Who said we can’t print big!!

[DJ STU-C]

So, you turned your 24mp camera into an 8mp camera?

No, it’s a television not a camera, I thought that would be obvious

 

[Filmluver]

So, you turned your 24mp camera into an 8mp camera?

No, it’s a television not a camera, I thought that would be obvious

It is obvious. You turned your 24mp camera into nothing better than an 8mp camera by using that low Rez TV. Obvious enough for ya?

 

[MrAndreas]

So, you turned your 24mp camera into an 8mp camera?

No, it’s a television not a camera, I thought that would be obvious

It is obvious. You turned your 24mp camera into nothing better than an 8mp camera by using that low Rez TV. Obvious enough for ya?

Do you have eyes that are superhuman (or alien, or falcon), so capable of angular resolution better than 120 pixels per degree? When viewing the 65″ LED TV @ 2 m distance, the human eye is capable of resolving ~11MP maximum, so 4k (~8MP) is a good enough resolution. The human eye can resolve ~24 MP when viewing a 20" x 30" 200 DPI print from ~1.5 m.

--

https://www.viewbug.com/member/stesinou

 

[DJ STU-C]

So, you turned your 24mp camera into an 8mp camera?

No, it’s a television not a camera, I thought that would be obvious

It is obvious. You turned your 24mp camera into nothing better than an 8mp camera by using that low Rez TV. Obvious enough for ya?

Do you have eyes that are superhuman (or alien, or falcon), so capable of angular resolution better than 120 pixels per degree? When viewing the 65″ LED TV @ 2 m distance, the human eye is capable of resolving ~11MP maximum, so 4k (~8MP) is a good enough resolution. The human eye can resolve ~24 MP when viewing a 20" x 30" 200 DPI print from ~1.5 m.

--

https://www.viewbug.com/member/stesinou

Don’t feed the trolls… their comment isn’t relevant to the point being discussed anyway.

 

[Morris0]

We could always print big. This image is a custom wall covering in flat.

Best yet, check the EXIF data, it's done wit an 11-MP Nikon D200 and you can walk up to it and enjoy the sharpness.

Morris

Awesome shot Morris, I’m jealous of those cityscapes you have over there.

Thank you Stu,

Prints are available from my site. PM me if you are interested.

Morris

 

[Morris0]

The shot is excellent! Unfortunately, I don't know how to view its EXIF data from here, but I wonder which lens it was taken with? Thanks!

Thank you,

It was taken with the Nikon 24-85mm AF-S G. I use the Chrome Extension EXIF Viewer Classic to see online EXIF data. It's amazing what you discover such as adds for Sony cameras taken with Nikon cameras :-}

Morris

 

[ljed]

IMO these TVFrames are not substitutes for real prints.

I bought Samsung 32" Frame a couple months age. Yes, price makes wonders and I saw this Klimt full-of-gold painting displayed on it in a shadowed corner of the shop so I decided to try it out (not much wall space left at home). The smaller frame I have uses less energy (29 watts are as much as I am willing to spend). Admittedly, my frame is the old tech and only FHD, which is fine with me. The new Samsungs are a tiny bit better than the Chinese models and more than tiny bit better than my piece. But I still think the fundamental issues remain.

A few points to consider:

• if you buy it to watch TV, don't. They are very average TVs. No blacks. The only good thing is lack of reflections.
• my frame looks poor when watched from an angle unless you turn up blightness but you probably do not want to do it, the light emitted will always feel cold / blue. I turned down brightness to zero but I wish I could make it negative.
• 16:9 TV format is more often than not inappropriate for composition. The bigger Samsungs have at least the option of an extra (and very expensive) wall mount that can be easily rotated. I wish there were square frames but that is too much to ask for given the promise of TV + Frame bundle (where neither really works, for me).
• I bought it to display my pictures. I wanted to hang it in the hall and have it turn on every time someone passes by (it has a movement sensor) and then switch off after 5 minutes or so. Well, the plan has not worked out so far and I doubt it ever will even if curtail my expectations significantly. The problem is Samsung software. Check it out online. Note every negative comment and interprete all your doubts as possible issues, which most likely they are.
• If you plan to use your frame to display galleries offered by Samsung as part of subscriptions, my comments might not matter - I do not know. Never tried that option.
• I wrote frames are no substitutes for real prints. Light emitted and reflected are two different phenomena.
• And frames lack the tactile sensation when you touch prints or examine them from close distance. (glassless wall mounts are possible)
• Finally, if you think a frame is like a smartphone or pad where you can watch and shuffle hundreds of images but the size tramps the gadgets, you might be right. However, I think that effortless and unrestricted shuffling pictures is something quite different from looking time and time again, and then again and again, at a selected pictures you cherish.

 

[MrAndreas]

The shot is excellent! Unfortunately, I don't know how to view its EXIF data from here, but I wonder which lens it was taken with? Thanks!

Thank you,

It was taken with the Nikon 24-85mm AF-S G. I use the Chrome Extension EXIF Viewer Classic to see online EXIF data. It's amazing what you discover such as adds for Sony cameras taken with Nikon cameras :-}

Wow, how interesting! I'll give this thing a try... ;-)

Morris

 

[MrAndreas]

IMO these TVFrames are not substitutes for real prints.

Umm, we were talking about using "conventional TV" as a photo frame, not vice versa, weren't we?

I bought Samsung 32" Frame a couple months age.

Aghhh, that was your point, now I got it. Slightly off from what we were talking about, but thank you for sharing your hands-on experience. Personally, I never considered a dedicated device like that, as a conventional TV can do approximately the same job. Nevertheless, your experience is informative. Thank you for sharing!

Yes, price makes wonders and I saw this Klimt full-of-gold painting displayed on it in a shadowed corner of the shop so I decided to try it out (not much wall space left at home). The smaller frame I have uses less energy (29 watts are as much as I am willing to spend). Admittedly, my frame is the old tech and only FHD, which is fine with me. The new Samsungs are a tiny bit better than the Chinese models and more than tiny bit better than my piece. But I still think the fundamental issues remain.

A few points to consider:

• if you buy it to watch TV, don't. They are very average TVs. No blacks. The only good thing is lack of reflections.

For good blacks, go for the plasma screen from 2010th. LED screens have no good blacks. However, every choice is a tradeoff. With plasma, you get excellent blacks, but it comes with plenty of weaknesses.

• my frame looks poor when watched from an angle unless you turn up blightness but you probably do not want to do it, the light emitted will always feel cold / blue. I turned down brightness to zero but I wish I could make it negative.

Probably the cheap TFT matrix, not IPS or even PVA.

• 16:9 TV format is more often than not inappropriate for composition.

Let's not confuse composition with layout. Yes, when your photos are 3:2 natively, the 16:9 screen will display them either clipped or with black sides. So what?

• The bigger Samsungs have at least the option of an extra (and very expensive) wall mount that can be easily rotated. I wish there were square frames but that is too much to ask for given the promise of TV + Frame bundle (where neither really works, for me).

To my knowledge, almost every TV of today has a VESA mount option.

• I bought it to display my pictures. I wanted to hang it in the hall and have it turn on every time someone passes by (it has a movement sensor) and then switch off after 5 minutes or so. Well, the plan has not worked out so far and I doubt it ever will even if curtail my expectations significantly. The problem is Samsung software. Check it out online. Note every negative comment and interprete all your doubts as possible issues, which most likely they are.

Umm, this isn't a use case of mine, i.e., to me, it's Ok to have the slideshow running while we are interested in viewing it, and I'd better switch it off manually as soon as we finish.

• If you plan to use your frame to display galleries offered by Samsung as part of subscriptions, my comments might not matter - I do not know. Never tried that option.

This "galleries offered by Samsung" use case is entirely off for me, sorry.

• I wrote frames are no substitutes for real prints. Light emitted and reflected are two different phenomena.

I can't disagree. But anyway, nowadays, the TV screen is our best available medium for viewing our photos. Paper printing is way too expensive and inconvenient, too. So I think it's better to adapt our pictures to the reality at hand, rather than fall into nostalgia for paper prints.

• And frames lack the tactile sensation when you touch prints or examine them from close distance. (glassless wall mounts are possible)

This is true, but in my current apartment, I don't have enough wall space to turn it into a photo gallery with A2 prints lining the walls, although I love the idea. So the TV screen in an occasional "photo frame mode" looks like a viable solution.

• Finally, if you think a frame is like a smartphone or pad where you can watch and shuffle hundreds of images but the size tramps the gadgets, you might be right. However, I think that effortless and unrestricted shuffling pictures is something quite different from looking time and time again, and then again and again, at a selected pictures you cherish.

Agreed. But we are speaking a different use case here now.

 

[DJ STU-C]

I’ll second the expense thing for the paper printing. We have one of the UKs best photo labs up here in the North East and my recent print for my DJ room was going to be £75 on the Fuji lustre paper. I ended up going with photobox for about £15.



im sure the Fuji paper would have looked amazing but its behind a piece of perspex anyway so I dont feel we would have been taking advantage of it, which would have led to extra expense sourcing a high end frame to mount it.

 

[ljed]

IMO these TVFrames are not substitutes for real prints.

Umm, we were talking about using "conventional TV" as a photo frame, not vice versa, weren't we?

I guess reading is not my strongest skill. Sorry.

I bought Samsung 32" Frame a couple months age.

A few points to consider:

• if you buy it to watch TV, don't. They are very average TVs. No blacks. The only good thing is lack of reflections.

For good blacks, go for the plasma screen from 2010th. LED screens have no good blacks. However, every choice is a tradeoff. With plasma, you get excellent blacks, but it comes with plenty of weaknesses.

OLED screens have outdone plasmas a long time ago in terms of picture quality, in particular blacks. I had a Panasonic plasma and only recently replaced it with a Samsung matte OLED, the difference in picture quality is obvious. Unfortunately, burn-in can still occur, reportedly very seldom for typical TV viewing but certainly for 24-7 display use cases.

• 16:9 TV format is more often than not inappropriate for composition.

Let's not confuse composition with layout. Yes, when your photos are 3:2 natively, the 16:9 screen will display them either clipped or with black sides. So what?

I like to crop and I take both horizontal and vertical pictures.

Actually, one of features that infuriate me with my Frame is that the background (the electronic matte) cannot be set black. You can select a number of colors for a matte except black (inverse of Ford Motor policies in 1920s). Dark grey is your second best option. For really black background you have to prepare images for yourself using a computer and set "no matte" option in the Frame. Nonsense.

• The bigger Samsungs have at least the option of an extra (and very expensive) wall mount that can be easily rotated. I wish there were square frames but that is too much to ask for given the promise of TV + Frame bundle (where neither really works, for me).

To my knowledge, almost every TV of today has a VESA mount option.

I meant something like this kind of magic: www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/television-home-theater-accessories/televisions/55-65-auto-rotating-wall-mount-400x300-vesa-vg-arab43wmtza/

• I wrote frames are no substitutes for real prints. Light emitted and reflected are two different phenomena.

I can't disagree. But anyway, nowadays, the TV screen is our best available medium for viewing our photos. Paper printing is way too expensive and inconvenient, too. So I think it's better to adapt our pictures to the reality at hand, rather than fall into nostalgia for paper prints.

Epson tank printers e.g. 8550 model are a cost-effective way to print up to A3+ and at very reasonable quality. Paper and storage can still be expensive though. Storing a few houndred / thousand printed pictures is a logistics excercise.

So if you want to view pictures with your family or friends, using a TV is a reasonable choice. Content will always trump technicalities. For me, resolution would not be of any concern in this case unless your files are 2MP and poor quality. Out-of-the-box TV colours/WB and 16:9 format (not the same as 9:16 and not even close to 4:3 or 1:1, or...) make the solution not perfect for me. But such is life.

 

[MrAndreas]

For good blacks, go for the plasma screen from 2010th. LED screens have no good blacks. However, every choice is a tradeoff. With plasma, you get excellent blacks, but it comes with plenty of weaknesses.

OLED screens have outdone plasmas a long time ago in terms of picture quality, in particular blacks.

That's OLED; I was speaking of conventional LED. I haven't tested the OLED yet, so I can only take your word for it.

I had a Panasonic plasma and only recently replaced it with a Samsung matte OLED, the difference in picture quality is obvious. Unfortunately, burn-in can still occur, reportedly very seldom for typical TV viewing but certainly for 24-7 display use cases.

Ummm, interesting. Though 24/7 is not a home TV use case.

• 16:9 TV format is more often than not inappropriate for composition.

Let's not confuse composition with layout. Yes, when your photos are 3:2 natively, the 16:9 screen will display them either clipped or with black sides. So what?

I like to crop and I take both horizontal and vertical pictures.

Actually, one of features that infuriate me with my Frame is that the background (the electronic matte) cannot be set black.

This is disappointing.

You can select a number of colors for a matte except black (inverse of Ford Motor policies in 1920s).

Apt remark

Dark grey is your second best option. For really black background you have to prepare images for yourself using a computer and set "no matte" option in the Frame. Nonsense.

• The bigger Samsungs have at least the option of an extra (and very expensive) wall mount that can be easily rotated. I wish there were square frames but that is too much to ask for given the promise of TV + Frame bundle (where neither really works, for me).

To my knowledge, almost every TV of today has a VESA mount option.

I meant something like this kind of magic: www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/television-home-theater-accessories/televisions/55-65-auto-rotating-wall-mount-400x300-vesa-vg-arab43wmtza/

Never knew this kind of magic existed. Thank you for sharing!

• I wrote frames are no substitutes for real prints. Light emitted and reflected are two different phenomena.

I can't disagree. But anyway, nowadays, the TV screen is our best available medium for viewing our photos. Paper printing is way too expensive and inconvenient, too. So I think it's better to adapt our pictures to the reality at hand, rather than fall into nostalgia for paper prints.

Epson tank printers e.g. 8550 model are a cost-effective way to print up to A3+ and at very reasonable quality. Paper and storage can still be expensive though.

Not only can they, they are.

Storing a few houndred / thousand printed pictures is a logistics excercise.

So if you want to view pictures with your family or friends, using a TV is a reasonable choice. Content will always trump technicalities. For me, resolution would not be of any concern in this case unless your files are 2MP and poor quality. Out-of-the-box TV colours/WB and 16:9 format (not the same as 9:16 and not even close to 4:3 or 1:1, or...) make the solution not perfect for me. But such is life.

Exactly.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Did a double take when I saw this. OK, I know its a common viewpoint, but...





--
John Bean [GMT+1]

 

[DJ STU-C]

Lovely shot that John... nice moody sky too. Its a must have shot for any North based photog

Here are my 2 efforts from there, I always love zooming into these ones.





Edit: I just realised the daytime one above is my partners with the X-E2s, this is my version of it.













--
Stu-C
https://flickr.com/photos/138087015@N02/

 

[michaeladawson]

So we moved house last year and finally got ourselves a couple of decent 4K TVs. We installed a 55” Hisense QLED in our family room area at the back of the house. For some reason I’d never thought to add my favourite shots to a flash drive and display them…. Until now.
Apologies for the phone shots but I wanted to show them being displayed and the detail retained with even my paultry 24mp APS-C sensor. These are well over 1m wide so I’d have no qualms about printing them this large after seeing this.

If a 4K TV and 24 MP photo is good enough for you, who am I to argue. However, you can do better with an actual print that uses far more MP to capture the image.

A 24 MP camera is 6000x4000 pixels. A 55" TV has a horizontal dimension of 48". Divide 6000 pixels by 48" and you get 125 pixels/inch if your TV could actually display all those pixels. But it can't. Your 55" 4K TV only has 3,840 horizontal pixels, or a "paltry" 80 pixels/inch.

No one really means "you can't print big" when they talk about large prints from smaller MP sensors. So when I see thread titles like that I immediately roll my eyes. There are many people who will say that their large wall prints from an 8 MP camera look great. I'm sure they actually do. But 80 pixels/inch is a far cry from what the human eye can discern, which is generally accepted to be around 300 pixels/inch. What might be considered great can be greater.

When printing, 240 dpi is often accepted as a pretty good bar to achieve for large prints, not quite as good as 300 dpi but very, very good. 80 dpi on a 55" TV doesn't come anywhere near that. On top of that, with a 4K TV you are basically throwing out 35% of your 24 MP camera's pixels in each dimension.

Now, granted, upscaling programs are really good these days. They do a really intelligent job of "smartly" filling in likely missing pixels. But as we all know, these programs create best guess detail, not real detail. With a good upscaling program you can take your 24 MP image and certainly make a pretty decent 150 dpi print or even a 240 dpi print at 55" diagonal. Upscaling really won't help you on a TV monitor though as you are already tossing pixels.

Again, if it's good enough for you I can't dispute it. But when you get into the 55" size, for me, I'm not paying for the cost of that size print and the cost of framing for sub-par output. BTW, mounting and framing is expensive. The only place I would be allowed to hang a "Frames-R-Us" photo on the wall would be my private office.

 

[DJ STU-C]

So we moved house last year and finally got ourselves a couple of decent 4K TVs. We installed a 55” Hisense QLED in our family room area at the back of the house. For some reason I’d never thought to add my favourite shots to a flash drive and display them…. Until now.
Apologies for the phone shots but I wanted to show them being displayed and the detail retained with even my paultry 24mp APS-C sensor. These are well over 1m wide so I’d have no qualms about printing them this large after seeing this.

If a 4K TV and 24 MP photo is good enough for you, who am I to argue. However, you can do better with an actual print that uses far more MP to capture the image.

That was my whole point, if it looks this great on a TV then it'll undoubtedly translate to print.

No one really means "you can't print big" when they talk about large prints from smaller MP sensors.

What do they mean then? when they specifically say "I like to print big so APS-C isn't suitable"... i reckon ive seen that exact statement (in various forms) well over 10000 times over the years of being on photography forums, and that is the very subject i was broaching with this thread.

 

[MrAndreas]

That was my whole point, if it looks this great on a TV then it'll undoubtedly translate to print.

Yes, because the print PPI is times finer than 4k TV, and 24MP fits the print's MP capacity well without upscaling.

 

[Satyaa]

Hi. I am not debating your point about printing big. My 24MP images (after some cropping down to about 20, if not less) were printed as 36" posters. From a 40MP sensor, it would only be better.

My thought is whether we can really compare a print to a TV display.

TV is a self-illuminated device. The color profile or brightness can be adjusted. In most situations it is difficult to get close to see the detail. The brightness would blind me.

Prints on the other hand invite people to come and look up close. Would that make a difference?

On the plus side, a decent print would have 200 to 300 dpi, which is very good compared to around 80ppi for a 55" 4K TV.

Thanks.

--
See my profile (About me) for gear and my posting policy. My profile picture is of the first film camera I used in the early 80s, photo credit the internet.

 

[DJ STU-C]

Hi. I am not debating your point about printing big. My 24MP images (after some cropping down to about 20, if not less) were printed as 36" posters. From a 40MP sensor, it would only be better.

My thought is whether we can really compare a print to a TV display.

TV is a self-illuminated device. The color profile or brightness can be adjusted. In most situations it is difficult to get close to see the detail. The brightness would blind me.

Prints on the other hand invite people to come and look up close. Would that make a difference?

On the plus side, a decent print would have 200 to 300 dpi, which is very good compared to around 80ppi for a 55" 4K TV.

Thanks.

I think they’d look even better in print as the ink on paper is a much more natural look. It’s all dependant on getting the levels right as you print however, and a half decent lab will do that for you.



I could get up close to the screen without it being intrusive though.



the whole premise of the thread was a light hearted dig at people who claim you can’t see/print APS-C large, not to be taken too seriously (which I know is difficult around these parts sometimes).

 

[Satyaa]

Hi. I am not debating your point about printing big. My 24MP images (after some cropping down to about 20, if not less) were printed as 36" posters. From a 40MP sensor, it would only be better.

My thought is whether we can really compare a print to a TV display.

TV is a self-illuminated device. The color profile or brightness can be adjusted. In most situations it is difficult to get close to see the detail. The brightness would blind me.

Prints on the other hand invite people to come and look up close. Would that make a difference?

On the plus side, a decent print would have 200 to 300 dpi, which is very good compared to around 80ppi for a 55" 4K TV.

Thanks.

I think they’d look even better in print as the ink on paper is a much more natural look. It’s all dependant on getting the levels right as you print however, and a half decent lab will do that for you.

I could get up close to the screen without it being intrusive though.

the whole premise of the thread was a light hearted dig at people who claim you can’t see/print APS-C large, not to be taken too seriously (which I know is difficult around these parts sometimes).

oK, I didn’t catch the humor

Thanks