Screen image sharpness compared to printed imag sharpness

[mdijb]

I am using a NEC 2690WUXi monitor--a good monitor

I notice that the screen image looks unsharp on the screen but prints(canon 6100) much sharper. as a result I think I may be oversharpening my images. How do I get these two match up??

In the menu system on the monitor there is sharpness adjustment that by default is set at 31 %  If I increase this to about 50%, the screen image appear much closer to the print result.  However, now there appear some red lines around text when reaDING MESSAGES ON THIS FORUM.

What are other people setting their screen sharpness setting at?  Is there some guideline about setting this variable to get what I see on the screen match what comes out on paper??

MDIJB

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Is there some guideline about setting this variable to get what I see on the screen match what comes out on paper??

Not sure about the specific monitor or the variable, but I doubt you can have the two match. Monitors display images at about 100 ppi, while prints do so at around 180-360 ppi. No wonder prints look sharper.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Not sure about the specific monitor or the variable, but I doubt you can have the two match. Monitors display images at about 100 ppi, while prints do so at around 180-360 ppi. No wonder prints look sharper.

Great question from Michael. Many are afraid to ask, but also wonder why they can print so much larger than their display suggests to be feasible.

And I fully agree with Slobodan's answer, it's due to the difference in output resolution that there is a disconnect. However, if the OP were to view the display from a (+/- 3x) larger distance, he'd be able to neutralize that difference (assuming normal visual acuity). Changing the display's (between pixel) contrast will also create artifacts when that contrast is high already.

Some suggest to view the display at a 50% or 33% zoom setting, but that is usually not going to give the correct impression because the down-sampling algorithm used for such a zoom setting creates it's own artifacts.

This also shows the need for targeted output sharpening, each output modality requires its own approach (although viewing distance is also an important equalizer).

Cheers,
Bart

[Tony Jay]

One of the main reasons I began printing was to get an idea of whether anything that I had shot was worth a damn.
Printing at A2+ I was astounded by the level of detail (sharpness only one contributor here) that was not really apparent on my monitor.

Current monitor technology does not allow, on a size-for-size basis, any real comparison with prints as far as detail goes.
I also use high-end NEC monitors that I rate of the best available for the purpose but it cannot show everything that a print can irrespective of how it is set up.

Tony Jay

[TonyW]

As already stated trying to evaluate sharpness for print on screen is likely to be troublesome and the only sure fire way is to actually make a print or test strip to evaluate your settings. 

Monitor sharpness settings if taken too far can have a detrimental effect on how you perceive your images and I think that it is probably not a good idea to try and sharpen your monitor to mimic how your prints look - your monitor does not have enough pixels for accurate evaluation when viewed at actual print size and is no good at 100% view.

My 20" NEC default sharpness is set to 26.2% running at the monitors native resolution.  AFAIK this is the default and gives very acceptable sharpness for text and icons - at least to my eyes!  As you have seen increasing sharpness can lead to unwanted artefacting which you will probably want to avoid. 

There are some visual tests to aid in setting optimum monitor sharpness which may help you to find the best setting for your monitor (but of no help in matching monitor to print output), one can be found Here

[Rainer SLP]

... Monitors display images at about 100 ppi ...

Well that is questionable as the ppi is diciding the width or height by the pixels they represent.

My 26" monitor with 1900 pixels across has a pixel density of ~87 pixels per inch and my small 22" monitor has ~103 pixels per inch and that is already a difference in pixel density of the lowest to the highest of 18% and that is a lot.

Now I just saw there are better moitors then mine ( Sh....T ) will have to invest in new monitors :-) ha ha ha

I remember the huge discussions people had here about the statement in the old days " IN ORDER TO CORRECTLY DISPLAY YOUR IMAGES ON A MONITOR YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY 72 PIXELS PER INCH ... " which was the biggest BH to turn out after the fact that somebody showed the same image with 1 ppi and 1000ppi. As long as the image is 1200x900 for example it does not matter what ppi settings you have for the monitor. For printing that is very important, just thinking loud with the keys of my keyboard and of course everybody in this forum knows why ...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... already a difference in pixel density of the lowest to the highest of 18% and that is a lot....

Seriously!? You did notice I said "about"? The OP was not about difference between monitors, but about difference between prints and monitors, which tends to be about 3 X in favor of prints.

[Rainer SLP]

Seriously!? You did notice I said "about"? The OP was not about difference between monitors, but about difference between prints and monitors, which tends to be about 3 X in favor of prints.

Sorry Slobodan, we could now start a discussión about how nuch is about for one person or the other ....

Did not want to insult you or anything. Here in Mexico " about " can be twice as much, as an example the term mañana = Tomorrow is for you tomorrow whereas mañana means here in México " not Today " :-),  as for example in Europe possibly about is a nearer term maybe 2-3 or 4%, at least for me ...

Again my apologies not having understood how much is for you " about " ...

From your name I deducted that you are European, but as this is a USA forum I should have been more careful, ...

Will not do the mistake again and next time I will read more between the lines rather then the lines themselves ...

Have a nice working week, unless you are retired ... adn if you are retired have a relasing week enjoying your Hobbies ...

Saludos y Salud ...

:-) :-) :-)

[Tony Jay]

Actually this forum is truly international, irrespective of the fact that it has its roots in Canada.

Tony Jay

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

No se preocupe, hombre, todo bien!  Mañana o otra dia.  

No offense taken. I was simply trying to make a point that most prints have around 3 times more resolution (pixel per inch) than most monitors.

Now, if you really want to be precise, and take, for example your own 87 ppi monitor and compare it with, say, an Epson print at 360 ppi, than it is even more, "about" 4 times. Or to avoid the term "about," 4.14 times. If you compare your other monitor at 103 ppi with, say, a Canon print at 300 ppi, it would be "about" 3 times, or 2.91 times precisely (with two decimal point precision and rounding).

Claro?


P.S. All kidding in good spirit, no offense meant.

P.P.S. I am in the USA, though from Europe originally

[digitaldog]

I notice that the screen image looks unsharp on the screen but prints(canon 6100) much sharper. as a result I think I may be oversharpening my images. How do I get these two match up??

Visually you can't get WYSIWYG, the difference in the output resolution of the two is significant. You can sometimes get closer based on the zoom ratio you use but ultimately what looks good on-screen may not look correct on print and vise versa. See: http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-almost-everything-you-wanted-know-about-sharpening-photoshop-were-afraid-ask

[Tim Lookingbill]

I always zoom in on detail sharpness until I can see individual pixels at around 200 to 300%. Then I compare that area of cropped detail on a test print of that same cropped area under a loupe to see how the stochastic inkjet pattern affects edge detail.

Usually 50% zoom is good enough to get a close match viewing on my 1920x1080 27" LG LED display calibrated with Colormunki Display to my Epson NX330 "All In One" 8x10 prints.

See below the comparison shots of the print vs how it displays on the LG except I set zoom to 38% to make ruler guides match exactly to a real ruler lined up to the guides.

Here's a Photo.net thread I contributed showing relationship of resolution to print resolution using the same test print.

http://photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00acnx

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Visually you can't get WYSIWYG, the difference in the output resolution of the two is significant.

Hi Andrew,

Besides the obvious differences due to magnification, a related but somewhat different angle to the question is; Does it matter that you can't get WYSIWYG?

I view the pixel peeping, zoomed in display view of pixel detail, more as a means to get an indication whether the sharpening does any visual damage to the representation of organic micro-detail contrast and smooth tonal gradients. As long as the image structure doesn't 'break up' (which is an experience/judgement call), one can increase the amount of sharpening. As long as the structure stays intact, it cannot suddenly 'break up' in print.

Of course, there is also some loss in the print process, due to ink diffusion at the finest detail level, but that's why we want to sharpen as much as possible without going too far at the native printer's output level. We cannot make some materials look as sharp as others, because they are not capable to show the same resolution.

Important to note, I make a distinction between sharpening, which really increases resolution (by deconvolution and wavelet type of amplitude enhancement) of certain spatial frequencies, and enhancing local contrast, which is more taste related and suggests sharpness but that's just visual trickery.

The deconvolution sharpening part only has a single best setting, doing 'more' will break up image structure, doing less will leave quality on the table.

The visual trickery part is more difficult to get right, because it is more subjective and taste related, and its effect does vary with output medium diffusion. Here is were a bit of experience goes a long way. Luckily it has more to do with lower spatial frequency detail, which is less sensitive to ink diffusion.

Trying to get closer to a predictable preview by zooming out below 100% zoom is a very poor way of previsualizing real sharpness, because of the down-sampling artifacts that suggest detail that isn't there. It may help a bit with judging the effect of the trickery kind of local contrast enhancement though.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Besides the obvious differences due to magnification, a related but somewhat different angle to the question is; Does it matter that you can't get WYSIWYG?

I'd far prefer WYSIWYG than WYS isn't WYG so yes. It's not possible with today's display technology. Neither is seeing colors outside it's gamut (in my case Adobe RGB (1998)). I work within the confines of the technology I can afford.

[Tim Lookingbill]

If you're not getting WYSIWYG sharpness between print and display at any zoom level other than 100% then it might have something to do with using higher resolution displays like the Retina and alternative higher end brands/models whose physical pixel screen fineness may not line up perfectly with regard to eliminating artifacts caused by Photoshop's antialiased previews at even multiple zooms like 25, 50%. I mean I knew it was going to come to this the better the and bigger the displays and pixel resolution.

I've never had an issue with WYSIWYG sharpness with my lower resolution displays and small 8x10 prints but then I'm working with 6MP images where others with high resolution displays are working with double to triple size resolved files. If you can only judge sharpness at 100% zoom then that level of detailed area in relation to the print is going to be quite small depending on print size and if at poster size 100% display zoom is going to feel like you're viewing the image with a microscope.

Maybe the newer technology is giving us too much. I mean even my 6MP images viewed at 100% zoom on 1920x1080 27" display is too close up to give me a match to even an 8x10 print with regard to overall sharpness appearance.

[digitaldog]

One of the issues Tim is that one usually has to inspect a tiny area of what would be a small portion of the print. Depending on the image content, seeing (as in your example) just the eye which may be a small part of the entire image isn't ideal. Unlike seeing the entire image in context zoomed out for color. It's better than nothing but still a PITA if you had say the horse and lots of differing high and low frequency throughout the image.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What about just downsizing the image in Photoshop to 100 PPI, or what the pixel pitch of the screen happens to be?

Best regards
Erik

One of the issues Tim is that one usually has to inspect a tiny area of what would be a small portion of the print. Depending on the image content, seeing (as in your example) just the eye which may be a small part of the entire image isn't ideal. Unlike seeing the entire image in context zoomed out for color. It's better than nothing but still a PITA if you had say the horse and lots of differing high and low frequency throughout the image.

[Tim Lookingbill]

One of the issues Tim is that one usually has to inspect a tiny area of what would be a small portion of the print. Depending on the image content, seeing (as in your example) just the eye which may be a small part of the entire image isn't ideal. Unlike seeing the entire image in context zoomed out for color. It's better than nothing but still a PITA if you had say the horse and lots of differing high and low frequency throughout the image.

But I had to use that small area as a sharpness gauge to predict overall sharpness of the print. Once I saw the print was reasonably sharp enough for 8x10's I checked which zoom level in Photoshop matched it the best. It works most of the time with small prints. If I'm having to jump hoops like this just to see sharpness rendering, I can't imagine what it must be like with higher resolution images and displays that require smaller zoom views to see the entire image on the screen.

ACR/LR's smaller zoom views aren't the same as in Photoshop's even though they're much improved compared to CS3 ACR. I've done Erik's suggestion of downsampling the image instead of relying on Photoshop zoom views but there's not much difference with some even showing noticeable softness.

I've even resorted to converting the raw file to tiff and using Apple's Preview which seems to render sharpness much better at various zoom levels. However there are some zoom levels that show antialiasing artifacts worse than Photoshop's.

[Jeremy Roussak]

As I recall, this is a topic which Jeff Schewe has addressed in his articles and books. I think the conclusion is probably that printing is less WYSIWYG than WYGIWYG: what you get is what you get. If you want to know how your image will look when printed, print it and look at it.

Jeremy

[hjulenissen]

I think it would be interesting for Lightroom & friends to extend softproofing to spatial response (in addition to color matching). The idea would not be perfection, but doing something that is better than today.
 
Apple offers a maximum of 326/227 ppi in their iPads/MBP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density#Apple). They claim that this is sufficient so as to resolve all that our vision can appreciate (at some distance/size). My printer accepts 360/720 ppi for photographic print, outputting at 2880 dpi (if I am not mistaken).

How to optimally map the physical display stimuli so as to (to the degree possible) emulate the perception of the print seems like an interesting question. Moreover, one might (for the case of lower resolution displays) fall back to reproducing (parts of) the print rendered for larger than real-life viewing distances (so as to get more angular resolution).

If you take a macro image shot of a section of a softproof preview in (e.g.) Lightroom (viewed at "actual" size), then another shot of the corresponding print (at the same distance), how different would they be? How could the simulation be improved?

-h