Thanks for the info, Paul. I use QTR not the Epson driver, and so I'm not very familiar with the latter.
To the original poster, for prints less than 30", it's not hard to have a scan from 4x5 that'll give 720 dpi at output size. Today, digital storage is cheap and many computers can easily handle the big images. Why throw resolution away if you have it? Why use interpolation if you don't have to?
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Yeah, that's one approach, but it presumes that you either know ahead of time the largest print you'll ever make, or that you're fine with scanning the same neg again if the need comes up. Personally, I'd like to avoid rescanning as much as possible.Originally Posted by djdister
You're suggesting scanning for the biggest print you intend to make. This means either 1) you're positive you're not going to make a bigger one at some point, or 2) you don't mind rescanning.
Dan, why not explain yourself instead of being rude?
Your statement: "Optimum scanning resolution should be maximized for whatever you intend to do with the final image file. Its as simple as that."
could mean: A) Scan to retrieve the most resolution that your scanner is capable of, or B) scan so that your print couldn't be improved by different scanner settings at the sizes you intend to print at.
It looks like Paul interpreted what you said as B, whereas you intended A.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Rude posters get banned: briefly at first, then permanently when necessary.
Nope. I have a computer that can handle what I am doing. I like just doing it right the first time. Nothing takes that long anyway...
I will also add the concept of "archiving" the image using the scanner, doing the scan to as much of the original image as is technologically possible, as in drum scan. Then if something happens to the film you still have the scan.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
AFAIK the rendering limit for the epson drivers (at least in the old Windows systems and printers) is set by the 16 bit integer (32767). For example, if I try to print a 40"x40", then 32767/40 = 819, so the closest is 720dpi. If I try to print a 40"x60" then 32767/60 = 546, bringing the limit number to 360dpi, and so on. Pretty much any dimension over 100" and the rendering will be done at 180dpi.
The point is, no matter how big your original image is, Epson windows driver will only be able to handle a page with less than 32767 pixels per dimension.
There's a printing application for Windows I am sure many here are also using called Qimage. This app gets the most of the Epson driver and the interpolation algorithms are quite decent. Worth every penny.
That's interesting. Where did you find this information?
32,000 is still a hell of a lot of pixels. This would only of concern to someone printing murals from 8x10 or bigger.
Then why shoot large format at all? You could shoot 6x7 on a small VC or use tilt shift lenses on a DSLR?but in all honesty I have yet to see a single person examine my prints with a magnifying glass. It is subject matter and composition that makes the photo.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Search for Epson support, Article ID:3249
"What's the maximum image length allowed when printing a banner or long image on roll paper?"
...
When printing using an Epson large format printer and the standard Epson driver the length of the image cannot exceed 32767 pixels.
...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks