xPan enlargement limits

[C R Maclauchlan]

I am confused about theoretical size limits to xPan images. A general rule of thumb I used with traditional prints was a 10x enlargement. I believe I deduced that by converting my main lens 60 lines/mm resolution into a desired 6 lines/mm in the print. At any rate the math was easy.

Now I am printing digitally. This brings a raft of other calculations (like upsizing software) I am sure but I have the ability to print beyond my standard 10x, in fact I could theoretically print 20x.

Does anyone have any info on resolving capability of the standard 45mm lens...or any clue as to how uprezing software impacts this issue?
:bang:

 

[Svitantti]

Print size is a question of viewing distance anyway. Theory is theory, use your eyes.

Scanning, you will probably lose some of the detail. Also the grain will grow, especially if you scan with a flatbed.

Isn't grain the first thing to limit the print sizes, not really the resolving capability of a lense?

 

[pagpow]

I'd like to enlarge, no pun intended, on CR's question. I've just returned from a trip where I took my Xpan for a particular photo. Mission accomplished. Now I'd like to enlarge that to a print to hang as decoration and be seen from 6 to 8 feet away, and farther.

I've been looking at the lit and notice conflicting claims re enlargement maxima and dpi minima. I'd be aiming at something like 16x, well outside what I normally do with 35mm. What's your experience? Possible? better thru optical printing or scan and print? Minimum dpi?

I've seen similar work hanging in custom labs and printed below 200 dpi (don't know original Mpixel count); would like to avoid a high printing cost for something that is impossible. Thoughts?

Shot on Fuji Sensia 400.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I've seen 6ft by 4ft prints that I think came from 1960s 35mm - but they may just have come from 6 by 9. A big issue is viewing distance - basically if you're further away you don't see the lack of fine detail in the print and the grain is less noticeable. I've got some inkjet 18 by 12 inch prints from FP4 that are grainy but OK to hold in the hand.

If you can get the film scanned at 4000dpi then you could print or get printed a small crop to see if it looked OK at the intended viewing distance.

Mike

 

[robertdfeinman]

The limiting factor with scanned film seems to be the resolution of the scanner. With my Minolta 5400 I can print out at 300 dpi without any resampling which yields 18X. I've not used the Xpan, but other 35mm format cameras I've used will yield this.

On the other hand my Epson "4800" dpi scanner really resolves only about half of that. This is OK for 120 film, but inadequate (in my opinion) for 35mm. I haven't tried the latest generation of flatbed scanners which promise even higher resolution.

I have a couple of discussions on scanning on my web site, especially as concerns resolution and sharpening. Just follow the tips link on my home page.

 

[Parkes Owen]

If you want to print large you should really get your image drum scanned at a pro lab, tell them how big you want the print to be and let them scan it to an appropriate file size. I`ve got a couple of xpan pics printed 48 inches long and they are perfect at any viewing distance, it`s well worth the money. 🙂

 

[stuken]

I had a friend in school print up a shot from an Xpan that was 30 inches tall by 72 inches long. It looked fantastic.

 

[Ali Riza Kutlu]

Michael von Graffenried has some good samples of Xpan prints on his website, which is www.mvgphoto.com

You need to spend a bit time on videos and links through his website. Some of his works really really inspired me...