do that with the camera model you describe. If I recall, there were, IMHO, significant lens distortion and vignetting issues that would need too much coordination for sucessfull stitching.

[chilehead]

snip--
This was done by setting the resolution to 180PPI and then using Bicubic smother to take it to aprox 5% larger than required and then reducing it using Bicubic smother to output size, then applying highpass sharpening with a radus of 3.5 pixels and an opacity of 64%.
The result was stunning all the small facial hairs and skin blemishes were visable.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A similar technique is described (by Jack Flesher?) here:

[a href=\"http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html]http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html[/url]

Mark

[Thomas Krüger]

Even stitched, I would not do that with the camera model you describe.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can correct the source images of this camera with [a href=\"http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/index.html]PTLens[/url], the program includes also profiles for Konica-Minolta. But a fullframe DSLR like the Canon 5D is obviously the better solution...

[JeffKohn]

Even stitched, I would not do that with the camera model you describe. If I recall, there were, IMHO, significant lens distortion and vignetting issues that would need too much coordination for sucessfull stitching.

If you use enough overlap, the edges of each frame aren't really even used, and with good sticthing software such as AutoPano Pro or PTGUI it shouldn't be a problem at all.

[JeffKohn]

When I had a 6mp camera, I found that 12x18/13x19 was as far as I was willing to go, and that was pushing it for some images.  I've done some really nice 16x24's with the D2x, but probably won't go any larger for most landscape images unless I were stitching multiple shots together. 175ppi before any interpolation is pretty much my limit now, and 200ppi is noticeably better.

But the limit for me and my images may be different from somebody else. It really depends on a lot of factors, some of which are highly subjective.

1) Equipment and technique: using top-quality glass, and shooting from a tripod with cable release and MLU will give you a much better source image than a handheld grabshot with a consumer level kit lens. The former will be able to withstand much more enargement.

2) Image type: landscapes or other images with lots and lots of fine detail won't be able to to print as large before image quality deteriorates. On the other hand portraits or images that are more about geometric shapes than fine detail and texture can be printed at significantly larger sizes.

3) Post processing: artifacts from poorly executed sharpening, NR, tonal manipulations, etc will be much more noticeable once you print large. You can get away with being a little sloppy in your post-processing when you're printing an 8x10, but when printing at 20x30 you need to be much more careful.

4) Viewing distance: some prints are meant to be viewed from a distance. For instance a 20x30 headshot isn't something you'd probably want to view from a few inches away, it's meant to be viewed from a distance. But in my experience, large landscape prints are often viewed more closely. Sure, people will initially view a landscape from a distance that allows seeing the whole image, but then they'll often step up for a closer look; and if the image is heavily interpolated that closer look might not be so pretty.

5) Personal/subjective standards of image quality. Some people are pickier than others about what constitutes excellent print quality. The initial impact of a really large print can be pretty powerful to the point where you might not notice some of the flaws at first; but somebody who really takes the time to look might be a bit more discerning. When I hear people talk about a 6mp landscape image looking awesome when printed at 20x30, I have to wonder if they've ever seen a similarly-sized enlargement from a 4x5 or 8x10 film image.

[Bill Jaynes]

Note - you did not say anything about stitched panaramas. My advice was based on cropping to a panarama aspect ratio as you described.

That's right. After using some judicious sharpening and resizing in PS to 180 ppi without any resolution work, 13X19 prints looked really nice. My question was, could cropping for height and sizing to 150 ppi yield an acceptable landscape on 13" roll paper at maybe 22" or so?
Bill

[madmanchan]

Well said, Jeff. I agree.

[Dale_Cotton]

Bill wrote:

After using some judicious sharpening and resizing in PS to 180 ppi without any resolution work, 13X19 prints looked really nice. My question was, could cropping for height and sizing to 150 ppi yield an acceptable landscape on 13" roll paper at maybe 22" or so?

Bill: why not create the image file exactly as you would print it, then print a suitable crop from it that will fit on your current paper? You can try various approaches, then if you get something satisfactory, you can go for the roll paper.

FYI: I found 2" core roll paper to be incredibly curly and had extreme difficulty just getting it to feed when I had a 2200. 3" core is much better, if that's available in 13". Of course, you can always cut the appropriate length from the roll, reverse-curl it first, then print.

[Bill Jaynes]

Bill wrote:
Thanks to everyone in this thread. Really appreciate the feedback!
Bill

Bill: why not create the image file exactly as you would print it, then print a suitable crop from it that will fit on your current paper? You can try various approaches, then if you get something satisfactory, you can go for the roll paper.

FYI: I found 2" core roll paper to be incredibly curly and had extreme difficulty just getting it to feed when I had a 2200. 3" core is much better, if that's available in 13". Of course, you can always cut the appropriate length from the roll, reverse-curl it first, then print.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104285\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[BCRider]

...The initial impact of a really large print can be pretty powerful to the point where you might not notice some of the flaws at first; but somebody who really takes the time to look might be a bit more discerning.

Yes, people who look for flaws usually find them.  The presence or absence of that personality trait probably has a much bigger impact than the number of megapixels!

When I hear people talk about a 6mp landscape image looking awesome when printed at 20x30, I have to wonder if they've ever seen a similarly-sized enlargement from a 4x5 or 8x10 film image.

When I hear someone talking as if a 6mp image can't look awesome I often wonder if they've ever seen a painting they liked...  Resolution is a small component of what makes an image look awesome IMHO,  it merely needs to be sufficient to support the intended expression.

[Kirk Gittings]

When I hear people talk about a 6mp landscape image looking awesome when printed at 20x30, I have to wonder if they've ever seen a similarly-sized enlargement from a 4x5 or 8x10 film image.

Exactly. Coming from a lifetime of shooting 4x5, I find 11x14 to be really pushing the limits of a well executed 12.7 MP uncropped file from a Canon 5D.

[larryg]

I have always thought that mega pixels was all that it was about.  A couple of years ago I went ot a seminar (prmarily portrait/weddings) and the speaker was showing off some 24x30 and larger prints from his 8mp camera  They were stunning.  The key is that you need to have it correctly exposed from the start.

He then compared the same image/size with a mf and the definition was certainly better with the mf  but the 8mp was still very good.