RDKirk wrote:
I wouldn't call it "pixel peeping," but for sure unless physically restrained, viewing audiences will get as close to a photograph as possible--up to reading distance--regardless of the size of the image.
"Rules" about viewing distance and image sizes are nice to talk about, but if you tell a gallery goer that he's required to stand X-distance from a picture, he's likely to say, "Rules? I don' need no steenkin' rules!"
Which is why landscape photographers still use the largest formats they can afford. Landscapes--because of the fact that audiences get as close as possible and expect to see more and more detail unfold as they move closer--have practically infinite resolution requirements. You can't get "too sharp" for a landscape.
Fortunately, portraits do not. People expect facial hair to be resolved in a portrait (when the face is enlarged enough for them to expect to see it--about 2-3 inches tall and greater), and that's about as much detail as they care to see in a portrait at any distance.
Even more fortunately, hair is easy to upsample--it's just dark lines. If the original image resolves the facial hair, it can be upsampled successfully to nearly any size and audiences will be perfectly happy with it. No, they won't see skin flakes and hair mites...but they didn't want to....Show more →
So I am laughing a bit, because from where did you get this Gigasize images then?
R.H. Johnson wrote:
Mel Gross. how does the ipf canon large format printers fit into this scene? they have a native 600dpi resolution and can print unconverted 16 bit RAW file(s). i do not have a good understanding of dpi vs. print size. i just set the thing @ 600dpi and print every thing that way. if there is an advantage to lowering the dpi to improve print quality my ears are open.
Glad you asked! I have an ipf5100 here at home, and I always print using 16 bits and 600 dpi.
You don't improve print quality by going down in resolution. You improve it by going up.
If a printer has enough grey scale to do so, then the higher the dpi, the better the micro contrast and the better the ramps. That leads to smoother images. When printers have a lot of inks, as modern models do, the color gamut is large. You might as well take advantage of that by printing in a high quality mode.
Smetimes, the difference will be pretty small, sometimes large.
One concept of printing, and that involves all printing with ink, is to have as much ink on the paper as the paper will allow, given the image needs in areas such as high saturation, and blacks.
Quality printing involves more than resolution and bit depth though. You must have a good quality graphics monitor, which must be calibrated with a good device. Your printer must be also calibrated. Sometimes the canned profiles are great, and sometimes not. The ones Canon supplies have been pretty good, and my attempts to make better ones has not found too much improvement generally.
My 5D makes a great print, but even with careful rezzing up, using various programs, simply doesn't look as sharp as a 1Ds mkII that I've used. I expect the mkII to fare much better in the larger print sizes.
Printing from the higher rez Leaf backs I test with a colleague for Leaf, have lead to stunning results. I'm looking forward to the 60 MP back.
headroom wrote:
So I am laughing a bit, because from where did you get this Gigasize images then?
While I can't speak for RD (and you don't need Gb sized images for this), We received plenty of images in the multiple hundred MB size. Four by eight foot prints were not everyday affairs, but they were pretty common.
I know of more than a few photographers who stitch several vertical images together for 100 MB, and larger, final images. This is becoming more normal as time goes on.
With large printers being affordable to pro's these days, they see that in order to take proper advantage of it they need either hi rez medium format, or stitched 35mm FF files. Few people are willing to go the view camera route with a Better Light back, too clumsy. Though, most view camera manufacturers are now beginning to make views designed specifically for medium format backs. While they aren't cheap, they are fairly small.
No doubt, we'll see 80, then even 100 MB medium format backs, as the sensors have been getting larger, and these shooters aren't interested in super ISO numbers anyway.
I'd love to see a 5D mkxxx someday with a 35 MB sensor—if they can keep the IQ high, which I have no doubt they will be able to do.
bobbytan wrote:
Speaking of stitched photos, here's a stitched shot of Zabriskie Point made with a 5D. This shot would be so much better detail-wise with a 21MP 5D II.
thank you Mel. i have the same combo ipf5000 and a 5D as well. I eagerly wait for the 5D MKII. i hope that the noise pattern is on par with the 5D. my motto "Shoot RAW print Large".
Mel Gross wrote:
That's a theory that only works with billboards that are too far away to move closer to.
In reality, most people do pixel peep.
i agree
i've always found those you only need so and so to print and so and so res for TV viewing too be awfully conservative.
people like landscape photos (and many others) to hold from more than 10' away and I surely can tell 1080p from 720p at far beyond the so-called waste of money TV size and viewing distance.
photogenix wrote:
Canon Australia were expected to release pricing on 1st November, but alas, still no pricing. I'm also wondering if they've been awaiting Canon's latest profit announcement (now released) before setting an RRP (MSRP) that will see them through the next few months of turbulence in the markets. Getting much closer to the end of November date we've been given, makes me wonder if they'll sort it all out in time.
Well, here in Canada, one major camera store has already increased the list price from $2799 to $3099. The other big chain has not yet changed price but I would expect any time soon. I ordered mine from a small store and they jsut told me yesterday that Canon has just confirmed the price and I have to pay $280 more or I can get my deposits back. No words on when they will ship yet.
bobbytan wrote:
Speaking of stitched photos, here's a stitched shot of Zabriskie Point made with a 5D. This shot would be so much better detail-wise with a 21MP 5D II. There is a 25% increase in resolution in the tests that I have seen so I think you are being a bit optimistic with statements like 'so much better detai-wise" - what would increase detail would be to shoot with a longer focal length lens and do more stitching and it will cost you nothing
shirozina wrote:
There is a 25% increase in resolution in the tests that I have seen so I think you are being a bit optimistic with statements like 'so much better detai-wise" - what would increase detail would be to shoot with a longer focal length lens and do more stitching and it will cost you nothing
Unfortunately, changing to a longer lens was/is not an option (shot was taken with a 24-70L) .... but changing to a higher resolution camera is, and will definitely show more detail. The 1Ds III and 5D II are ideal DSLRs for landscape work for this reason.
shirozina wrote:
There is a 25% increase in resolution in the tests that I have seen so I think you are being a bit optimistic with statements like 'so much better detai-wise" - what would increase detail would be to shoot with a longer focal length lens and do more stitching and it will cost you nothing
Resolution is more like a 30% increase.
But ,that's a lot, visually. In going from my 5D to a friends 1Ds mkIII, in a 17" x 25.5" print, I can EASILY see the difference. EASILY!!!
The difference in prints that have fine detail, or, especially texture, the difference is more than satisfying. With the 5D, the texture looks odd. Sort of sharp (because you have to locally over sharpen), but not quite right. It's really hard to describe without using words that won't mean much to other people. But the images from the 1Ds mkIII do look sharp in a way that looks more "real", with less sharpening, and using a smaller radius, which makes a big difference. In fact, I have a number of sharpening programs that I like to play with. All are about the same in final quality despite what the companies say, in skilled hands.
No matter how you do it, the 21 MP images look far sharper than do the 12.8 MP images. You don't have to pixel peep to see it.
I don't post them, because I have always believed that how they look on a monitor is irrelevant. It's how they look properly printed that matters.
The difference in prints that have fine detail, or, especially texture, the difference is more than satisfying. With the 5D, the texture looks odd. Sort of sharp (because you have to locally over sharpen), but not quite right. It's really hard to describe without using words that won't mean much to other people. But the images from the 1Ds mkIII do look sharp in a way that looks more "real", with less sharpening, and using a smaller radius, which makes a big difference.
That's because there is actually more "micro" detail that can be sharpened at a smaller radius. Yes, it does make a difference in how natural the smaller details look because you don't have to use as much unsharp mask to make them look sharp.
Canon Canada has just cancelled all purchase orders for the new 5D and all customers that had put money down on the camera are going to have to pay the jacked up price with an increase of $300. I am going to try to cancel my order and get my money back. This is price gouging by Canon because they know how hot this product is. I was told what Canon is doing by a Canon dealer after I saw the new price on their website.....
Canon Australia still haven't released pricing here and the they originally planned it to be in the hands of retailers/consumers by the end of November (presumably 2008!). Perhaps Ted's very preemptive price (still on their website) of $4300 will be close to the mark - it was dissed as little as 6 weeks ago as being quite inflated but a lot has happened then. Anyhow I am starting to wonder, now this is supposed to be 3 weeks away in theory, still without a pricetag, whether Australia will receive any in the one-and-only 2008 shipment at all.
RDKirk wrote:
That's because there is actually more "micro" detail that can be sharpened at a smaller radius. Yes, it does make a difference in how natural the smaller details look because you don't have to use as much unsharp mask to make them look sharp.
Yes. When you look at an adobe wall, a really good example of "hard" texture that doesn't need excessive contrast to look sharp, lower resolution cameras, and the need to over sharpen to bring that texture back, give it that over contrasty textured look, which while sort of sharp looking, doesn't look like a real adobe wall. A file that is higher rez to begin with will always look much better.
I find it difficult to see some people argue differently.
Doug Vann wrote:
Canon Canada has just cancelled all purchase orders for the new 5D and all customers that had put money down on the camera are going to have to pay the jacked up price with an increase of $300. I am going to try to cancel my order and get my money back. This is price gouging by Canon because they know how hot this product is. I was told what Canon is doing by a Canon dealer after I saw the new price on their website.....
Are you SURE Canon has done this? It's not likely, unless they are changing the price around the world to account for currency moves, which are large right now. For example, the Pound, as of a couple of days ago, when I last looked, was about $1.25, way lower than it's been.
It's more likely that the distributers, and stores, are doing this, as they almost always do with a hot product that is in short supply, and blaming Canon.
Doug Vann wrote:
Canon Canada has just cancelled all purchase orders for the new 5D and all customers that had put money down on the camera are going to have to pay the jacked up price with an increase of $300. I am going to try to cancel my order and get my money back. This is price gouging by Canon because they know how hot this product is. I was told what Canon is doing by a Canon dealer after I saw the new price on their website.....
The Canadian dollar has plummeted recently vs. the Japanese Yen:
bobbytan wrote:
Unfortunately, changing to a longer lens was/is not an option (shot was taken with a 24-70L) .... but changing to a higher resolution camera is, and will definitely show more detail. The 1Ds III and 5D II are ideal DSLRs for landscape work for this reason.
You could use a 100mm, or a 135mm, or a 150mm... what's stopping you? It just means you'll be stitching more, which is a pain, but it will get you a lot more detail, and that's what you're after...
