How to print large files?

[Pere Casals]

The bicubic is one of the oldest routines, but there are newer methods such as S-spline and lanzos.

Normally we will be downsizing from an LF scan to the printer, if not we should scan denser.

If we are talking about downsizing then you will see little difference bicubic vs S-spline, the important thing is that the algorithm is optimized for reductions, this is using "bicubic, optimal for reductions" (and not the other bicubic) at the bottom of the PS size dialog.


If we are to enlarge the image then you may notice S-spline vs bicubic benefit beyond 200% linear size increase.
You can judge here:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/inter...rpolation2.htm

[Luis-F-S]

I use an enlarger so don't have to worry about file size

[Johnny LaRue]

I use an enlarger so don't have to worry about file size

Another helpful gem; I'm sure happy there's an ignore button, I'm putting it to use, pronto!

[Luis-F-S]

Another helpful gem; I'm sure happy there's an ignore button, I'm putting it to use, pronto!

There's more than one way to skin a cat........You can ignore this one also. L

[Pere Casals]

I use an enlarger so don't have to worry about file size

I was in the digital side, but I'm going to the enlarger side. I still lack an LF enlarger, but 810 can be contacted. Now I think in scanners and printers as useful tools to print contrast masks in the Alan Ross way... digital is amazing for that ! http://phototechmag.com/selective-ma...onal-darkroom/

[interneg]

An X1 will deliver less than effective 2000 dpi for 4x5, as sensor has 8000 pixels and you have 4", so divide...

The X1/ X5 runs at 2040ppi for the 4x5 setting - it's covering 99.6mm width (the actual specified width of 4x5 film!) at 2040ppi vis-a-vis 25mm at the 8000ppi setting on the X5. The X1 omits the Hi-Res mode & adds 5x7 at 1600ppi. The optical system tests out in the 6900ppi range I recall - so the scanner lens is doing 135 lines/mm - & that means that at 2040ppi, it should be easily able to match the manufacturers' spec - and this has been borne out by most of the reputable testing.

Having been running a Canon Pro-2000 for the last few months, there's definitely a case (with the right substrate & a file of suitable quality) to go well over 300ppi when making smaller prints - while there are limits (probably somewhere over 400 & under 600), it does seem to make the prints look better in certain aspects - much like Ctein argued was the case with Epson printers. QTR/ Piezography folk seem to be able to go a little further still. Whether the end audience will actually notice/ care is a different question...

[Pere Casals]

Having been running a Canon Pro-2000 for the last few months, there's definitely a case (with the right substrate & a file of suitable quality) to go well over 300ppi when making smaller prints - while there are limits (probably somewhere over 400 & under 600), it does seem to make the prints look better in certain aspects - much like Ctein argued was the case with Epson printers. QTR/ Piezography folk seem to be able to go a little further still. Whether the end audience will actually notice/ care is a different question...

IMHO PPI from a Lambda or Lightjet can be more "effective" than from an inkjet. A Pixel from an inkjet is usually made from a cluster of dots, and that cluster can be more or less fuzzy, depending on the particular printer. While 300 PPI from a Lightjet may be "the perfection" an inkjet may need higher PPI to match the laser on silver job.

As we are talking about PPI (one PPI may include several dots "dpi") with continous tone, 150ppi are quasi 6 pixels per mm that can print 3 line pairs in a mm. IMHO if we have a very strong microcontrast area (with complete black and white) we may be able to notice and improvement at 300 ppi from 150ppi, but this is not the general case in photography, most real scenes are continous tone with much lower than 1:100 on print micrrocontrast from one pixel to the next, and in those conditions human vision is not as good to see the flaw.

Clearly it also may depend on the viewer, one can have 80% or 130% sight score, and a near sighted person may see the print closer... So I agree, not much improvement beyond 300ppi, it has to be a well sighted viewer and a print with particular lack of continous tone from one pixel to the next to see improvements beyond 300, or as you say beyond 400-500 from an inkjet.

Recently I made a test of 150 vs 300 ppi from an Epson P9000... I also showed the man managing the printer a 8x10 contact print with a 8x magnifier this is some 1500 ppi quality. He was amazed with what he saw with the magnifier , but in reality without the magnifier the 300ppi print was looking as sharp than contact print, IMHO perceived sharpness has strong factors other than resolving power... and digital process adds powerful sharpening tools...

The X1/ X5 runs at 2040ppi for the 4x5 setting - it's covering 99.6mm width (the actual specified width of 4x5 film!) at 2040ppi vis-a-vis 25mm at the 8000ppi setting on the X5. The X1 omits the Hi-Res mode & adds 5x7 at 1600ppi. The optical system tests out in the 6900ppi range I recall - so the scanner lens is doing 135 lines/mm - & that means that at 2040ppi, it should be easily able to match the manufacturers' spec - and this has been borne out by most of the reputable testing.

The optical system testing 6900ppi is when scanning 35mm film, but as zoom is applied to take 4" then resolving power "on film" of the lens will decrease dramatically in terms of effective on film ppi. The hardware 2040ppi of the X1 (for 4x5") may be resolving under 35 lppmm in USAF 1951 terms, perhaps 1800 effective ppi. Also an scanner resolving x lppmm will degradate the IQ of a media also resolving the same x lppmm.

What I suggest is that while the lens resolves 135 line pair per mm on film when taking 24mm (of 35mm film) it will resolve much less on film when zoomed out to take those 99.6mm of 45 sheets.


IMHO the X1/X5 is more intended for MF or 35mm, Hassy is in the MF business... for this reason even a cheapo V850 can (slightly) beat it with LF in resolving power terms. Still the amazing DMax capacity of X1/X5 may be much more important for some slide shots !!! So at the end the X1/X5 is great for 45 because few print or negatives may require more pixels.

Well, IMHO we can say that a true drum is a true drum, problem is that mounting task may not be worth for a particular job.

[Sweep]

"Well, IMHO we can say that a true drum is a true drum, problem is that mounting task may not be worth for a particular job"

But mounting does get easier and quicker, and the inclusion of dust and bubbles reduces, the more films you mount and the practice you get.
I have had my drum scanner for around 2 months and scan pretty much every 10x8 I take.
The first mount, which was a strip of three 6x7, took probably 3/4 of an hour and had bubbles, dust, tape on the image area, and was on and off the drum more than once before I got it anything like.
The 10x8s are harder to mount but I'm slowly improving my technique and getting cleaner mounts every time. I reckon I can get one mounted in about 15 to 20 minutes which I don't expect to reduce as long I improve the quality of the mount

[Pere Casals]

But mounting does get easier and quicker, and the inclusion of dust and bubbles reduces, the more films you mount and the practice you get...

Well, I don't have a drum, and you know what one has to pay for an 8x10 scan...

People that has a drum and a fatbed does 90% of the scans with the flatbed.

Sometimes the negative has less IQ than the flatbed is capable, not all shots are technically perfect. Sometimes the final output does not require effective 5000 dpi from a 8x10" sheet. And a lot of sometimes the negative is 1.8D only, making the PMT little difference...

In those conditions the important thing is Photoshop cooking. Of course there are jobs where a drum performs amazingly better, but only a share of the times, IMHO.

[Sweep]

My comment was only in reply to your post that the "mounting task may not be worth for a particular job" and you will notice that I did not extol the virtues of one system over another. Frankly I would have no idea what I was talking about!
I defer to your expertise on the merits of both drum and flatbed scanners.
I do thank you, however, for the time you have taken to draft your replies to this thread. It is really easy to fire questions into the forum but the difficulty is finding someone, like you and others, with the knowledge and inclination to draft a considered response.

...Sweep