Canon 1Ds MARK III - Print sizes.

[mikemalling]

1. With the 21.1Mp and image size of 5616 x 3744 what does that equal to if you
were doing and print and did NOT what to upscale?

2. What would be the upper limit of print size compare to desent quality, I know
that is subjective but still.

What is the math behind figuring this out?

Brgds, Mike

 

[Oystein Soreide]

1. With the 21.1Mp and image size of 5616 x 3744 what does that equal
to if you
were doing and print and did NOT what to upscale?

2. What would be the upper limit of print size compare to desent
quality, I know
that is subjective but still.

What is the math behind figuring this out?

Brgds, Mike

Depends on which dpi you want to print ....
width = 5616/ dpi
The answer is number of inches you can print.

 

[daytontp]

That is freakin huge.

--
Dayton in SC USA
http://www.dtpphoto.com/

 

[mikemalling]

• THANKS GUYS

 

[SMPhoto]

While 300 dpi is kind of the default (all the human eye can perceive) max necessary resolution, I usually find about 240 dpi is pretty indistinguishable in print, so that's roughly 16x24 versus roughly 12x18 with a 5D without upsampling. Impressive, if the per pixel sharpness is equal and noise is controlled prints can go pretty huge.

 

[Martin Wilson]

Above about 18 x 12 I would drop to 240dpi as at normal viewing distance of such a large print would make any more redundant. If I were printing to 60 x 40 (inches) I might even go to 150 dpi although I would probably interpolate up to 200+ (but there would be no extra data).

Of couse if you put a loupe on it or even look close up it will not stand comparison with a print from a large format negative. Buit that is not the objective of large prints - view from at least appropriate distance say 5+ feet. Same with paintings: Titian, Rubens, Rembrandt etc don't stand close up viewing unless you are interested in the brush technique...
--
Martin Wilson
Nottingham, England

 

[Jon Laye]

Since 6 and 8MP DSLR's work great for 40 foot wide billboards. I wonder how big of a print can be made from a 1DsIII?

 

[wolfpuppies3]

and your 8 gig cards will seem too small.

Where does it end?

 

[sparkie]

While 300 dpi is kind of the default (all the human eye can perceive)
max necessary resolution, I usually find about 240 dpi is pretty
indistinguishable in print, so that's roughly 16x24 versus roughly
12x18 with a 5D without upsampling. Impressive, if the per pixel
sharpness is equal and noise is controlled prints can go pretty huge.

at 300 dpi thats 47.55cm x 31.7cm, which is roughly A3 with bleed, or a double spread A4 magazine spread. at 240 dpi it'll be 59.44cm x 39.62cm which is almost A2 – an ok wall sized print. so if you want an A1 sized print you still need to interpolate

 

[Forsj]

I kinda wish it got a boost in ISO performance like the 1DMKIII...

The 1DSMKII already does 100-1600, nice camera though.

--
http://www.johninjapan.com

My HDR Tutorial: http://www.johninjapan.com/blog/show,creating-hdr-images.html/

 

[Fantasy Photo]

300 ppi is the "gold standard" and is based in part on a person with exceptionally good eyesight. 240 ppi is often suggested by many camera reviewers and experts and, in fact, a number of camera bodies default to 240 ppi. The 240 ppi value is based on emperical testing with people of average eyesight and is biased to make sure there is absolutely no image degradation. Other experts who have done similar testing have concluded that you can print at 180 ppi with a good camera/lens/sensor system and the average person will see no degradation in image quality. I actually ran my own tests before I started making notes as to what the expert camera reviewers were saying. I ran my tests at 300, 200, 150, 100, 75, and 50 ppi. I did not run tests at 180 ppi because I did not know that the "experts" felt that was the lowest possible resolution a person could use. My tests showed that it was impossible, under close inspection, to see any difference between 300 and 200 ppi prints. When comparing prints made at 300 and 150 ppi, most skilled photographers I showed my prints to agreed with me that there might be some difference between the prints and most were able to pick the 300 ppi print as the best one while a few claimed they could see no difference. Based on that, I have no problem accepting 180 ppi as the lowest resolution that can be used to make prints before image quality suffers. And I would not hesitate to make a print at 150 ppi and would have full confidence that no one would complain about it's image quality unless they had a higher resolution print to compare it against. Based on that, the 1Ds Mk III should be able to make prints as large as 31.2 inches by 20.8 inches (at 180 ppi) or maybe as large as 37.4 inches by 25.0 inches (at 150 ppi). That assumes a quality camera/sensor/lens system, which you should be able to attain with the 1Ds Mk III. By the way, my tests showed that at 100 ppi the print looked like manure. At 75 ppi it looked worse than manure. It's surprising how fast image quality can deteriorate as resolution fell below 150 ppi.

I realize that there are a lot of people who claim they've made 60 inch by 40 inch prints from their 5-megapixel camera and sold lots of those prints for lots of money to lots of people who absolutely loved them. Possibly some people have a high tolerance for fuzzy imagery. Or possibly the prints were hung where no one could get within 20 or 30 feet of them. I'm sure I could make a print at one pixel per mile and it would look great if I papered the surface of the moon with it and prevented anyone from looking at it through a telescope or from a spaceship. The point is, when some asks, "How big of a print can I make with such-and-such a camera?", the only fair object standard is to specifiy the largest print at which the image still has a "photo-quality" look to it and looks every bit as good as a higher resolution print when the two are compared up close and side-by-side. Based on emperical tests, it's easy to give an objective answer to the question. Simply calculate the print size using 180 ppi for the resolution (or 150 ppi if you want to). Subjective answers to the question are pointless and of no value unless a statement is made concerning the viewing distance and how well the print compares to a high resolution print at the same distance.

Above about 18 x 12 I would drop to 240dpi as at normal viewing
distance of such a large print would make any more redundant. If I
were printing to 60 x 40 (inches) I might even go to 150 dpi although
I would probably interpolate up to 200+ (but there would be no extra
data).

--
Martin Wilson
Nottingham, England

--
http://www.fantasy-photo.com

 

[James L Wilson]

1. With the 21.1Mp and image size of 5616 x 3744 what does that equal
to if you
were doing and print and did NOT what to upscale?

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE IMAGE ???

For the very best publication print plates in ART or Architectural magazines, which is presently 400dpi, simply DIVIDE each pixel dimension by 400:
5616/400=14.0 inches.
3744/400= 9.4 inches.

For best commercial quality prints/plates for better magazines publications, which is presently 300dpi, simply DIVIDE the pixel dimensions by 300:
5616/300=18.7 inches.
3744/300=12.5 inches.

For larger prints wall mounted framed pictures, 240dpi is considered very good commercial output
5616/240=23.4 inches.
3744/240=15.6 inches.

For large-scale POSTER applications 150dpi is considered good quality
5616/150=37.4 inches.
3744/150=24.9 inches.

For large-scale indoor VIDEO applications 96dpi is considered excellent quality
5616/96=58.5 inches.
3744/96=36.1 inches.

For outdoor BILL BOARD applications 75dpi is considered excellent quality
5616/75=74.9 inches.
3744/96=49.9 inches.

With this all displayed, it is matter of what you are going to do with the image, Printing, Publishing, Posters, Video, Out Door Bill Boards ...

--
.
‹(•¿•)›

JimWilson, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
http://www.rumor-page.com
http://www.FAUdigital.com

 

[Ben_Egbert]

Best to print at even increments of native printer pitch, thats 360DPI in Epsons.

I actualy have Qimage set to use 720, but its an even increment of 360, so 180 would maybe be ok, but I never use that setting.

OK, the 1ds-mk3 will do 10.4 x 15.6 inches, or will require an uprez of 1.54 to print my standrd 16x24 image.

This is welcome, as my 5D is marginal at this size.

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus/root

Ben

 

[love_them_all]

Question:

Let's say I am shooting jpg. The default DPI is only about 72 - 180dpi. If I increase it to 300 in photoshop, should I choose resample or not? If I don't resample the print size will go down, right? Why won't the OOC image can be set at 300 dpi? Or it doesn't matter?

1. With the 21.1Mp and image size of 5616 x 3744 what does that equal
to if you
were doing and print and did NOT what to upscale?

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE IMAGE ???

For the very best publication print plates in ART or Architectural
magazines, which is presently 400dpi, simply DIVIDE each pixel
dimension by 400:
5616/400=14.0 inches.
3744/400= 9.4 inches.

For best commercial quality prints/plates for better magazines
publications, which is presently 300dpi, simply DIVIDE the pixel
dimensions by 300:
5616/300=18.7 inches.
3744/300=12.5 inches.

For larger prints wall mounted framed pictures, 240dpi is considered
very good commercial output
5616/240=23.4 inches.
3744/240=15.6 inches.

For large-scale POSTER applications 150dpi is considered good quality
5616/150=37.4 inches.
3744/150=24.9 inches.

For large-scale indoor VIDEO applications 96dpi is considered
excellent quality
5616/96=58.5 inches.
3744/96=36.1 inches.

For outdoor BILL BOARD applications 75dpi is considered excellent
quality
5616/75=74.9 inches.
3744/96=49.9 inches.

With this all displayed, it is matter of what you are going to do
with the image, Printing, Publishing, Posters, Video, Out Door Bill
Boards ...

--
.
‹(•¿•)›

JimWilson, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
http://www.rumor-page.com
http://www.FAUdigital.com

--

 

[James L Wilson]

Question:

Let's say I am shooting jpg. The default DPI is only about 72 -
180dpi. If I increase it to 300 in photoshop, should I choose
resample or not? If I don't resample the print size will go down,
right? Why won't the OOC image can be set at 300 dpi? Or it doesn't
matter?

Good question...

In photoshop, make note of the pixel dimensions of the image;
change the dpi to 300;

Then go up to the image size and put back the pixel dimension of the original image. Viola, you done. There will not be any resampling. I dont understand why Canon defaults to 180dpi.

JimW

1. With the 21.1Mp and image size of 5616 x 3744 what does that equal
to if you
were doing and print and did NOT what to upscale?

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE IMAGE ???

For the very best publication print plates in ART or Architectural
magazines, which is presently 400dpi, simply DIVIDE each pixel
dimension by 400:
5616/400=14.0 inches.
3744/400= 9.4 inches.

For best commercial quality prints/plates for better magazines
publications, which is presently 300dpi, simply DIVIDE the pixel
dimensions by 300:
5616/300=18.7 inches.
3744/300=12.5 inches.

For larger prints wall mounted framed pictures, 240dpi is considered
very good commercial output
5616/240=23.4 inches.
3744/240=15.6 inches.

For large-scale POSTER applications 150dpi is considered good quality
5616/150=37.4 inches.
3744/150=24.9 inches.

For large-scale indoor VIDEO applications 96dpi is considered
excellent quality
5616/96=58.5 inches.
3744/96=36.1 inches.

For outdoor BILL BOARD applications 75dpi is considered excellent
quality
5616/75=74.9 inches.
3744/96=49.9 inches.

With this all displayed, it is matter of what you are going to do
with the image, Printing, Publishing, Posters, Video, Out Door Bill
Boards ...

--
.
‹(•¿•)›

JimWilson, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
http://www.rumor-page.com
http://www.FAUdigital.com

--

--
.
‹(•¿•)›

JimWilson, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
http://www.rumor-page.com
http://www.FAUdigital.com

 

[apixel]

You don't even have to do this ... simply uncheck resample and you are all set. You'll see a change in inches ( if you have it set up to this ), but the pixels won't change.

-A

Good question...

In photoshop, make note of the pixel dimensions of the image;
change the dpi to 300;
Then go up to the image size and put back the pixel dimension of the
original image. Viola, you done. There will not be any resampling. I
dont understand why Canon defaults to 180dpi.

JimW

 

[love_them_all]

But when I do that (changing the dpi from 180 to 300) the print size will shrink. The only way to keep the original print size is to resample!

That gives me the "ummm..." when the S5 gives you an option to adjust the dpi of the files...

-A

Good question...

In photoshop, make note of the pixel dimensions of the image;
change the dpi to 300;
Then go up to the image size and put back the pixel dimension of the
original image. Viola, you done. There will not be any resampling. I
dont understand why Canon defaults to 180dpi.

JimW

--

 

[bross1]

Ben_Egbert wrote:
......

OK, the 1ds-mk3 will do 10.4 x 15.6 inches, or will require an uprez
of 1.54 to print my standrd 16x24 image.

This is welcome, as my 5D is marginal at this size.

5D marginal at 16x24?

What subject matter, paper, printer (Epson I presume, based on your comments), etc.? I printed 16x24's from my 1D Mark II that looked beautiful, and now with my 1D Mark III they are even better. I print larger for my portrait work, but everything above 16x24 I only do on canvas. Still, 16x24's, when the image has required little or no cropping, are well within the reach of my Mark III. Fine details are seen with no noise problems. This is at 300dpi printed on an Epson 4000 using either Premium Luster 260 (80+% of my printing), Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308, or Epson Premier Art Water Resistant Canvas.

Just curious about your process. I am very critical and picky, so if I am happy with it yet you have concerns I would like to learn more about what you are doing. Maybe I finally found someone more picky than me. My wife won't believe it .

 

[sparkie]

OK, the 1ds-mk3 will do 10.4 x 15.6 inches, or will require an uprez
of 1.54 to print my standrd 16x24 image.

This is welcome, as my 5D is marginal at this size.

5D marginal at 16x24?

What subject matter, paper, printer (Epson I presume, based on your
comments), etc.? I printed 16x24's from my 1D Mark II that looked
beautiful, and now with my 1D Mark III they are even better. I print
larger for my portrait work, but everything above 16x24 I only do on
canvas. Still, 16x24's, when the image has required little or no
cropping, are well within the reach of my Mark III. Fine details are
seen with no noise problems. This is at 300dpi printed on an Epson
4000 using either Premium Luster 260 (80+% of my printing),
Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308, or Epson Premier Art Water Resistant Canvas.

Just curious about your process. I am very critical and picky, so if
I am happy with it yet you have concerns I would like to learn more
about what you are doing. Maybe I finally found someone more picky
than me. My wife won't believe it .

can you explain your method (raw processor, up rez software) for getting 16x24 prints from your 1D MKII? with a native resolution of 3504 x 2336, this only gives you 14.6 x 9.7 at 240dpi.

 

[Vladimir Yanushkevich]

That is freakin huge.

--
Dayton in SC USA
http://www.dtpphoto.com/

I'd probably stop at 180dpi, may be 150 with RIP