Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 03 Mar 2018 (Saturday) 10:33
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

[IMAGE ENLARGNET] How to get high detail image for large print

 
Albys
Hatchling
5 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2018
     
Mar 03, 2018 10:33 |  #1

Hi everyone, i was wonder if there is any way to take a photo/image like the one below (or a 20/24mpx@300dpi image) and ready it to be printed on a huge format, say 10x6 meters, without losing too many details (it would be looked at from 1/1.8 meters away).

Thanks


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,305 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2134
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Mar 03, 2018 11:00 |  #2

Welcome to POTN!
Printed 10x6 meters...

(it would be looked at from 1/1.8 meters away).

Why?


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Albys
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
5 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2018
     
Mar 03, 2018 16:14 |  #3

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18576607 (external link)
Welcome to POTN!

Thank you!

Printed 10x6 meters... Why?

Well... because!

I need it..




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,305 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2134
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Mar 03, 2018 16:37 |  #4

Good luck with that!


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,701 posts
Gallery: 526 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1478
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Mar 03, 2018 16:42 |  #5

There is no way that you will be able to get an image that is 10m wide, and viewable from less than two meters. At 10m on the long edge the 6000 pixels you get from a 24 MP image will give you 15.3 PPI. If it's being viewed from 1m you will still want to be printing at 300 PPI. This would require you to digitally enlarge the image by 19.65×. So for every existing image pixel in the original file you will need to create 19.65 new pixels from "nothing" to make a file that was large enough to print at 300 PPI and 10m long.

Notwithstanding this I don't know of any printing process that will allow you to print an image at that size, at a resolution of 300 PPI. You are talking about something the size of a billboard, and they are always designed to be viewed from a much further distance. An image of 10×6m would normally be expected to be viewed from a minimum distance of 12m or so, so you are trying to get ten times closer than would be expected.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,541 posts
Likes: 286
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
Post edited 3 months ago by agedbriar.
     
Mar 03, 2018 17:27 |  #6

For the specs you posted is hard to give a sensible advice, as it is a far from normal viewing situation.

If I were in your position, I'd take a 1/20th crop (linear) of a critical part of the image and do a few A3 prints from it, each after a different resize amount, to see which looks best from that viewing distance. It's about the balance between pixellation vs the introduction of a multitude of invented pixels.

Of course, a lot will depend on resize quality (algorithm used).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,948 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2760
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited 3 months ago by Tom Reichner.
     
Mar 03, 2018 17:54 |  #7

.
I have been in two National Wildlife Refuge visitor centers where they have a photo printed at huge sizes similar to that which the OP is asking about. . In each situation, the image is routinely viewed from a distance of 5 to 20 feet, depending on where one stands in the room in which the photo is displayed.

Both images of which I speak are printed at floor-to-ceiling height, which is about 10 feet in each case. . The one image is 30 feet across (I know this because I paced it off quite intentionally) and the other is approximately 24 feet across.

The one that is 30 feet across looks pretty good, even from just 4 or 5 feet away.

The one that is approximately 24 feet across looks terrible because the digital file just didn't have enough resolution to capture fine detail throughout the image.

Neither of these images could have been done by stitching multiple images together, because of great movement in the subject matter - one is a flock of Greater White-fronted Geese in flight and the other is a meadow of wild grasses being blown by a stiff wind.

For those who think that there is no real-life situation where one would print a photo at this size, or that photos of this size are never viewed from very close distances, well, you are simply wrong. . There are times when people want to use a single photo in a mural-like fashion, and have it cover an entire wall from one end to the other, and run from floor to ceiling - and they sometimes want to do this in rooms that are relatively small.

There is no need whatsoever to print an image at 300 units per inch (whether they be dots or pixels). . Anywhere around 100 units per inch will be just fine for all but those with microscopic vision. . My personal acuity limits out at about 140 units per inch.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CisherPhotography
Member
84 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 345
Joined May 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
     
Mar 03, 2018 19:23 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #8

Hey Tom,

Did you snap selfie to share?

You have me intrigued.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
8,348 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 1648
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited 3 months ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
Mar 03, 2018 19:43 |  #9

Dye sub printers generally can't make use of more than 175 ppi

Most places will tell you that 125-150 ppi is plenty.

That still isn't going to get you anywhere close. And yeah viewing distance is a huge factor.

Enlarge the file to the size you want to print it, print a standard size print of one small area of the image, then pin it to a wall at head height. This will give you a very good idea of what you are dealing with.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,948 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2760
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 03, 2018 20:37 |  #10

CisherPhotography wrote in post #18576939 (external link)
Hey Tom,

Did you snap selfie to share?

You have me intrigued.

.
No, I didn't think of that.

But it's not really anything that unusual .... some museums I've been to also have mural-sized photos covering a wall.

Problem with taking selfies with my cell phone is that I have no idea how to share them over the internet, because I don't know how to get pictures from my cell phone onto my computer. . So all I can do is text them to people. . Besides, I'm not really a selfie guy - I'd much rather take a photo that doesn't have me in it. . Honestly, I've never understood the whole selfie thing.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,183 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2023
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 3 months ago by Wilt.
     
Mar 03, 2018 20:44 |  #11

A photographic image will never carry more detail than was originally captured within the camera sensor. If you take a full camera frame that had 2000 line pairs of detail across the smallest dimension and you enlarge it to A4 size, the 2000 lines of detail would fill the A4 size (21 cm) you would view the A4 print from about 30 cm. If you then enlarge the print 100 times larger and view it from 100 times the distance, there is still only 2,000 lines of detail in that huge print. You would never see any more detail if you walked closer to the print.
The image quality of the A4 print viewed from 30 cm is identical in quality compared to the print which is 100 times larger and viewed from 3000 cm, 100 times the first distance.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,948 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2760
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited 3 months ago by Tom Reichner. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 03, 2018 21:00 |  #12

Wilt wrote in post #18576984 (external link)
The image quality of the A4 print viewed from 30 cm is identical in quality compared to the print which is 100 times larger and viewed from 3000 cm, 100 times the first distance.

You are correct.

However, in real life the viewing distance DOES NOT increase as the size of the print increases. . That whole theory is a falsehood, and is actually quite ridiculous.

A medical clinic purchased upwards of 40 metal prints from me. . The smallest of them were 36" by 24", and the largest were 48" by 32".

Guess what? . They put most of them in tiny little patient rooms, most of which measure 7 feet by 10 feet. . So, despite the large size of the prints, because of the way a counter runs along the opposite wall, the very furthest one can view my photos from is 5 feet. . And when standing where you would normally stand in these rooms, the prints are about 3 feet from your eyeballs.

The above situation is not an anomaly; it is actually a very normal way to size and display prints.

Viewing distance IS NOT determined by print size - rather, it is determined by the layout of the space in which the prints are displayed. . Many people like nice big prints that pretty much fill up the wall that they are displayed on, despite the fact that the room itself may be quite small.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,183 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2023
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 3 months ago by Wilt. (5 edits in all)
     
Mar 03, 2018 21:40 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #13

I do not disagree in the least, Tom.

  • My point about viewing distance proportional the print size holds QUALITY.
  • And your point, that viewing distance is not proportional to print size


...both are equally true.

When the viewing distance is not proportional in growth to the print size, then we have the issue raised in the OP

  • ...there is NO GROWTH of DETAIL.
  • There can be an increase of pixel count so as to make the jagged stair-stepped aliasing of any lines not perfectly aligned to horizontal or vertical axes less apparent even when up close,


but WITH NO INCREASE in 'detail'.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,411 posts
Likes: 171
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
Post edited 3 months ago by tzalman. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 04, 2018 02:09 |  #14

Albys wrote in post #18576584 (external link)
Hi everyone, i was wonder if there is any way to take a photo/image like the one below (or a 20/24mpx@300dpi image) and ready it to be printed on a huge format, say 10x6 meters, without losing too many details (it would be looked at from 1/1.8 meters away).

With a budget for printing and putting up a photo-mural this size (6+ m. ceiling means hotel or institutional building lobby? And a sore neck when viewed from 1.8 m.) couldn't you rent a Phase One IQ 180 (80 Mpx, 10,328 x 7,760) and lens or at least a 5Ds?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18576995 (external link)
A medical clinic purchased upwards of 40 metal prints from me. . The smallest of them were 36" by 24", and the largest were 48" by 32".

Guess what? . They put most of them in tiny little patient rooms, most of which measure 7 feet by 10 feet. . So, despite the large size of the prints, because of the way a counter runs along the opposite wall, the very furthest one can view my photos from is 5 feet. . And when standing where you would normally stand in these rooms, the prints are about 3 feet from your eyeballs.

The above situation is not an anomaly; it is actually a very normal way to size and display prints.
.

But the OP is talking about a print that is 394 in. x 236 in., viewed from 3 to 5 feet. And if the reference to 24 Mpx is to a Canon camera this suggests an APS-C sensor so a 444 times enlargement from the optical image.


Gotta' comment tho, I would have expected that for a project this size an experienced, knowledgeable and well equipped pro would have gotten the job.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,528 posts
Likes: 467
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Post edited 3 months ago by kirkt. (4 edits in all)
     
Mar 05, 2018 10:36 |  #15

A couple of things to consider above and beyond the relationship between image size and viewing distance.

1) The image itself looks like a specimen of agate or similar geological specimen - but it can be viewed as an abstract pattern. In this case, detail is not so relevant, as it is the impression, pattern and color that creates the experience of viewing it, not recognizing someone's face in an image shot from 50,000 feet above the surface of the earth. You can try resizing to the desired output size and resolution using Photoshop or some specialty software and see how it looks.

2) If you actually shot this image for the purpose of creating a large, highly detailed print at the size you have called out here, then you might consider shooting the specimen again, with a microscope, and stitching a set of images together to form a large, highly-detailed composite. You would need to carefully index the stage of the microscope so that you could manipulate it to shoot rows and columns of images and then stitch the matrix of images together to form the full-sized final composite. You would need to figure out what optical zoom level (10x, 20x, etc.) you would require to get the final output size you need for the sensor size you are using to record the images you shoot through the microscope optics.

The file size of such an image would be staggering, so you need to consider your computer hardware and software's ability to handle the job. 10m is roughly 30 feet: 30 ft * 12 in/ft * 300 pixels/in = 108,000 pixels on the long edge... for the 10mx6m image at 300 pixels per inch, you are talking about a 7 GigaPixel image. This seems like serious overkill.

I created a 360 degree spherical panoramic image of a workshop years ago shooting with a 5DII and a 15mm fisheye lens. I stitched the images together and created a final image that was somewhere in the neighborhood of 13000-15000 pixels on the long edge (I cannot remember the exact amount). It was printed on a dye-sub printer (on fabric) for a trade show backdrop, 20 feet wide and 8 feet high. The printer told me the final resolution (in PPI) at print size that he required for the file- I used photoshop to enlarge the image not a trivial amount. The image printed perfectly fine, even at a viewing distance of a couple feet. But, I had a lot of pixels to work with from the beginning because I made a composite from multiple images.

good luck,

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,535 views & 7 likes for this thread
[IMAGE ENLARGNET] How to get high detail image for large print
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dufour41
906 guests, 393 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.