Resolution upsampling for output question

[Schewe]

What I don't understand - in the Lieghtroom 3 videos Michael and Jeff explain that the option 'finest detail' is useable only when printig business charts.

No...I said Epson "said that Finest Detail is only useful for vector art"...what I'm saying is that it's also useful when printing out at 720ppi with images whose native resolution is above 360ppi (I can't see any benefit from using Finest Detail when printing at 360).

[Robert-Peter Westphal]

Jeff, many thanks for the information !

To put it all together :

Is this the right way ?

native resolution <300dpi - add up to 50%, finest detail to off
native resolution >300dpi - go to 720dpi ( in case of Epson, else 600dpi) and set 'finest detail to on

In case of Epson printer - does it make sense to use any steps between 360 and 720 dpi ( like 480dpi) instead of adding exactly 50% ?

Btw, I think it was Michael stating that finest details is useable for business graphics only 

[Schewe]

Nope...

It's now any res under 360 goes to 360, any res above 360 goes to 720 and print with finest detail on. In the case of Canon or HP it's 300/600.

[Robert-Peter Westphal]

Many thanks to make it clear ( allthough it is different from the things said in the video).
I'm sure this will help me !

[mac_paolo]

What do you mean by "a serious algorithm"? In Lightroom, the upsampling will be done via an adaptive bicubic algorithm...bicubic for small changes and bicubic smoother for larger changes with an interpolation in between–which is something Photoshop can't do.

The rule I use now is to upsample to 360ppi for anything under 360 native. For anything above 360, I upsample to 720.

Thanks Jeff.
Actually I was referring to the printer/driver.
It will get a 360 ppi image (let's take it as an example) and will print at a higher resolution (more than 360 doplets per inch). I always thought it should be a sort of "nearest neighbor" algorithm, I really don't know how to be more clear about that

So, the question is: shouldn't be always better to upsample to a high value under LR (720/600ppi based upon manifacturer's technology) and let the driver/printer do an easier job by upsampling from a high quality starting point?
I mean, always upsample to 720ppi under LR may be useless but never harmful, isn't it?

[mac_paolo]

Anyone? 

[Schewe]

Actually I was referring to the printer/driver.
It will get a 360 ppi image (let's take it as an example) and will print at a higher resolution (more than 360 doplets per inch).

A 360PPI image will print out as a 360DPI image (for Epson) since Epson has 360 nozzles/inch in the pro machines. Forget about "droplets/inch" because that's not DPI, ok?

And whether or not it's useful to take ALL images and upsample to 720 PPI for printing, no...it's only useful if the native resolution of the image at the print size has more than 360 PPI. If the image is under 360, upsample to 360. If it's above 360 but below 720, upsample to 720. If it happens to be above 720, you may as well leave it because Lightroom will downsample to 720 before printing.

[mac_paolo]

A 360PPI image will print out as a 360DPI image (for Epson) since Epson has 360 nozzles/inch in the pro machines. Forget about "droplets/inch" because that's not DPI, ok?

And whether or not it's useful to take ALL images and upsample to 720 PPI for printing, no...it's only useful if the native resolution of the image at the print size has more than 360 PPI. If the image is under 360, upsample to 360. If it's above 360 but below 720, upsample to 720. If it happens to be above 720, you may as well leave it because Lightroom will downsample to 720 before printing.

Thanks Jeff!  

PS: I don't even know why did I write droplets per inch: I know well it's such a nonsense. I suppose I was way too tired! 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A 360PPI image will print out as a 360DPI image (for Epson) since Epson has 360 nozzles/inch in the pro machines. Forget about "droplets/inch" because that's not DPI, ok?

And whether or not it's useful to take ALL images and upsample to 720 PPI for printing, no...it's only useful if the native resolution of the image at the print size has more than 360 PPI.

Hi Jeff,

While that may be true for a Lightroom centric printing workflow, it's not necessarily the case for e.g. a Qimage centric workflow. Some of the interpolation methods used by Qimage, exploit the possibility of adding credible information at 720 PPI (or 600 PPI for Canon/HP printers). Straight lines are less jaggy, and gradients are smooth, due to the use of the additional interpolated pixels. Of course images with high detail will benefit most, even if the real detail is limited to about 360 PPI.

Qimage is not the only application that can exploit the extra pixels available at 720 PPI interpolated output size. Photozoom Pro by Benvista allows to fine tune between vectorized edges and regularly interpolated edges, and it also allows to add noise at the final output size. That noise can mask the fact that real resolution was limited, because it mimicks surface detail in subjects that could use that.

Cheers,
Bart

[Hening Bettermann]

Hi Bart,

could you give an estimate of how far down you would go with native resolution for upressing to 720 dpi rather than 360, using Photozoom Pro?

Thanks for making me aware of this app. Unlike Qimage, it can handle 16 bit color depth (and there is a Mac version… :-) ).

Merry Cristmas! - Hening.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Bart,

could you give an estimate of how far down you would go with native resolution for upressing to 720 dpi rather than 360, using Photozoom Pro?

Hi Hening,

That's hard to say as a general guideline, because it depends on the subject matter and viewing distance. Also, when possible I try to shoot for the intended output, so I try to get the resolution I need later at capture time (e.g. by stitching). In addition, e.g. with architecture, some of the missing resolution can be restored (by deconvolution sharpening) or simulated/recreated by software such as Photozoom Pro. Even the addition of noise can trick the human eye (or rather the brain) into seeing non-existing detail.

Long story short, get as much detail to begin with by using good technique (e.g. tripod if possible/practical), use deconvolution sharpening to compensate for inevitable losses due to the capture process and enlargement process (interpolation method makes a difference) and make sure the printer uses every bit of detail that's thrown at it.

I almost always feed the printer the maximum resolution it's driver can handle, which is easy with Qimage. The worst that can happen is that printing takes a bit longer. Only when I have time constraints I will make a concession and drop the output resolution.

Thanks for making me aware of this app. Unlike Qimage, it can handle 16 bit color depth (and there is a Mac version… :-) ).

You're welcome. Just use a bit of restraint and do not go overboard with the vectorized edge enhancement, because the visual disconnect between too much edge detail versus material surface/structural detail looks unnatural.

Merry Christmas!

Same to you, and the others reading this.

Cheers,
Bart

[Hening Bettermann]

Thank you for this very fast reply - on Christmas evening day!

> get as much detail to begin with

Yes I always use tripod, deconvolution sharpening in Raw Developer, and focus stacking with Helicon Focus. Recently I have also begun to shoot about 8 frames per focus slice, intended for Super Resolution stacking - if wind allows…

Thanks again - Hening.

[Schewe]

I have a similar question. Should you upsample to 720 (for a Epson) for any starting resolution? If I have a crop and the resolution is below 200 - still upsample to 720?

Well, I would say no...but you should test it yourself. If below 360, upsample to 360, if above 360, upsample to 720.