Canon 1Ds MARK III - Print sizes.

[mikemalling]

Thanks Jim, very interesting and easy to figure out

Upscale always present some issues in terms of quality, I know there are many ways you can upscale but as many others, I would rather have the zillions of pixels available at no expense, unfortunately this is not how the world is or the wallet.

I have personally done some pretty amazing prints (pros. word) upscaling a 6.3Mp Canon 10D photo to 60x60cm = 24x24", I managed this by choosing the Océ LightJet as my output device at a lab. I prepared the print at 12X12" and the Océ upscale it to 24x24" extremely well, I was told by the lab this is one of the many benefits of the LightJet and I must admit it was amazing, at least for my kind of photography which is primarily seascapes and landscapes.

Of cause, if you put your nose on the glass it shows, I think the viewing distance of a final framed plus matted print of 32x32" is +6 feet.

With the 1Ds MARK III I expect to bump up the quality several steps.

I did a MF shoot with a Hasselblad earlier this year and got it Imacon scanned, amazing amount of detail, it was scanned in 300DPI and produced a 85Mb Tiff, the 1Ds will give 100Mb Tiff, I'm unsure if this is as comparable as I just did but it makes my head spin in anticipation for this new camera.

Brgds, Mike http://www.mikemalling.dk

 

[mikemalling]

Is there somewhere you can make online calculation on these DPI verses output size?

Mike

 

[Jim F.]

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.

It's far easier than anything that has been suggested so far if you're using CS3 and shooting RAW. In ACR, click the link below the image (on the bottom) and set the DPI to 300. You're done and never have to go near image resize in PS unless you want to change something else. I'm not positive it can be done, but you could probably also change the ACR defaults to always change the DPI when opening an image and never touch anything again (though I haven't done this myself, I'm thinking of doing it now if I can).

You certainly never have to visit image resize twice though, regardless of how you want to approach this.

 

[bross1]

It's all about the original file being properly exposed, preferably at a relatively low ISO (depending on your camera - the Mark III opens the door a bit on this one), and it has to be sharp.

I used to use Capture One but have converted completely to Aperture as my image management and work-flow system. I won't go into the virtues of Aperture here, though they are many. I take the RAW file in Aperture and make any overall adjustments that need to be made prior to sending it out via "Open with External Editor," which for me is PS CS3. If there are minor exposure adjustments that need to be made they are better made in the RAW processing (no matter what RAW processor you use) rather than making them to the converted file. One in PS I do any fine tuning I deem necessary and then go to IMAGE > IMAGE SIZE, change the dpi to 300 and set the print size I want. When I up-rez I use Bicubic Smoother to produce better results. I do my up-rez in a single step, although there are those who will say that stepping it up 10% at a time until you reach your final size is better. I have tried that and se no benefit at all - it's just a pain and very time consuming. I only apply sharpening once I have my image sized for the final output size and never save a file with sharpening applied. Sharpening must be done for the specific resolution of each intended output (eg. low res for web all the way up to large display prints or portraits).

There is really no magic to this process, and I don't currently use any of the third party software to up-rez my images. I tried one plug-in that didn't give me good results, although there are a few newer options out there that I haven't tried as I haven't needed to.

I printed 20x25 portriats on canvas from my Mark II files that were absolutely beautiful. Of course the texture of the canvas tends to hide any odd pixelation that may occur due to extreme interpolation.

16x24 prints from my Mark II were very good, however the image files from my new Mark III are stunning at 16x24 - even when viewed up close. Part of the reason I upgraded to the Mark II was to get some additional size capabilities for larger portrait prints. Since I am a working pro sports photographer I have to have the speed of the Mark III, however as I also do quite a bit of portrait work the upgrade in file size was significant for me. Oh, and one last point as a tangent on the Mark III: The RAW files created by my Mark III are around 13-14MB in size at 10.1/14 bit versus 6.5-7MB for my Mark II at 8.2/12 bit. I have said since the beginning, and now have proved it to myself, that the Mark III represents more than the numerical resolution increase of 23% but that with the 14 bit image processing the "effective" increase in image resolution is much more. Of course the size doesn't grow due to the 14 bit, but there is so much more information included in the image file it makes post-processing of the image far less destructive, and when you start getting up to large sized prints you really appreciate the difference in 16,000+ tonal gradations per pixel versus 4,000+ in 12 bit images. Will you notice a difference in 8x10's? Maybe, maybe not. But when you get up to large sizes, as I do on a routine basis, the superior files created by the Mark III have proved to be a giant step forward.

All this said, would I like to have a 1Ds Mark III for my portrait and commercial work? OF COURSE! I am drooling over the thought of it just like everyone else. I can't justify it at the moment, but if I continue to grow certain segments of my business it may make sense later on. I can say that at 21MP AND 14 bit processing these images are going to be unbelievable and virtually indestructible in post-processing unless you handle them very carelessly. I downloaded the new 1Ds Mark III sample image off the web and used the method outlined above to interpolate it up to 40x60 at 300dpi. It was shocking. Even when interpolating this much the image didn't soften very much (as happens with lower res image files when blown up too large), and there was a remarkable LACK of any pixelation artifacts that sometimes occur with extreme interpolation. This camera is setting a new high water mark for image quality that will certainly only be approached by the better MF systems and only surpassed by the very best of them. And you still maintain the versatility and handling of a DSLR with the vast array of lenses Canon offers. I'll have a hard time plunking down $20,000 or $40,000 for a high-end digi back for a MF system but $7,000-8,000 might just be realistic with a few more jobs that require that level of output.

OK, the answer to your original question is in here somewhere. Sorry, too much coffee this morning. Have a great day, and get a bib like I did to stop the drool from getting on my shirt - not very professional.

 

[KAllen]

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?

A billboard print is not one to judge the quality of an image buy. A 40x50 is much more demanding.

Kevin.

 

[sparkie]

I used to use Capture One but have converted completely to Aperture
as my image management and work-flow system. I won't go into the
virtues of Aperture here, though they are many. I take the RAW file
in Aperture and make any overall adjustments that need to be made
prior to sending it out via "Open with External Editor," which for me
is PS CS3. If there are minor exposure adjustments that need to be
made they are better made in the RAW processing (no matter what RAW
processor you use) rather than making them to the converted file.
One in PS I do any fine tuning I deem necessary and then go to IMAGE

IMAGE SIZE, change the dpi to 300 and set the print size I want.

When I up-rez I use Bicubic Smoother to produce better results. I do
my up-rez in a single step, although there are those who will say
that stepping it up 10% at a time until you reach your final size is
better. I have tried that and se no benefit at all - it's just a
pain and very time consuming. I only apply sharpening once I have my
image sized for the final output size and never save a file with
sharpening applied. Sharpening must be done for the specific
resolution of each intended output (eg. low res for web all the way
up to large display prints or portraits).

There is really no magic to this process, and I don't currently use
any of the third party software to up-rez my images. I tried one
plug-in that didn't give me good results, although there are a few
newer options out there that I haven't tried as I haven't needed to.

I printed 20x25 portriats on canvas from my Mark II files that were
absolutely beautiful. Of course the texture of the canvas tends to
hide any odd pixelation that may occur due to extreme interpolation.

16x24 prints from my Mark II were very good, however the image files
from my new Mark III are stunning at 16x24 - even when viewed up
close. Part of the reason I upgraded to the Mark II was to get some
additional size capabilities for larger portrait prints. Since I am
a working pro sports photographer I have to have the speed of the
Mark III, however as I also do quite a bit of portrait work the
upgrade in file size was significant for me. Oh, and one last point
as a tangent on the Mark III: The RAW files created by my Mark III
are around 13-14MB in size at 10.1/14 bit versus 6.5-7MB for my Mark
II at 8.2/12 bit. I have said since the beginning, and now have
proved it to myself, that the Mark III represents more than the
numerical resolution increase of 23% but that with the 14 bit image
processing the "effective" increase in image resolution is much more.
Of course the size doesn't grow due to the 14 bit, but there is so
much more information included in the image file it makes
post-processing of the image far less destructive, and when you start
getting up to large sized prints you really appreciate the difference
in 16,000+ tonal gradations per pixel versus 4,000+ in 12 bit images.
Will you notice a difference in 8x10's? Maybe, maybe not. But when
you get up to large sizes, as I do on a routine basis, the superior
files created by the Mark III have proved to be a giant step forward.

All this said, would I like to have a 1Ds Mark III for my portrait
and commercial work? OF COURSE! I am drooling over the thought of
it just like everyone else. I can't justify it at the moment, but if
I continue to grow certain segments of my business it may make sense
later on. I can say that at 21MP AND 14 bit processing these images
are going to be unbelievable and virtually indestructible in
post-processing unless you handle them very carelessly. I downloaded
the new 1Ds Mark III sample image off the web and used the method
outlined above to interpolate it up to 40x60 at 300dpi. It was
shocking. Even when interpolating this much the image didn't soften
very much (as happens with lower res image files when blown up too
large), and there was a remarkable LACK of any pixelation artifacts
that sometimes occur with extreme interpolation. This camera is
setting a new high water mark for image quality that will certainly
only be approached by the better MF systems and only surpassed by the
very best of them. And you still maintain the versatility and
handling of a DSLR with the vast array of lenses Canon offers. I'll
have a hard time plunking down $20,000 or $40,000 for a high-end digi
back for a MF system but $7,000-8,000 might just be realistic with a
few more jobs that require that level of output.

OK, the answer to your original question is in here somewhere.
Sorry, too much coffee this morning. Have a great day, and get a bib
like I did to stop the drool from getting on my shirt - not very
professional.

LOL thanks for the explaination. perhaps a little less C8H10N4O2 (caffeine) next time. but yes, there has been a side dribble; but not a full blown dribble yet ;0)

 

[LeeBase]

Considering I have a lovely 20x30 hanging on my wall -- taken from an 8mp 20D -- and then cropped to 5mp before being printed -- I'd say quite big!



Lee

 

[LeeBase]

Well, as one of those with a 20x30 family portrait framed and hanging over my mantle --- from 5mp worth of data -- it is very possible.

No one goes up to it and looks at it from nose distance. But even those that would -- me -- it still looks fine.

From the normal viewing distance of 6' -- it's more than fine.

Now maybe if a 300dpi version were available and hung right next to it -- someone might be able to say "hey, that 300dpi one is better". But that's not the situation.

In real life -- it's just fine as is.

Lee

 

[Brian Choi]

http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

At 300dpi:
20mp prints at just over 12x18", 24mp prints at 13.3x20"

So 21mp resolves to a print size close to the 20mp one.

 

[Ben_Egbert]

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

This comment applies mostly to landscapes with lots of near detail like foilage and far details like mountains. Subjects with less detail will do better.

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.

Red River Aurora white, a fine art mat paper, which I compared to Hahn pr188. 300dpi is an odd size for Epson, which should be printed at 180/360/720/1440. If you send a 300dpi, the printer must do the interpolation. Thats no problem if its an easy value like 1/2, 1, 2, 4 etc. But 300/360 is not.

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 .

My wife is very picky about color and compostion, but not resolution.

I want a leaf to have texture, not just be a green blob.

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

Ben

 

[Fantasy Photo]

Mike, I'm not aware of any such online site, but the calculations are not difficult. I suppose you could write an Excel spreadsheet to do the calculations, but I find a hand calculator a lot faster to use.

You need two pieces of information to make the calculations. You need to know the pixel dimensions of the camera's sensor (for the 1Ds Mk III, they are 5616 pixels by 3744 pixels). You also need to know the lowest resolution you can get away with and still have an acceptable looking image. As a couple of us have indicated, that is probably around 150 to 180 ppi. That's basically an emperical number, though it's possible to derive the number by using test data of the human eye's angular resolution, print enlargment factor, viewing distance, etc. A resolution of 150 ppi when using a good quality camera/sensor/lens system will give a print that virtually everyone would consider "photo quality" when viewed up close and any resolution lower than that will reduce image quality. So, to calculate the maximum size of a photo quality print from the 1Ds Mk III using 150 ppi as the lowest possible resolution, simply divide the sensor's pixel dimensions by 150 ppi. 5616 divided by 150 is 37.4 inches and 3744 divided by 150 is 25.0 inches. So the maximum photo-quality print size from that camera is 37.4 by 25.0 inches.

If you can keep the viewer from getting too close to the print, then you can print at a lower resolution since the viewer can't see how fuzzy the print actually is. When I did my tests that determined 150 ppi as the lowest possible resolution for "photo-quality" prints, my viewing distance was 6 inches (half a foot). Since the required resolution in pixels per inch (call it X) is inversely proportional to viewing distance (call it D as measured in feet), you can calculate the required resolution needed for a print that will never be viewed from closer that some give distance by: X = 75/D. So, if you want to hang a photo behind your sofa and you are sure that no one will ever get closer than 6 feet from the photo, then you need a resolution of 12.5 ppi (75 divided by 6). With the 1Ds Mk III, that means you can make a print that's 449.3 inches by 299.5 inches (37.4x25 feet). As you can see, increasing the distance at which a print is viewed allows you to make a print that's significantly larger than one that will be viewed up close. Therefore, when determining the maximum print size from a given camera, it's important that viewing distance be given or implied. Also, some people are happy with "poster quality" instead of "photo quality." The only objective way to answer the question, "How big of a print can I make?", is to assume the print will be viewed up close and that it has to be of the highest possible quality.

Is there somewhere you can make online calculation on these DPI
verses output size?

Mike

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

 

[problem_child]

If you stitch 2 rows by 7 images

http://208.112.37.136/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=158

 

[bross1]

300dpi is an odd size for Epson, which should be printed
at 180/360/720/1440. If you send a 300dpi, the printer must do the
interpolation. Thats no problem if its an easy value like 1/2, 1, 2,
4 etc. But 300/360 is not.

I have always understood 300 dpi/ppi to be the standard for high quality prints on an inkjet system, so that is why I have always sized my images to that resolution. I know that the printer settings of my Epson 4000 are all factors of 360 (720, 1440, 2880) but was not aware that had anything to do with me sizing my images. Are you saying that if I set my images to 360ppi or 180ppi I will get better results from my printer? Going to 360 will require greater interpolation, while 180 is not nearly enough resolution for me, so I am curious to hear your thoughts.

Thanks for the info and the insights. I try to learn something new every day, and this is an important topic.

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 .

My wife is very picky about color and compostion, but not resolution.

I want a leaf to have texture, not just be a green blob.

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

Ben

 

[Ben_Egbert]

300dpi is an odd size for Epson, which should be printed
at 180/360/720/1440. If you send a 300dpi, the printer must do the
interpolation. Thats no problem if its an easy value like 1/2, 1, 2,
4 etc. But 300/360 is not.

I have always understood 300 dpi/ppi to be the standard for high
quality prints on an inkjet system, so that is why I have always
sized my images to that resolution. I know that the printer settings
of my Epson 4000 are all factors of 360 (720, 1440, 2880) but was not
aware that had anything to do with me sizing my images. Are you
saying that if I set my images to 360ppi or 180ppi I will get better
results from my printer? Going to 360 will require greater
interpolation, while 180 is not nearly enough resolution for me, so I
am curious to hear your thoughts.

I learned this on the print forum, or maybe at InkJetArt, when I was buying my printer. The idea is that the printer always prints at its native size, it has to do with nozzle spacing. So if you send it 300dpi (ppi?), the printer driver has to do the math to get to 360.

The idea is the printer is not the best place to do this. So what I so is set Adobe Camera raw at 360 during conversion (my default). Then I see the exact print size before uprezzing. I usually let Qimage do the uprezing, but I have also done it in CS3, and when I do, I keep the DPI at 360.

Thanks for the info and the insights. I try to learn something new
every day, and this is an important topic.

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 .

My wife is very picky about color and compostion, but not resolution.

I want a leaf to have texture, not just be a green blob.

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

Ben

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

Ben

 

[Vikas Mal]

I know the discussion is for the 1DsMarkIII but just got a print made from my 5D file (the largest print I have ever done)

No Cropping
ISO 1000
Shutter Speed 1/8s; f/4; 24/105 f/4IS lens; 550 EX used.
Slight run through with Noise Ninja
Size: 40" x 60"
At 180 dpi
Eposn 9300 printer (I think this is what the lab told me)
Eposn Luster paper.

Print look excellent from 5' away; pretty good from few inches away.

I regularly print 20" x 30" at 180dpi with the 5D files and those look awesome (cant really tell the diff between these and the 300dpi files); sharp and vibrant.

I have now standardised on 180dpi for all my prints at sizes: 16x24 and above.

Cheers, Vikas.

The 40x60 print was of this photograph:



--

http://www.pbase.com/vikasmal