M9 / 1Dx print size

[satybhat]

Hi all,

Simple question: how large have you ever printed from the M9 (or the 1Dx )?

I have the M9 and 35 cron, 50 lux, (and 1Dx with 24-70 tamron) and am about to start on a landscape project for a local gallery ( proceeds going to a children's charity ). Since this is not going to be making me any money, just thought I should check what previous experiences have been with printing large.
I'm yet to venture into the MF world, which is something I'm planning by the end of this year (specifically for large prints).
I've printed nice ones at 12 x 18 inches, but never ventured beyond that.
Subject matter: seascapes and wilderness.
There are 4 slots for 30 x 40 prints (which no one went for, hence.... enter the dragon..).
Do you reckon the 18MP native file would be enough for that ?

Thanks
Saty

[Josh-H]

I have made, exhibited and sold 36 x 54 inch images from Canon 1DX files. The caveat is you need to have a VERY good capture. Tack sharp and perfectly processed and printed. But it can be done.

You can try larger - but I have had mixed results at 52 x 70 inches and I do not regard them as acceptable. YMMV.

[TMARK]

As to the M9, it depends on the image.  If there is lots of aliasing in fine, distant detail, then the enlargements aren't great past 16x20.  For a portrait with little ot no aliasing, I've gone to 20x30.  The print size reflects my crop to 4:5.

The 1dx probably has better DR, which might help a bunch.  I loved my M9, but the new crop of sensors in the DSLRs gives a better file, at least for images with fine, distant detail.

[theguywitha645d]

30x40 will be no problem for your files. I print those sizes all the time.

[JeanMichel]

Hi,
I print M9 files up to 20 by 30 inches -- would probably be able to print even larger but I only have a 24" Epson 7890 printer. Details hold very nicely.
Jean-Michel

[Ellis Vener]

Every day I look at a beautiful, crisply detailed 20x30 inch  print of my daughter reading a book while stretched out in a hammock. It was  shot in subdued light with a Canon EOS 1D X and 85mm f/1.8  with the camera set to ISO 2,400, f/4  and the .cr2 capture format.

If you know what you are doing you can go quite large. Knowing what you are doing includes fine tuning the auto focus as well as camera handling, raw processing, and post raw processing technique.  The processing steps definitely include multi-staged sharpening (capture and specified size , resolution and printing method output sharpening as well as carefully applied noise reduction.

[DaveCurtis]

I would agree with the view - if you want to print large your technique is the most important aspect. Focus, lock up mirror, tripod etc.  You can have the sharpest lenses and the best sensor however with poor technique your large prints will look like crap.

If you get it right you will be amazed what 18MP will do. Remember viewing distance is important. Large prints tend to be viewed at 3 inches only by other photographer. 

[kers]

My idea is that if you want to see a truly sharp image at all viewing distances you need 150 dpi true resolution.
So in the case of a very sharp Leica image it will be about 90x60 cm.  That is the smallest size your Leica can do good.
If your viewing distance becomes further away you can go bigger...
and depending on the subject you can also go bigger. Some posters need only 4 MP or less information to be good for a wall print...

[JohnBrew]

I would imagine you could go to 30" on the short side with an M9. I can go to 24" with an M8 file.

[250swb]

Large prints tend to be viewed at 3 inches only by other photographer. 

How true. Photographers shouldn't forget the photographically ignorant mass of the public (the potential customer) have the common sense to stand further back to take the image in, they always have, whether a painting or a photo. And it would be unusual for somebody to buy a photograph if they could only see it with their nose pressed up against it in a small room. Surely there is an equation between print size, and room size, and the wallet size of the customer? Otherwise the value of printing really large is rather lost when the price of a landscape photograph turns out to be the prefered cheap option compared to decorating the wall with a few rolls of good wallpaper.

Steve

[Ellis Vener]

Large prints tend to be viewed at 3 inches only by other photographer.

From experience I disagree. If the photograph has a lot of fine detail in it and is interesting to the viewer, even the non-photographer viewer will inspect at close range. Maybe not as close as three inches (and at that close of distance you need a magnifying glass anyway unless your vision is exceptional) but they will come in close and examine those fine details.

While I regularly use a  tripod, a cable release or wireless release, and mirror lockup whenever I can, when I can't I'll opt for a reasonably high ISO and work at short shutter speeds.  

[satybhat]

thanks guys, interesting discussion.
i would agree that even non-photogs tend to wander really up close to check the fine details.

[AlfSollund]

I have had a few landscape prints up to 0,9 m from my M9, and I was happy with the result.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi all,

Simple question: how large have you ever printed from the M9 (or the 1Dx )?

Hi Saty,

The underlying question is, how much resolution do you want at final output size? Excellent mural size output can be produced from your files, but is the quality good enough? It needs an objective determination of what quality you want.

This can be determined by doing a bit of simple math, and an assumption. Let's assume you want to reach what's considered to be quite a good output resolution of 5 lp/mm at reading distance. Then that's the goal. If you can live with a lower quality you'll be able to enlarge more and lose some resolution, otherwise you'd have to prevent people from getting too close.

We now need to determine the amount of detail that a given sensor can produce (theoretical opimum).
1. The M9 sensor has an absolutely maximum resolution (AKA Nyquist frequency) of approx. 5212px / 36mm = 144.78 lines/mm or 72.39 line pairs/mm. That means that you can magnify the 36x24mm image 72.39/5 = 14.48x, which is 521 x 347 mm (divide by 25.4mm to get inches).
2. The 1Dx sensor has an absolutely maximum resolution (AKA Nyquist frequency) of approx. 5184px / 36mm = 144.0 lines/mm or 72.0 line pairs/mm. That means that you can magnify the 36x24mm image 72/5 = 14.4x, which is 518 x 346 mm (divide by 25.4mm to get inches).

So, technically there is no significant difference, therefore it will boil down to what the specific lens qualities can bring you for the specific focal length and aperture combinations that you will use, and what shooting convenience is best for the shooting conditions you will face.

There are 4 slots for 30 x 40 prints (which no one went for, hence.... enter the dragon..).
Do you reckon the 18MP native file would be enough for that ?

Is that 30x40 inches? Then the step from 13.6 inches on the short side to 30 inches, leaves you with 45.4% of the 5 lp/mm goal. So there would be a drop in quality, unless you consider stitching or a 2x larger sensor size (physical size). You'll need to use a very good upsampling program to optimize the quality you could get from your current gear anyway.

Cheers,
Bart

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would suggest that the limits can be somewhat relaxed. I have a decent A2 print made from a 6 MP image, OK, it's a small A2 and it has issues close scrutiny. Larger pictures would normally be seen at longer distance. Good sharpening and interpolation may help a lot.

I have a 70x100 cm print made from a 10MP image and it is OK, sort of, it doesn't hold up to close scrutiny, but it seems decently sharp if viewed from 80 cm or so.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Saty,

The underlying question is, how much resolution do you want at final output size? Excellent mural size output can be produced from your files, but is the quality good enough? It needs an objective determination of what quality you want.

This can be determined by doing a bit of simple math, and an assumption. Let's assume you want to reach what's considered to be quite a good output resolution of 5 lp/mm at reading distance. Then that's the goal. If you can live with a lower quality you'll be able to enlarge more and lose some resolution, otherwise you'd have to prevent people from getting too close.

We now need to determine the amount of detail that a given sensor can produce (theoretical opimum).
1. The M9 sensor has an absolutely maximum resolution (AKA Nyquist frequency) of approx. 5212px / 36mm = 144.78 lines/mm or 72.39 line pairs/mm. That means that you can magnify the 36x24mm image 72.39/5 = 14.48x, which is 521 x 347 mm (divide by 25.4mm to get inches).
2. The 1Dx sensor has an absolutely maximum resolution (AKA Nyquist frequency) of approx. 5184px / 36mm = 144.0 lines/mm or 72.0 line pairs/mm. That means that you can magnify the 36x24mm image 72/5 = 14.4x, which is 518 x 346 mm (divide by 25.4mm to get inches).

So, technically there is no significant difference, therefore it will boil down to what the specific lens qualities can bring you for the specific focal length and aperture combinations that you will use, and what shooting convenience is best for the shooting conditions you will face.

Is that 30x40 inches? Then the step from 13.6 inches on the short side to 30 inches, leaves you with 45.4% of the 5 lp/mm goal. So there would be a drop in quality, unless you consider stitching or a 2x larger sensor size (physical size). You'll need to use a very good upsampling program to optimize the quality you could get from your current gear anyway.

Cheers,
Bart

[satybhat]

wow
thats some cool math.
thanks Bart. spent the last few hrs reading up on nyquist frequency !!
ta