What is largest possible print size with a GH3 1 and 12-35/f2.8 (without loss of Quality)

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Raven15 Contributing Member • Posts: 804
Re: What is largest possible print size with a GH3 1 and 12-35/f2.8 (without loss of Quality)

josbiker wrote:

josbiker wrote:

Can i print with a FF camera a bigger size and so yes, HOW MUCH BIGGER?

At very best you could probably multiply the diagonal by about 1.5 with full frame vs. 4/3. Some full frame models would actually have lower resolution. If you decided to print on canvas or fine art paper or some such you would pretty much be printing a bill board before you had an issue, printing glossy you would have problems once you got too much bigger than a typical printer sheet.

Aleo Veuliah
Aleo Veuliah MOD Forum Pro • Posts: 14,628
Re: A simple way to calculate....

Guy Parsons wrote:

A simple way is to use the following rules (it has worked for me for years with different digital cameras, starting with 3 MP models).

♦ The basics, if you can print a sharp 8x 10 inch then that same file can be used to print to any size as long as you view it at the proper distance of 10 inches or the diagonal measure of the print, whichever is longer. But to get "sharp" prints, follow these rules....

♦ Find the pixel width of the image that you want to print. Not an interpolated number, the original count of pixels from the camera, be aware that it may be cropped, so get the actual finished pixel count......

♦ For truly sharp print that really satisfies nose against it looking then divide the pixel count by 300 to get the maximum possible inch width, say 4608 pixels wide, divide by 300 to get 15.36 inches wide.

♦ For general viewing that appears to be "sharp enough" for casual examination use 200 as the divider, so 4608/200=23.04 inches wide.

♦ With careful treatment of the image and non critical viewing then maybe the absolute lower limit of that divider is 180, so 4608/180=25.6 inches.

♦ Most times huge prints are hung on a wall and never ever expected to be nose up against it viewing so the divider can be way smaller but when you get to 150 or lower it does look soft up close but perfectly good at the proper view distance. Example 4608/150=30.72 inches wide. So if a print like that is hung on a hall wall people can get close to it so can see it is soft, if hung say over the bed where people cannot walk closer then 150 or lower is perfectly good, remember the "ideal" view distance should be the diagonal of the print.

All the above assumes proper printing and sharpening methods, with interpolating the file size to higher "pixel" counts to avoid jaggies in the final print. I always use Qimage Ultimate for printing and that program interpolates your image file up to the requirements of the particular printer in use (Epson 720 dpi, Canon 600 dpi and strange numbers if full bleed borderless printing) and also auto sharpens the image to suit the print size. The results always look better than using say Photoshop to print. Qimage can of course create a proper file to send to a print lab.

People will try to tell you that clever interpolation programs allow you to print to any size, but all they do is smooth the result and maybe enhance edges in a clever fashion so the large print may look sharp but on close examination there's an absence of fine detail, like an overblown image of a bird, you see the bird and its beak looks sharp, but where did all the feather detail go?

Anyway, remember that people have been printing large (often way "over size") for a long time and with a good camera and lens combination you can print to any size you like as long as you are aware of what to expect and how it will be displayed.

Regards...... Guy

Good information.


-- hide signature --

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site

 Aleo Veuliah's gear list:Aleo Veuliah's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 +4 more
josbiker
josbiker OP Contributing Member • Posts: 725
Re: What is largest possible print size with a GH3 1 and 12-35/f2.8 (without loss of Quality)

Is there a relation in viewing on a P.C. monitor at 100% with a 16MP file, and if so, what is than the size of the printed photo?( with the same quality in relation too very minor details of the photo (pixpel peeping))

 josbiker's gear list:josbiker's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS +3 more
bluelemmy Contributing Member • Posts: 904
Re: What is largest possible print size with a GH3 1 and 12-35/f2.8 (without loss of Quality)

josbiker wrote:

Is there a relation in viewing on a P.C. monitor at 100% with a 16MP file, and if so, what is than the size of the printed photo?( with the same quality in relation too very minor details of the photo (pixpel peeping))

Wiith my GH3 file at 4,600px across and my monitor with 1900px, at 100% it is equivalent to a print of 4600/1900 x the monitor width, in my case 24 inches.

So (4600/1900)x24 = nearly 5 feet across.

For top quality, in a print you are looking at 300ppi so  4600/300 or 15 inches. In practise, to my eyes, you can go much bigger than that without noticeable quality loss. My screen resolution is 1920/24 = 80ppi

The other actor is that if you had a print nearly 5 feet across, you'd stand much further away than the 2 feet or so from which you generally view your monitor.

So in my case, a print 5 feet across viewed at 24 inches would be similar to the view at 100% on my monitor.

It's all a bit in the air in practise because you'd be doing a lot of head swivelling to view a 5 foot print at 2 feet and so only be able to take in a portion of it at a time. Also, you view your monitor by emitted light whereas the print is viewed by reflected light.

I have to do quite stringent quality control for some of my tasks and so viewing at 100% is necessary for that. But it doesn't equate to any real world viewing and what I know is that for any size of print I am ever going to need, my CSC camera is more than up to the job.

-- hide signature --

David
www.dthorpe.net

 bluelemmy's gear list:bluelemmy's gear list
Olympus E-M1
sigala1 Senior Member • Posts: 3,634
huge

josbiker wrote:

Back in the early days of digital photography, I saw HUGE prints hanging in a museum made from 6MP DSLRs, and there was purple fringing in them and everything.

josbiker
josbiker OP Contributing Member • Posts: 725
Re: What is largest possible print size with a GH3 1 and 12-35/f2.8 (without loss of Quality)

bluelemmy wrote:

josbiker wrote:

Is there a relation in viewing on a P.C. monitor at 100% with a 16MP file, and if so, what is than the size of the printed photo?( with the same quality in relation too very minor details of the photo (pixpel peeping))

Wiith my GH3 file at 4,600px across and my monitor with 1900px, at 100% it is equivalent to a print of 4600/1900 x the monitor width, in my case 24 inches.

So (4600/1900)x24 = nearly 5 feet across.

For top quality, in a print you are looking at 300ppi so  4600/300 or 15 inches. In practise, to my eyes, you can go much bigger than that without noticeable quality loss. My screen resolution is 1920/24 = 80ppi

The other actor is that if you had a print nearly 5 feet across, you'd stand much further away than the 2 feet or so from which you generally view your monitor.

So in my case, a print 5 feet across viewed at 24 inches would be similar to the view at 100% on my monitor.

It's all a bit in the air in practise because you'd be doing a lot of head swivelling to view a 5 foot print at 2 feet and so only be able to take in a portion of it at a time. Also, you view your monitor by emitted light whereas the print is viewed by reflected light.

I have to do quite stringent quality control for some of my tasks and so viewing at 100% is necessary for that. But it doesn't equate to any real world viewing and what I know is that for any size of print I am ever going to need, my CSC camera is more than up to the job.

-- hide signature --

David
www.dthorpe.net

Thanks! Very worth-full! And excellent useful!

 josbiker's gear list:josbiker's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS +3 more
JoeVC Contributing Member • Posts: 699
Re: What is largest possible print size with a GH3 1 and 12-35/f2.8 (without loss of Quality)

josbiker wrote: What is largest  possible print size with a GH3 1 and 12-35/f2.8 (without loss of Quality)

Check out a recent article from Discover Mirrorless.

http://www.discovermirrorless.com/current-news/how-big-of-a-print-from-a-mirrorless-jpeg-portrait-file-44x44/

Will Crockett finds it possible to print a 4'x4' image straight from an in-camera JPEG file.

Which begs the question of what do you consider "without loss of quality?" Quality is a sliding scale, with lots of intermediate levels. What one person might approve of in a print, another might object over. You have to decide what's "good enough" for you. You can never have enough quality, if you want the absolute "best." So, other than the absolute best, you have to settle for some intermediate level of "good enough."

~Joe

Anthony Curcione Regular Member • Posts: 297
Re: What is largest possible print size with a GH3 1 and 12-35/f2.8 (without loss of Quality)

I just had a B&W 16x24 print made from my trip to Paris and it's incredibly sharp, taken with OMD and 12-35.  At this size the resolution was 192 ppi (as reported by PS from a cropped image).  I probably could have gone 20x30, but that would have dropped the resolution to 150 which is still acceptable by the lab although not recommended.

 Anthony Curcione's gear list:Anthony Curcione's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro +1 more
TorsteinH
TorsteinH Senior Member • Posts: 1,097
Re: As large as you like...

Considering the viewing distance of larger picture, any camera above 10 mpix can print any size. More mpix is really not needed!

-- hide signature --

www.ohb.no/foto
Torstein

 TorsteinH's gear list:TorsteinH's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G 25mm F1.7 ASPH +3 more
KenBalbari Regular Member • Posts: 276
Re: What is largest possible print size with a GH3 1 and 12-35/f2.8 (without loss of Quality)

First, not only the MP matters, it matters also that you are using a good lens, and do everything else right to get a sharp photo.  Where MP really matter is where you start to see pixellation, but even that can be avoided by upscaling a smaller image.  Some form of interpolation is used to upsize a 6MP image to a 15MP image, for example.

So rules based on pixels per inch (PPI) are really only general rules of thumb.

But as a rough guide, assuming you get a good shot with the GH3 and 12-35, I would say most people won't see a difference in an 8" x 10" print compared to a sharper image from a FF DSLR.  That is, it's possible to get more measurable resolution from a higher MP FF camera with the best lenses, but it's debatable whether the difference can even be seen at that size.

Once you get to about 16" x 20" and larger though, I would think you should be able to notice a difference compared side-to-side, but the OM-D print will still look good.  And even then, it's not going to be true in every case, and you may need to use good technique, a tripod with mirror lockup, good lenses, etc., with the FF camera for the difference to show.

For a larger size, say 24"x36" or larger, you might want to upscale your image to, for example, a 40 MP file first.  At that size, you maybe won't astound anyone who looks from up close with the level of resolution, but so long as your picture astounds in other ways, that might not matter. And the upsized image will still look smooth, not pixellated.  In many real world situations, many people still won't know the difference.

 KenBalbari's gear list:KenBalbari's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2
dmanthree Veteran Member • Posts: 5,604
Billboard Size!

Since billboards are usually a long distance away, the resolution does not need to be high. Most billboards are only about 9dpi. So the GH3 is easily capable of being enlarged to billboard size. Just don't stand so close.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

Mike Ronesia
Mike Ronesia Senior Member • Posts: 2,981
Re: What is largest possible print size with a GH3 1 and 12-35/f2.8 (without loss of Quality)

josbiker wrote:

Is there a relation in viewing on a P.C. monitor at 100% with a 16MP file, and if so, what is than the size of the printed photo?( with the same quality in relation too very minor details of the photo (pixpel peeping))

On my screen viewing at 33% gives me very close to actual print size and seems to be a good indicator of what the print will look like. Because of this I use 50% view for my quality checks when enlarging. I've done up to 36x48 with no pixelation and they hold up well to close inspection. That being said, very few of my images make it this far. They have to be very sharp to start with and the less PP the better.

I shoot raw, up-size and save from LR as PSD and then use Photoshop to convert to PDF for the printer. The more adjustments I make in LR or PS means the max size will be smaller assuming I start with a nice sharp image.

When in doubt, up-size your image, crop out a 8x10 of a critical area and have the printer run it. Won't cost much and gives you a good idea of what you'll get.

-- hide signature --

Mark James
A.K.A. Mike Ronesia

 Mike Ronesia's gear list:Mike Ronesia's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads