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

 
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,948 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2759
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 05, 2018 12:11 |  #16

tzalman wrote in post #18577103 (external link)
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.

.
But my post (the one you quoted) is not directed to the OP. . I was talking to Wilt.

It seems quite likely that the OP is not serious and just started this thread to mess with us and get us all serious over some 'pretend huge print' that he has no intention of ever making. . The fact that some folks here are answering his question in such great detail, with such well-developed explanations, is rather humorous.


.


"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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,185 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1294
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Mar 05, 2018 13:22 |  #17

kirkt wrote in post #18578124 (external link)
...
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.

...

Or use a macro lens. Given the subject, I would expect a lot more detail to be evident in the source file even at the resolution we see here. The crystaline structure in the geode/agate ought to be visible in more detail there for the usage that is being put forth. A muddy image at this resolution is going to have even less when printed/viewed huge.

Definitely looks like a strong candidate for a reshoot (assuming possible) before printing, to start with.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Albys
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
5 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2018
     
Mar 11, 2018 10:13 |  #18

Well thanks very much to all of you for the answers. I'm not a pro yes but they asked me if this was possible, so i'm just gathering information on the subject.

I tried to make a print of the photo on an A4 paper, then initially scanned it at 1200dpi. Of course the result was horrible, at 100% you can see the dots of the printer as large as your thumb. Now i'm gonna have the image printed in an A4 size with a dye sub printer and then scan it at 2400/4800 dpi and see what comes out (apart from the huge file, but that's not a problem really).

Of course i'm not gonna want to print at 300dpi, 120-180 should be acceptable.

Will post the results.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Albys
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
5 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2018
     
Mar 11, 2018 10:17 |  #19

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18578195 (external link)
.
But my post (the one you quoted) is not directed to the OP. . I was talking to Wilt.

It seems quite likely that the OP is not serious and just started this thread to mess with us and get us all serious over some 'pretend huge print' that he has no intention of ever making. . The fact that some folks here are answering his question in such great detail, with such well-developed explanations, is rather humorous.

.

This hurts so much man. I'm sad you feel this way, but i can understand why. I know this is a crazy request.

I'm actually gonna need to do this in a way or another, boss's request. (why he doesn't ask to a real professional on the subject is transcendental, don't bother trying to understand it)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,948 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2759
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 11, 2018 10:43 |  #20

Albys wrote in post #18582663 (external link)
This hurts so much man. I'm sad you feel this way, but i can understand why. I know this is a crazy request.

I'm actually gonna need to do this in a way or another, boss's request. (why he doesn't ask to a real professional on the subject is transcendental, don't bother trying to understand it)

I apologize.

But, please understand that we get a lot of people with new accounts that start these kind of threads, just to stir up the pot, and then they never come back to the forum again. . Your post had all the signs of being such a thread.

I think that when a moderator asked you what you needed this huge print for, and the only explanation you gave was, "because I need it" ...... well, that tends to give us suspicions that your question is not in earnest. . Why? . Because usually, when people have genuine questions and ask others for help, they give as many details as possible and don't try to keep the thing a big mystery.

It is difficult to truly help someone when they don't give us a lot of insight and details into the challenge that they are facing. . When such information is lacking, it comes across as being nothing more than a hypothetical question instead of a real-life dilemma.

As others have said, this photo looks like it should be repeatable, because it is a still life. . Why not get the rock out again and shoot it again, but this time with a proper macro lens? . You can shoot many many frames and then stitch them together (or have someone stitch them together for you).


.


"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
Albys
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
5 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2018
     
Mar 11, 2018 10:58 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #21

Yes i was just thinking of trying to stitch the images, the problem is that is not always possible.

I'm working with people in the resin floor field, and the need for big SINGLE images with good details has raisen, the repeatable (texture like) images are not always enough.
Imagine having to make an hotel hall with resin floor and the image i posted underneath it, you of course need an image with good enough details.

And there isn't always the possibility to take out the camera and shoot a new image with stitching for every client that comes in.
That's why i'm trying to find a sustainable system to buy photos on the various stock websites and adapte them to our needs.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
28,998 posts
Likes: 976
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 11, 2018 11:09 |  #22

Although what you are asking is nearly impossible given the reasons already covered if you are shooting new images consider renting a higher resolution camera, either medium format or perhaps a high density pixel camera like the 5Dr. It's still a big ask but the more data you start with the more you can do.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,948 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2759
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 11, 2018 11:21 |  #23

Albys wrote in post #18582709 (external link)
Yes i was just thinking of trying to stitch the images, the problem is that is not always possible.
I'm working with people in the resin floor field, and the need for big SINGLE images with good details has raisen, the repeatable (texture like) images are not always enough.
Imagine having to make an hotel hall with resin floor and the image i posted underneath it, you of course need an image with good enough details.
And there isn't always the possibility to take out the camera and shoot a new image with stitching for every client that comes in.
That's why i'm trying to find a sustainable system to buy photos on the various stock websites and adapte them to our needs.

.
Well, after 8 days have gone by, we finally know what this is all for. . That info would have been quite useful if it had been provided right at the onset of this thread. . You could have just told us this in the first place.

If you are trying to just use stock images and enlarge them to this huge of an extent, then I think that the only way you will ever get good results will be if you use images that do not have fine detail, or in which the detail is not important. . Abstract images come to mind as something that would work.

I sell stock images myself, and I normally send downsized versions of the images to the stock companies, because I don't want people to be able to enlarge the images to a great size when they are paying so little for the use of the image. . I think you will find that this may be the case with many of the stock images that you find.

You may do much better if you contact the photographers directly, and ask them about licensing the full resolution file for your needs. . Or better yet, hire the photographer to re-shoot the same subject matter with multiple images and to stitch them together for you. . There doesn't seem to be any valid reason for your boss to be cheap about this and try to get images for as little as possible. . Do it right and hire the photographers to shoot things for you.


.


"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
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
8,337 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 1646
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Mar 11, 2018 11:48 |  #24

Albys wrote in post #18582656 (external link)
Well thanks very much to all of you for the answers. I'm not a pro yes but they asked me if this was possible, so i'm just gathering information on the subject.

I tried to make a print of the photo on an A4 paper, then initially scanned it at 1200dpi. Of course the result was horrible, at 100% you can see the dots of the printer as large as your thumb. Now i'm gonna have the image printed in an A4 size with a dye sub printer and then scan it at 2400/4800 dpi and see what comes out (apart from the huge file, but that's not a problem really).

Of course i'm not gonna want to print at 300dpi, 120-180 should be acceptable.

Will post the results.

Wait, are you trying to create new detail by printing and scanning?


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
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 11, 2018 12:26 |  #25

Let us start with assumption that 24MPixel camera = 6000H x 4000V pixel sensor, 36mm x 24mm dimension. OP stated it ends up in a 10m x 6m tall image viewed from 1.8m away.

So the original 4000 pixels of detail is spread across 6m final image size, so each pixel of the image now covers 1.5mm at that size. If you pixel replicate the original image to expand it from 4000 pixels tall to now occupy 8000 pixels tall, the 'stair stepping' of all non-vertical/non-horizontal edges is half as apparent, with each individual pixel covering 0.75mm size, but with no greater 'detail' perceivable in the image. It is really easy to stand 1.8m away from a metric (millimeter) ruler to see how well your eye would perceived individual lines and spaces, where each was 1mm wide.

So what does 'higher pixel count' result in... 'more detail'? Read on...
I made a rudimentary image to show the results of using pixel replication to resize the total pixel count to higher numbers, but viewed with same final size (overall height):


  1. 1-pixel wide horizontal and vertical line pairs separated by 1 pixel white space, and also diagonal lines.
  2. I then resized image to 200%, but display it on screen so that the line lengths are per the original size vertically/horizontall​y... the width and spacing are two pixels (not one pixel)
  3. I then resized image to 400%, but display it on screen again so that the line lengths are per the original size vertically/horizontall​y... the width and spacing are four pixels (not one pixel)


IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/lowres%20100pc_zps7c3qgiwq.jpg

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/higher%20res%20200pc_zpsdzaka5kw.jpg

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/highest%20400pc_zpsroyv05kr.jpg


No 'more detail', lowered perception of 'stair stepping ' (also called 'aliasing'). Also notice that the horizontal and vertical lines do not necessarily appear to be any 'sharper' with higher pixel count for the final image!

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

1,513 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 peggyzander
811 guests, 317 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.