Interpolation & print size -- any experience?

[mobilexile]

In another thread there's been much mention of A4 being the largest size for quality R-D1 prints. I'm curious to know if anyone has played with interpolation via Capture One Pro (or other) and, if so, what the outer limits might be for quality prints at larger sizes. I've seen some amazing enlargements made from Nikon & Canon files with Capture One Pro -- results that boggle the mind.

 

[ampguy]

Just print the JPGs. We have a 20" x 30" print from Costco that came from a native JPG of about 6MP. It is sharper than anything I've ever seen in a gallery for this size, with less noise.

Those who feel you need 200-320pixels per inch for digital prints are misguided.

 

[yanidel]

I have printed A3 several times from the RD1 files without enlarging them. I would say the output is even better than A4.

 

[mobilexile]

Just print the JPGs. We have a 20" x 30" print from Costco that came from a native JPG of about 6MP. It is sharper than anything I've ever seen in a gallery for this size, with less noise.

Those who feel you need 200-320pixels per inch for digital prints are misguided.

It's not so much about resolution. Pixel quality, image quality and file integrity all play a role. Also, if one uses a RAW file the results will be better than a JPEG. There's simply more data in the file from which to draw. It's most pronounced in the color depth.

I've never tried prints from Costco, will have to give them a shot.

 

[mobilexile]

I have printed A3 several times from the RD1 files without enlarging them. I would say the output is even better than A4.

Thank you all for the replies.

Again, looks like I need to do some experimenting.

 

[mobilexile]

Thanks for the additional replies. Either of you ever use Capture One Pro for interpolation with R-D1 files?

 

[kuzano]

It's all bogus discussion

It's all bogus discussion

I find most posts about interpolation to be rather irrelevant, just as most discussions about combining geometry, algebra, calculus and pixels.

Yes, there are some functions to be aware of in sampling, resampling and sizing images for print. Then, there is the whole area of up-resolution software. I've found my way mostly by trial and error and proofing.

The math often says my pics won't go over 8X10, and occasionally 11X14, but I've been pleased with many 13X19 prints from my Epson 2200, and feel some of them would be OK even higher.

Reading all that theory is kind of like going to college for a degree. Not much in college teaches you about real life, but employers take great delight in hiring the sheepskin rather than the content.

 

[robertdfeinman]

Subject

Subject

A lot depends upon the subject matter. Pictures of people can generally be less detailed than those of subjects such as trees. After all Hollywood has spent 80 years on soft focus lenses and the like to make movie stars look more glamorous.

Whether a picture seems adequately "sharp" also depends upon the contrast, especially edge contrast. With digital editing tools this can be controlled very closely even within the same image. I frequently blur the sky by a slight amount to minimize grain while sharpening the foreground to pick up detail in rocks and leaves.

Viewing distance and even lighting can have an effect as well. I think you will just have to experiment and see what your own quality criteria are.

The rule of thumb for prints used to be pixel size of image divided by 300 would give print size (in inches) without interpolation. Some people use 240 instead, but many people break this rule nowadays and are still happy with the results.

 

[mobilexile]

I find most posts about interpolation to be rather irrelevant, just as most discussions about combining geometry, algebra, calculus and pixels.

Yes, there are some functions to be aware of in sampling, resampling and sizing images for print. Then, there is the whole area of up-resolution software. I've found my way mostly by trial and error and proofing.

The math often says my pics won't go over 8X10, and occasionally 11X14, but I've been pleased with many 13X19 prints from my Epson 2200, and feel some of them would be OK even higher.

Reading all that theory is kind of like going to college for a degree. Not much in college teaches you about real life, but employers take great delight in hiring the sheepskin rather than the content.

Thank you for the reply.

No doubt trial and error is king. That said there are instances in which interpolation is needed or desired.

In the commercial photography world Capture One Pro is the weapon of choice for many shooters and retouchers. Given the quality of that application I'm curious to learn about results and impressions by users.

 

[ampguy]

Do give Costco a try

Do give Costco a try

Try JPGs and RAW. The Raw quality will vary with what kind of tweaking and tools you used to convert the RAW to a file the printer can utilize (e.g. TIFF, JPG) and may surprise you in that the JPG out of camera may be better.

It's not so much about resolution. Pixel quality, image quality and file integrity all play a role. Also, if one uses a RAW file the results will be better than a JPEG. There's simply more data in the file from which to draw. It's most pronounced in the color depth.

I've never tried prints from Costco, will have to give them a shot.

 

[mobilexile]

Try JPGs and RAW. The Raw quality will vary with what kind of tweaking and tools you used to convert the RAW to a file the printer can utilize (e.g. TIFF, JPG) and may surprise you in that the JPG out of camera may be better.

I'm going to have to give that a shot. To date I've only shot RAW with my R-D1. Need to try some side-by-side comparisons. With other cameras it's been a given that the RAW files trump JPEG every time.

 

[nugat]

These days the standard print resolution is 300 dots per inch (dpi).
It rougly translates to 3000x2000 pixels transferred to A4 sheet one to one: pixels for dots.
It comes from the fact that the average human eye cannot discern details smaller than those 300 dots/inch viewed from the average reading distance of 25cm. If the viewing distance is bigger, the resolution can be safely lower. 3000x2000 pixels picture is detailed enough to be viewed from 2-3 feet (60-90cm) transferred to A3+ (13x19"). The page will still be printed at 300dpi, but 2-3 dots will represent one pixel.
NB. Life magazine printed Robert Capa's pictures of 1944 Normandy landing, which were blurred. They explained "the photographer was shaking".

 

[nksyoon]

I've printed R-D1 images to A3 size for an exhibition - I just upsized them with Photoshop's Image Size function using the Bicubic option, keeping the resolution at 300ppi. They were printed on Epson Enhanced Matte using an Epson 4800 printer - no issue with sharpness when the image itself was sharp.

 

[mobilexile]

CaptureOne Pro does a fantastic job with interpolation.

 

[nugat]

Uprezzing/interpolation just hides the pixel structure when a big print is looked upon from very close. It does not create information, it guesses it. This "reading between the lines" can be more or less accurate, depending on the algorithm. One has to decide each time if it atually helps, or creates more problems for a particular application.

 

[nugat]

I've printed R-D1 images to A3 size for an exhibition - I just upsized them with Photoshop's Image Size function using the Bicubic option, keeping the resolution at 300ppi. They were printed on Epson Enhanced Matte using an Epson 4800 printer - no issue with sharpness when the image itself was sharp.

Resolution is not "sharpness".
The former can be scientifically described, starting from the shape and size of cones and rods in the human eye's retina. Physiology dictates the eye resolution at 1 minute of arc.
(Two black lines separated by a white one before they blend into gray-"lp, line pairs". Contrast is another factor here).
1 arc minute at 25 cm (eye's close focusing distance) is 8 lp/mm.
That is 200lp/inch , or 400dpi: 200black dots separated by white spaces same size. For B&W print under ideal conditions (eg. contrast) this is the maximum resolution that could be used by a discerning eye.
For magazine color prints 300dpi is standard and absolutely sufficient, even if somebody chooses to examine their pages from 25cm (10 inches).
"Sharpness" is much more difficult and subjective notion, worthy a doctoral thesis.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I'd just play around a bit - you'll use some paper and ink, but will likely be surprised at how good big prints can look. The original file quality matters a lot. I have 30 by 20 prints from a Canon 5D that look excellent, generally printed on matte rag paper as it's more forgiving of loss of resolution but at a normal viewing distace there are no issues - and even going in close they work well if the subject matter supports it.

Suck it and see - only you ca njudge whether you're getting what you want/need in a print.

Mike

 

[mn4367]

I print on Hahnemühle RhotoRag and Harman Gloss Fb Al. The latter is a little less forgiving for the smallest details. But with prints on A4 there is absolutley nothing to complain, even at a viewing distance of 20 cm. I can print up to A3+ and this still works very well with the R-D1. I print directly from Lightroom which does a quite good scaling/upsizing job.

I'd give Benvista Photozoom Pro a try. It produces better results than classic image manipulation software like Photoshop or Lightroom. You can adjust several parameters depending on the content of your photo. I use it for my own A3+ prints and if I prepare a TIFF file for larger prints in a local print shop. It doesn't add more real detail (although astoningishly sometimes it seems to do so) but it helps to avoid pixel artifacts and other problems when you scale up your images.

That said, in general I think the files from the R-D1 are good enough to be printed at almost any size. Of course, if you look at an 24x36 inch R-D1 print from a near distance you will see that there isn't the same amount of detail as in the print from the latest Canon DSLR. But who does that? Some maybe. To me most other aspects of a photo (composition, color, contrast or whatever) are far more important. Unless big high resolution prints is a key concept of your photos the resolution of the R-D1 in most cases should be sufficient, especially for normal viewing distances (1.5 x image diagonal ?).

Some other words about this topic here.

Also, ask a non-pixelpeeper (read gallery visitor with interest in art, not pixels) if he is concerned about the resolution of photo XYZ. His/her answer could be interesting...

 

[Tuolumne]

I easily get 13x19 prints from my R-D1 (6 MP jpgs) on my Epson R1800. They look great. No sign of pixelation or deterioration whatsoever. I usually upres first with Genuine Fractals, just because I can.

/T