 Dave |
untitled I'm a sportswriter that takes his own pics. I'm about to branch out with another photog into team/action and portrait work. I'm being talked into a canon D30 (have the lenses) but never have had opp to use digital. I have read the reviews that are available on the D30 and they seem very positive. Whats your view, ability of camera to provide enough resolution for 11x14 print (my calculations seem to say not enough). Would I be better off with the Fuji. Thanks Dave
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kris Haskins |
Hi Dave, You might try looking at Kodak's DCS series, specifically the 520 and 560 (they each use a canon eos body). The 560 has a 6Mp CCD, and claims that it will make 'beautiful' prints at 16x20". I've never used one, so I don't know firsthand. I just drool at the catalogs :). One thing to consider when choosing your digital camera: As you get larger CCDs it generally takes longer to save the image. Check the burst rates and depths, some cameras will allow you to take a lot more pictures before it has to save them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Dave, Calculate at least 300dpi for a dye sublimation printer. For an 11x14 print that's 3300x4200 pixels. Based on the use of a considerably lesser digital camera at work and high resolution digital scans of film, I'd want twice that for post production processing of the digital image before printing it (6600x8400). Images viewed or printed at the original size just don't look as good unless they're reduced to about half size and sharpened with an "unsharp mask." Note: I'm pretty finicky about what comes out of a digital when I know what slow medium format film can do in a print. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Hermann Graf |
Dave: With 35 mm film and a lens with good resolution, let's say 80 dots per mm, you will have a total of 24*80*36*80 = 5,529,600 pixels. Therefore, only a digital with 6 Megapixels will appr. yield the same resolution (not to speak of medium format film).
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Hermann, Maybe I've got this wrong, but the resolving power of optics as measured in lpmm would actually need to be double that if you're thinking about adjacent pixels with sufficient contrast between them to discern a difference. The lines have discernable spaces between them. That would place an excellent lens with 60 to 100 lpmm into 120 to 200 lines _and_ spaces resulting in about 4 times what you mention in total pixels for defining an area. BTW, 11x14 (or 11x17) is about as hard as I dare push 35mm format film. Anything bigger really needs medium format to retain sharpness at closer viewing distances. The debatable part is intended viewing distance and acuity of the "average" human eye to detect differences in real life large prints. At the edge of human acuity the differences are subtle and most would describe it as a different "look" or appearance versus being able to articulate why. Some films (e.g. Kodachrome) have greater "edge sharpness" and most films have graceful degradation when grain starts to show. This is more problematic and typically harsher with digitals when the pixels start to show. I am bothered a little when I read claims of being able to make prints from digital cameras at 16x20 (and larger) that rival film prints. There's usually little or no explanation about exactly what's being compared on the film end: optics (resolving power and contrast), film(s) used, printing methods, and viewing distance assumptions. Bottom line for Dave might be to try some experiments if possible and see if it suffices for his application of the large prints. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kris Haskins |
I have to agree with John about the harshness of pixels. I had a negative scanned at shutterfly, and I had them print a 5x7 of a cropped region. Unless the print was viewed at more than 2 feet you could tell that it was a digital print, and the 'grain' was not pleasant. P.S. I only quote the 16x20 size from kodak's website, I've never seen any output from these cameras.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Dave |
Kris, John and the rest, Thanks for the info. My plan was to offer "instant" day of the event action photos. I've been doing this via 35mm and 1 hr photo stores which has been fairly successful. Trying to capture that other market and when a 1 hr shop is unavailable has been the big question mark. We have been looking at a digital photo printer which puts out excellent quality photos up to 11x17 that we can transport to the event. But as they say in the computer biz, garbage in, garbage out, and that's been my concern. My partner's goal was to be able to take the equipment to a wedding and capture the impulse buyer by providing instant family portraits and the like. Also, there's no greater marketing tool that displaying a large portrait of the first kiss at the entrance to the reception hall as the guests walk in. As I said, quality is the issue. Dave
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kris Haskins |
I'm not sure if I should post this here, or start a new topic, but since we are talking about making big digital prints I think it fits. Has anyone used Altamira's Genuine Fractals Photoshop plug-in? I have read some reviews which state that it is incredible at enlarging images without loosing quality. If anyone here has tried it, or is willing to, I would really like to hear about your experience with it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Hermann Graf |
John, of course you are right, but how to bridge the gap between lines per mm in traditional photography and pixels in digital? I thought, as an approximation, take one linepair (which delimits one white stripe) as one pixel. I came to this conclusion when I saw a print of a pic taken by a Nikon Coolpix with around 3.5 Megapixels: you still see the difference, not to mention the lack of closs. For me, digital is for those who want to save time and to manipulate excessively. Also, not to mention that taking shots with high resolution in digital costs you some time (and batteries), and high resolution printing is also not a quick affair.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Kris, I know you got it from Kodak's site. :-) Hermann, Dave (et alia), To get this level of resolution for digitals from film, one must use either a drum scan or have a Kodak Professional Photo CD made and use the highest resolution scan on it (the "consumer" one falls short by one resolution level). Note that this is _not_ the same as a Picture CD! By comparison, Kodak's highest resolution DCS 560, 660 and 760 (different bodies) are 3040 x 2008 and create 18 MB files. This is about 2/3 of what is required for a 300dpi 11x14 "dye sub" print and about the same as the "consumer" Photo CD's highest resolution. You might be able to push this to an 8x10 (at 250dpi). The 16x20 that Kodak claims is being printed at 125 dpi!! If you're still with me, now consider the _maximum_ acceptable circle of confusion diameter on 35mm film of 0.025mm. This is what defines the front and rear boundaries for depth of field (what will appear in focus on the print). It also represents what will just barely appear to be in focus at a standard viewing distance or farther, not close up or magnified! Work out the numbers and a 125dpi print print is the equivalent of an entire image on 35mm film having nothing any sharper than the maximum circle of confusion diameter. A print like this _will_ appear slightly soft compared to one done at 300dpi. In addition, DOF numbers are presumptive that only the boundary of the DOF will be this way, with some sharper and some softer, but _not_ the entire "in-focus" portion of the image! It's why I said Kodak stretches things with their claims. You should be able to extract an 8x10 or 8x12 from these horridly expensive DCS models that is indistinguishable from 35mm film prints, but IMO not an 11x14 or 11x17. Hope I've shed some additional light (pun intended) on your original question. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Hermann Graf |
John, thanks for the exhaustive explanation, but there is one question open: how many bytes are needed to encode one pixel? With CD's, we are speaking of MB's, but with cameras, with megapixels.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kris Haskins |
That depends on the color depth Hermann. A typical greyscale image has 8-bits per channel but only one channel, for a total of 1 byte per pixel. A standard RGB image also has 8 bits per channel with three channels, so 3 bytes per pixel. If your camera has more than a '24 bit color depth' then it will be larger.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
The Kodak high end DCS models I mentioned have 12 bits per channel for 36-bit color depth (4.5 bytes per pixel). However, both the Twain driver and the imaging software must be able to handle it. Some will handle no more than 24-bit (3 bytes per pixel); others will handle up to 16 bits per channel for 48-bit color depth (six bytes per pixel) which exceeds Kodak's DCS system. Back to Dave's original concept . . . The archival question also arises. How does the photographer archive the wedding photographs? Someone asking for a print months, sometimes years, later is not uncommon either. A CD-ROM won't hold that many of these huge high-res files, even if compressed some. You could rent some equipment, try some test shots, find out what it requires for file storage, measure how fast you can create a print, and evaluate the quality level you get. Parting shot: -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||