Printing Large

[aChanceEncounter]

Do many of you use Gigapixel AI with your XT5/XH2 files to print larger?

I understand the 1.4 primes will pretty much give the best resolution for large printing and will get:

At 300 DPI (dots per inch), the maximum print size is:
20x30 inches.

At 240 DPI (a more standard print resolution), the maximum print size is:
25x37.5 inches.

If I want to print 40x60, are tools like Gigapixel AI a viable option or is the only option step up Full Frame or to the 100mb files of the GFX?

I understand viewing distance is another variable.

The other consideration is use the XT5 and do multiple row panos to get insane resolution.

 

[dccberry]

If you uncheck the "resample" box and make the file 200PPI in Photoshop, you will gain even more size, and then upsize again to 40 x 60 (with the "resample" box checked). The prints should be fine if you have a good file to start with. I make lots of large prints at 200PPI, and there is no visible loss of quality compared to 240 or 300 PPI.

 

[Morris0]

While I'm a big fan of Topaz Photo AI and use it regularly, I have not been happy with the fake looking results I get from Gigapixel.

Morris

 

[aChanceEncounter]

While I'm a big fan of Topaz Photo AI and use it regularly, I have not been happy with the fake looking results I get from Gigapixel.

Morris

How does topaz compare to adobe super resolution in LR?

 

[Morris0]

While I'm a big fan of Topaz Photo AI and use it regularly, I have not been happy with the fake looking results I get from Gigapixel.

Morris

How does topaz compare to adobe super resolution in LR?

Topaz is a company with multiple products. What product are you asking about?

Morris

 

[aChanceEncounter]

While I'm a big fan of Topaz Photo AI and use it regularly, I have not been happy with the fake looking results I get from Gigapixel.

Morris

How does topaz compare to adobe super resolution in LR?

Topaz is a company with multiple products. What product are you asking about?

Morris

The one that upsizes

 

[Morris0]

While I'm a big fan of Topaz Photo AI and use it regularly, I have not been happy with the fake looking results I get from Gigapixel.

Morris

How does topaz compare to adobe super resolution in LR?

Topaz is a company with multiple products. What product are you asking about?

Morris

The one that upsizes

Oh, Gigapixel. Meh!

Morris

 

[a_c_skinner]

I've been happy with Gigapixel but this is looking on screen, I've not got round to getting prints made, though it has held up to screen scrutiny.

This is a 24 Mpix image cropped to 3:1 and doubled in linear size in Gigapixel. Width is 120000 pixels. (X-E3 and 23/2, Finland 2020)

It works better if the original is perfect.

You won't get bigger prints by swapping to a bigger sensor with the same pixel count. You need to up the pixel count.

You will get a little better DR and less noise but bigger prints need more pixels.

(And impeccable technique and decent lenses of course. Technique mainly.)

--
Andrew Skinner

 

[mahidoes]

I've printed 1-metre-long files with my 24MP X-T20 and they’ve turned out fine. You can print at any size, as you'll be viewing the image from a distance if it's larger, so it wouldn't make much of a difference.

If you are printing small make sure to downsample 300ppi

--
You may subscribe on my substack and see pictures in insta.
https://mahidoes.substack.com/
https://www.instagram.com/mahidoes/
https://www.instagram.com/yuvaanaka/

 

[JohnS59]

IMHO, the best way to print (very) large, e.g. 60x40" or larger, is using a camera with at least 100MP. Like the GFX 100Sii or something like that.

I use Gigapixel AI for upsampling 24MP file from my XH1 and X-Pro2 if I want to print large. It is oké and generally looks good if used well. Having said that the more I use it the more I see it produces all kind of small artefacts and false detail. That's makes me less enthusiastic.

This heavily depends on the subject. Most people don't see them in real prints though,but they are there when zooming in. Example: I often check sharpness by finding small text (signs etc.) in the image. Sometimes I can barely read it, but it is still possible making sense of it. Gigapixel makes the sign looking sharp but makes it totally unreadable at the same time. So information is lost and garbage put in place.

Most people do not print large that often. In that case I would still recommend Gigapixel AI to try. Or any other upsampler. If printing large is most of your work or you are a professional, I would say look at MF or FF with the best lenses you can find.

 

[BeatX]

While I'm a big fan of Topaz Photo AI and use it regularly, I have not been happy with the fake looking results I get from Gigapixel.

Morris

Same here, I've tried test version and this fake artefacts used to upscale image was looking too much fake to my eyes. But perhaps in the future - when software will be more advanced - this is solution for bigger prints in super quality, instead of carrying big and heavy medium format stuff. Who knows?

 

[a_c_skinner]

Stitching is a viable way to get more pixels for large prints.

 

[Morris0]

Stitching is a viable way to get more pixels for large prints.

With a quality capture, it's amazing how few pixels one needs.

Morris

 

[Lester Lefkowitz]

As a commercial photographer, many of my clients made huge prints (for trade shows, lobby art, etc.) from my Nikon D2x -2005 - files (12mp, APS-C). They looked quite good! Most important was the fundamental sharpness of the original file (good lens, decent aperture, high shutter speed or flash, perfect focus).

I've recently had made 40 x 60" (100 x 150cm) prints from macro subjects from my Fuji X-T4 (only 26mp), where sharpness is part of the allure. Upscaling in Photoshop, then a bit of sharpening is all that is required. Ink on paper is always softer than zooming in to 100% on a 24" monitor; if that is your criteria, you will never be happy.

What is the purpose of making a very large print? To display a fine photograph and have people enjoy it, or to convene a committee to analyze each square millimeter with a magnifying glass.

I have used Gigapixel AI to upscale someone's photos that were accidentally shot with a camera set to very low resolution; it saved the day.

I have made very large prints from stitched panoramas, where the horizontal pixel count was >15mp, and used the stack-and-stitch technique for large prints of insects. But I have also made similar-size prints from single frames. Yes, the high-pixel-count images look a bit sharper when viewed very close, but for their purpose, both were great to behold. I have also seen many large prints - very sharp ones - not worth even a passing glance.

Lester Lefkowitz, author of The Manual of Close-Up and Macro Photography, Volumes I & II

www.MAcroPhotographer.net

 

[JohnS59]

Stitching is a viable way to get more pixels for large prints.

Yes. If you ocassionaly print large and know beforehand which one you want to print large .

 

[JohnS59]

As a commercial photographer, many of my clients made huge prints (for trade shows, lobby art, etc.) from my Nikon D2x -2005 - files (12mp, APS-C). They looked quite good! Most important was the fundamental sharpness of the original file (good lens, decent aperture, high shutter speed or flash, perfect focus).

I've recently had made 40 x 60" (100 x 150cm) prints from macro subjects from my Fuji X-T4 (only 26mp), where sharpness is part of the allure. Upscaling in Photoshop, then a bit of sharpening is all that is required. Ink on paper is always softer than zooming in to 100% on a 24" monitor; if that is your criteria, you will never be happy.

What is the purpose of making a very large print? To display a fine photograph and have people enjoy it, or to convene a committee to analyze each square millimeter with a magnifying glass.

I have used Gigapixel AI to upscale someone's photos that were accidentally shot with a camera set to very low resolution; it saved the day.

I have made very large prints from stitched panoramas, where the horizontal pixel count was >15mp, and used the stack-and-stitch technique for large prints of insects. But I have also made similar-size prints from single frames. Yes, the high-pixel-count images look a bit sharper when viewed very close, but for their purpose, both were great to behold. I have also seen many large prints - very sharp ones - not worth even a passing glance.

Lester Lefkowitz, author of The Manual of Close-Up and Macro Photography, Volumes I & II

www.MAcroPhotographer.net

For me is 24 MP (more than) enough. And for most people and - probably - also most professional use. You have to look hard to see the difference in sharpness between large prints based on FF or even MF, if there is any difference at all. Enough evidence on the web about that.

But, if you are looking for the best results possible, FF (with top lenses) or MF is the best way. Not because of more sharpness per se but less aliasing (false details and colors). Gigapixel AI can't remove those and add garbage on its own.

But not everyone wants (or can) invest in a MF system which comes with their own limitations of course.

 

[Rand 47]

Do many of you use Gigapixel AI with your XT5/XH2 files to print larger?

I understand the 1.4 primes will pretty much give the best resolution for large printing and will get:

At 300 DPI (dots per inch), the maximum print size is:
20x30 inches.

At 240 DPI (a more standard print resolution), the maximum print size is:
25x37.5 inches.

If I want to print 40x60, are tools like Gigapixel AI a viable option or is the only option step up Full Frame or to the 100mb files of the GFX?

I understand viewing distance is another variable.

The other consideration is use the XT5 and do multiple row panos to get insane resolution.

The optimal dpi depends on the printer. Canon printers typically have a native of 300 / 600, while Epson’s earlier printers were 360 / 720.

I don’t know what versions of Gigapixel AI are being referenced above, but the latest version(s) are quite good. The various modes for resizing need to be looked at closely for any give file, however.

I print large …. and in past I would constantly test to see which of the available upsampling options was best for any given image. E.g., Photoshop Preserve Details 2.0, Adobe super-resolution, Gigapixel AI, etc. Up until about 8 months ago, it was a crap shoot and on any given image one would be better than the others. Not so much anymore. Gigapixel AI (GAI) has come a very long way and even though I still “test” - GAI has been clearly superior on a regular basis.

As a practical matter, Lightroom Classic’s Print Module does a really fine “under the hood” resize. I no longer resize to exact numbers if the native is north of 200, and let Lighroom do it on the fly for any give image size as long as that native number doesn’t get spread thinner than 200.

More native resolution is almost always better than upscaling. Your idea of doing stitched images to increase resolution is a good one, but not always practical.

IMO, the answer to your base question, “Is GAI a viable option?” My answer is a resounding YES! But like all things “computer” it’s a game of garbage in - garbage out. If you start with a suboptimal file, you’ll just end up with a larger suboptimal file. Start with a sharp, properly exposed file, and you can upsample it effectively in GAI to the limits of most print sizes.

Rand

 

[a_c_skinner]

Agreed. Upthread I have posted an example of a 24Mpix file upsized to 12000 pixels wide. It does hinge on a good image to start from.

There is a trial that is free and working so the OP can find out for themselves.

--
Andrew Skinner

 

[a_c_skinner]

OK so a quick demo. This is a X-H2 file doubled in size in the latest Gigapixel.

This is the link to Flickr so you can see it full size. Big files are not easy to share.

St Thomas Becket, Fairfield, Kent

--
Andrew Skinner

 

[JohnS59]

OK so a quick demo. This is a X-H2 file doubled in size in the latest Gigapixel.

This is the link to Flickr so you can see it full size. Big files are not easy to share.

St Thomas Becket, Fairfield, Kent

I have downloaded the file (almost 100MB). It gives a good impression of what Gigapixel does with an already very detailed and sharp original.

BTW, what is the text on the left bench in front of the church (especially last word?).