Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: mstevensphoto on March 27, 2012, 07:14:58 pm
-
Hi All,
For anyone who has their paws on a 5d3 I'm curious to know if you've done any very large format output? Given that there's no real resolution bump but the pixels that are captured are supposed to be somehow "better" I'm very curious if anyone can share experiences with big enlargements (not so much screen peeping, but actual printing)?
thanks!
Mark
-
I have the Mark III but haven't shot much with it yet.
However, I am confidently expecting excellent results with a single image at at least A2 size.
Time will tell though.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
perhaps I should clarify...I'm looking at 40x60 or even larger, single image no stitching.
-
Haven't printed that large with my 5Dmk3 full frame photos yet or even a cropped section to that scale. I'm sure you realize diferent methods of printing will yield different results.
-
I'm aware that different methods will result in different results. I currently have two needs, 1) billboards....I used to do these on a 11mp camera with no problem as they're being printed at such a low dpi and viewed from so far away, clients do however ask for higher and higher resolution files. 2) artwork for display. the viewing distance on these pieces is often quite close and almost always coming out of my ipf8300. I've just done a 82" piece from the 5dII which produces very nice results, but nowhere near as lovely as the new nikon samples I've seen at similar size - at the same iso under the same circumstances. Pixelation and grain start to creep in at those sizes, standing 12 feet away one won't notice, but this is for display in an office lobby where viewers have the opportunity to walk right up to it and the "regular" viewing distance appears to be about 4 feet.
I'm fairly sold on the 5d3 just for the updated focus system, but wondering if I'll really get a much better image, specifically for enlarging, than the II.
-
It will take a while for me to be doing any serious printing using images from the 5D3.
Waiting for an update from Adobe that allows LR to recognize 5D3 images.
Not at all sold on Canon conversion software.
Regards
Tony jay
-
perhaps I should clarify...I'm looking at 40x60 or even larger, single image no stitching.
I have printed a lot of images this size 40 x 60 from my 1DS MKIII from single frames - no stitching. The results have been excellent. I have four prints on display this size at my current exhibition in Brighton at Source Photographica (http://www.sourcephotographica.com.au). The 5D MKIII should be able to do at least as good as the 1DS MKIII in this regard.
-
That is good to know.
Of interest what was the resolution at that size (40X60)?
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Of interest what was the resolution at that size (40X60)?
Hi Tony,
That would equate to 96 PPI for the 5D3, and 93.6 PPI for the 5D2 when printed full frame.
There would not be much of a visible difference in resolution, maybe somewhat cleaner regarding noise.
At these low resolutions one could visibly benefit from superior upsampling and sharpening techniques. A program like Photozoom Pro can add(!) resolution if the subject matter in the image offers that opportunity.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Regarding input vs output resolution, Jeff Schewe's article in Digital Photo Pro is very informative. the link is http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution
-
At these low resolutions one could visibly benefit from superior upsampling and sharpening techniques.
Yes, I should have added the importance of quality up sampling and sharpening is critical to the end result.
-
Yes indeed!
My question really ought to read: what is the native resolution prior to appropriate processing (upsampling).
Nonetheless thanks for filling in the answer to the unwritten question.
Tony Jay
-
Yes indeed!
My question really ought to read: what is the native resolution prior to appropriate processing (upsampling).
Nonetheless thanks for filling in the answer to the unwritten question.
Tony Jay
The native image resolution for the 5D Mark III at 40 x 60 inch output is 96 ppi.
In the article I posted a link to in my last post Schewe suggests that, when printing from Lightroom 3 (presumably in Lr4 as well), any image that at a given print size has a native resolution of lower than 360ppi should be up-rezzed in Lr3 's print module to 360ppi for Epson printers and 300 for Canon and similar printers. Conversely if the native resolution is above 360 at a given output size, for prints made on an Epson, uprez to 720 ppi). According to both Schewe and my own tests letting Lr handle the up / down interpolation rather than some program in the printing pipeline do it yields visibly superior results.
96 to 360 ppi is a pretty big jump but if, as Bart, Tony and Josh point out, with you use good processing tools and intelligently applied technique you may be pleasantly pleased.
-
Yes indeed.
Not every image will look good with that degree of upsampling but many would.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I wouldn't print much of anything at 96ppi unless I knew my viewer would be far far away.
to try to get back to my initial question let me rephrase a little. suppose I take the same image with my 5dMKII and a new 5dmkIII - let's call it at 400iso and enlarge both of them in photoshop to be 40x60x300dpi - am I likely to see a difference standing 3-4 feet from the printed piece? what about at larger sizes? is the data provided by the MK III really any better for this application? The mega pixels are close enough as to be the same, so I'm trying to figure out if I'll see any benefit strictly as it relates to getting better (less grain, less pixelation) results in my enlargements by switching to the new platform.
Mark
-
The answer is still much the same:
It really depends on the image.
Some will handle that sort of upsampling to give a really high quality result and some won't.
Remember that the upsampling will result in an apparently higher resolution print than the native resolution would suggest.
At the end of the day you will need to do some experimentation yourself with different sorts of images and evaluate the result yourself.
I am continually suprised by how robust these image files are to the upsampling.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
... The mega pixels are close enough as to be the same, so I'm trying to figure out if I'll see any benefit strictly as it relates to getting better (less grain, less pixelation) results in my enlargements by switching to the new platform.
Mark
You may want to download the comparison RAW files at your ISOs of interest from the DPreview studio scene:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkiii/12
Assuming the 5Dii and 5diii were shot with the same lens and both focused accurately a printed comparsion should help you decide. My guess is there will be no visible difference in the prints, and even if there is some, just a bit more aggressive output sharpening will probably be more important than any differences you observe. I will be trying this test myself soon, waiting to be sure the RAW converter for the 5Diii in ACR is finalized.
BTW, I'm a Canon user but you could also download and compare the Nikon D800 RAW file to the Canon files (unfortunately this introduces another variable, different lenses).
If you make any comparsion prints please let us know your results.
-
Hi Ken,
My local lab has several Nikon d800 prints, I think they're 36x72" - they look stunning. less noise, no visible pixelation. I'm a canon shooter and quite jealous of the sheer size of those prints with no visible problems of any kind. my 72" prints look quite nice from the 5dII but I really do see more artifacts creeping in than I'd like. Advertising clients in particular are always asking for bigger and bigger images whether they actually need it or not.
Mark
-
In the article I posted a link to in my last post Schewe suggests that, when printing from Lightroom 3 (presumably in Lr4 as well), any image that at a given print size has a native resolution of lower than 360ppi should be up-rezzed in Lr3 's print module to 360ppi for Epson printers and 300 for Canon and similar printers. Conversely if the native resolution is above 360 at a given output size, for prints made on an Epson, uprez to 720 ppi). According to both Schewe and my own tests letting Lr handle the up / down interpolation rather than some program in the printing pipeline do it yields visibly superior results.
My recollection in LR4 tuturial was to uprez by a factor of 1.5 and round to the nearest 'generic' native printer setting. If I have a 200 ppi image for the print size, I would uprez to 300ppi on an Epson printer dispite it having a native 360ppi. Did I misunderstand the tuturial message?
-
Did I misunderstand the tuturial message?
Yes...in Camera to Print & Screen and again in LR4, I recommend taking ANY image below 360/300 (Epson/Canon, HP) up to 360 PPI in Lightroom and applying the correct output sharpening. If the native rez is above 360/300 but below 720/600, upsample to 720/600 in LR.
-
Yesterday I had a local lab print a 50% crop version of an ISO 800 5Dmk3 image at 20 x14 inches. The lens was Canon's latest 24-105mm f/4L. I needed ISO 800 for the situation to get the depth of field I needed and a short shutter speed (outdoor group portrait of school kids in dappled but mostly shady light - location dictated by circumstances beyond my control).
I followed Jeff's recommendations about nr and resolution settings and used my eyes to fine tune the settings in Lr4.
The results were very fine. Lots and lots of fine detail and and very large dynamic range. Excellent color saturation and pleasing "accuracy" of skin tones. Virtually every shade of Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic, Negro, and mixed heritage skin tone was represented in the group along with all shades and textures of natural hair color and eye color.
Printing was done on a current large format Epeon on Epson's Ultra Premium Photo Luster paper and the Raw file had been processed as a DNG in Lightroom 4 and retouched in Photoshop.
-
Just a shout out to Jeff - I really want to thank you and Michael R for the tutorial videos. I give the two of you major credit for improving my photo skills. Kudos to the forum members who always provide excellent guidance and take time to answer my questions; you all have made this site a very positive experience for me.
While I'm still very much a newbie to printing, seeing a large printed copy with detail and correct color is a very motivating experience. It brings home all of the proper in camera work necessary to create an optimal photo. The limits of viewing an image on a monitor has never been more clear to me.
Now that I better understand dpi print settings, one more question if I may: Is there a point between 360 and 720ppi where it would be best to down rez the image to 360?
-
Adam why would you want to downrez the print?
Seriously, use all the resolution you can.
If the resolution for the particular print size is between 360 and 720 then uprez to 720 for best results (straight from Jeff Schewe).
If I am missing the point of question I apologise.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Hi Tony, I'm really trying to understand what takes place with a resolution change. My thought was perhaps a down rez of 1 or 2 % would produce better results relative to an uprez of 98%. It seems the answer is hell no. ;)
Thanks. BTW I'm extremely happy with the results I am getting. LR4 rendering is helping a lot.
-
I guess for the purposes of experimentation you could do both and then compare.
It is possible that one would need a good loupe to see the difference.
BTW I recently printed a large panorama (multiple stitch HDR) that printed 50" by 22" on my Epson Pro 7900, where the native resolution was about 180. I requested the print be uprezzed to 360 (as per Schewes suggestion). The result was extraordinary even with a viewing distance limited only by the length of my nose (OK I lie, only because I am a little long-sighted these days - even with glasses corrected for reading).
I am considering printing the same panorama on a 9900 where again I would uprez to 360 no matter what the native resolution was. In this case I would only enlarge the print to about 60-70" with appropriate width. I anticipate a really good result.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Does anyone know what resolution Bay Photo's MetalPrints are made at?
I normally submit files at 300ppi (using AlienSkin Blowup for output sharpening), but don't actually know what resolution they print at.
-
Hi,
Not in my view. Never downrez, downrezzing can produce a lot of aliasing and throws away information. Not saying that it is bad, but why throw away quality that you have?
I have written a small article on the effects of sizing up or down with some illustrations and MTF measurements. It's not really complete, but may be worth a look: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/62-scaling-up-or-down
Check also this discussion: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60585.0
Best regards
Erik
Now that I better understand dpi print settings, one more question if I may: Is there a point between 360 and 720ppi where it would be best to down rez the image to 360?