The bigger issue is actually getting the right firm to do the printing and installation. I've had to ship my final composite TIFFs on DVDs they were so big. One of the companies that does it is here in the Charlotte, NC area is Visual Impressions. That is an art in itself. https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=e...hUKEwi58cfA1oTdAhVwT98KHSd5C0IQoiowCnoECAoQCQ
the trick is an interpolation formula Photoshop analyzes the colors of the original pixels and manufactures new ones.
Last century I was a photographic technician for about 6 years. Customers sent in 10x8 inch color sheet film for wall-filling prints. I processed the sheet film, and made 10x8 inch inter-negatives from them, for other technicians to do the prints. I understand that market still exists.
I can do 33x23 inch prints from 16 MB 1/2.3 inch sensors. For wall-filling prints I would consider FF, like the 46 MB sensor in the forthcoming Nikon Z7. I have not read up the larger sensors and the cameras that use them.Years ago I had some of my military shots used for recruitment billboard posters, they had been taken on Nikons first pro spec digital camera the D1 and the files were smaller than what you can get today on a phone. I was told the graphics team/printers produced an a3 sized print and used high spec scanners to help produce the finished poster, they used dark magic but the results were great
Interpolation cannot achieve the level of detail at the scale we're talking about. I know, I do this commercially. When you are talking many feed by many feet - 10's of feet, no interpolation technique in the world will yield a high-def viewing at close distance - not even from a 100MP Hassy - matrix stitching and gigapixels are required for high-def, up close viewing to meet commercial expectations. And it is not difficult at all with the right tools. Don't believe me? Here's a challenge - take a high MP image (say 36MPs or 45MPs), use your best interpolation technique to scale it up to, say, 144 inches by 386 inches, and then view in Photoshop at 100% - you'll see a blotchy image that looks like an impressionist painting - not much more.
Correct.
you don't view a billboard on the side of building close up you view it at a distance.
you are not creating detail that was never captured but retaining the detail you did capture.
Actually, not true. For a billboard the distance might be a hundred or hundreds of feet. On the side of a building, its tens of feet or a couple of dozen walking by. Inside a building, it's even less (in the visitor centers I've done, it's as little as 5-8 feet distance) - and people love to get even closer and look at the detail when its there). High def is expected these days at those much closer distances.
Nikon Coolpix 990 for 65 x 43-ft print
And i still have my Nikon N990 and use it occasionally. I laid out my challenge earlier - why don't you try your hand at it and show us what you can do with a single frame from a modern camera and post your results here? You should have no trouble by your claim and knowledge. C'mon, single fame, interpolate anyway you want, 10 foot by 30 foot resize.....we're waiting!
and now you know you can print at 65 x 43-ft from it as you can see from the linked article so there is no need for me to prove anything is there.
proving there is one in every thread....
You make a good point. "On the side of a building" covers a very wide range.
But the quality was garbage. Heck you could print 65,000 miles by 43,000 miles and it would look good from a half a million miles away.
So true.
..... a muppet with a ladder who pixels peeps billboards?
But I can and do, and get paid for it - how about you? Yes, muppets, children, adults (excluding some here).
