Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    669

    Re: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

    The reference to grass, coffee beans, etc. leads me to think that images may be tiled in the final output, so not necessarily a need to scan to produce a resolution capable of output of several feet across. Rather, produce an image and alter it such that when joined with itself is seamless. Then a final image of any size may be produce continuously.

  2. #22
    joseph
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill NC
    Posts
    1,401

    Re: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

    Sounds like a great idea-

    a small point-
    will you expect to be paying for the use of images,
    and on what basis might that be calculated?

    The whole industry has been hit badly by the explosion of interest in photography,
    and people will often accept the flattery of being selected for publication as payment in full-

    Obviously, as a business, you'll be interested in minimizing costs, and maximizing profits, and a photography is often viewed as a costless item...

    Apologies for rearing the ugly head of commercialism-

    j

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Morecambe
    Posts
    17

    Re: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

    Hi Jim, Thanks for your info, you are correct in what you say about taking the image and then join the image with itself. The problem with doing this with smaller images or tiles is when you tile, mirror, flip, seam it, call it what you want, if the image is too small, although seamless you will spot the patterns repeating in some kind of way. It will look more natural if we can start with a larger file/image and then start to tile images together.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Morecambe
    Posts
    17

    Re: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

    Hi Joseph, We will be paying for images, as of yet we have not worked out license agreements or deals for images, we will be putting agreements together over the next week or so. I fully understand your comments about the explosion of interest in photography, but I think the proof will be in the images, I can’t and people or some photographers can’t make images, dance, jump, sing, when shot. True pro’s can.

    See the new site soon at www.print2group.com

  5. #25
    joseph
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill NC
    Posts
    1,401

    Re: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

    I can't help but get the feeling that you may not need to print at some of the resolutions discussed-
    a print on the floor is maybe six feet away, and while I can see some of the members here dropping to their knees and fumbling for their loupe, for the most part, something like 72dpi might be sufficient for your market-

    Also, printing at that resolution might mean that tiling might never have to be an option-

    I've done prints up to 6 x 2.4m- wallcoverings in an office environment- and the big picture is probably more important than the finer details-

    In my opinion, of course- but also those of the client-

    j

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Morecambe
    Posts
    17

    Re: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

    Hi Joseph, You are correct in what you say. In some cases just for work flow images are turned down to 72 Dpi, and will be in the future. I need the option to offer the client if need be, because there will be times when a client starts to talk about clarity. So my idea was to start with the large file and then have the option to turn it up and down. Thanks for your input on this one.

    If you ever need a wallpaper printer in the future let me know. I can offer you some great rates and some fantastic textures.

    Regards
    Kristian

  7. #27
    joseph
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill NC
    Posts
    1,401

    Re: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

    Thanks Kristian-

    Just before Christmas, I was quite interested in printing directly onto glass-
    but it proved to be too problematic, involving transfers-
    Perhaps some research material for another patent for you?

    Unfortunately, I don't have the throughput at that sort of size-
    only 3 big ones last year-
    and with the media talking down the economy, (cart? horse?)
    they might be the last ones for a while...

    j

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    783

    Re: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

    As mentioned previously, before you get too caught up in file size, you should instead pursue the IQ you desire...

    There is some posters on this list that will mistakenly advise you 4x5 scanned film contains 200 - 320 MP of data.... the realists are in the 30 - 50 MP range, which supports basic imaging fundamentals. It's not unusual on these forums for numbers to be off by a factor of 10x. You may want to glance at this current thread if your interested in a better understanding of the "recorded Mega Pixels" subject...

    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=44797

    As for how to capture the images that end up on your Grand printer...... the first question I would ask is..... are the subjects static? If they are, you can simplify your life by using relatively low cost DSLR's and a decent rotating head... take MANY shots, then allow the power of PHotoshop to merge the montage into a seamless image. There is no way you can improve the IQ, and there is NO way you can get file sizes this small. You will have benefited greatly from digital technology.

    The other question as mentioned previously, what view distance for each wall / floor. This determines how much resolution the shot should contain. Then from there, if you really want to push it further, you can back track, at that distance, what the eye can resolve, and then offer any level of detail from 10% to 100%. Its not as complex as it sounds. A simple formula will answer the question for each application. Based on this, you will properly assess the capture method required for each application.

    If the subjects you want to capture are NOT static, than you are in a different league.... more complex, more expensive, lots of gear, etc. etc.

    Hope this helps you with your initial orientation ...

  9. #29
    David J. Heinrich
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    575

    Re: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

    bglick,

    I was just thinking of you when reading this thread...

    As from your previous pos, the maximum resolution a lens theoretically can resolve in lines per mm (lpmm) by averaging wavelengths is 1500/f-number. So, for common f-stops, the diffraction limits to resolution are:

    f/stop : max lens resolution : max lens/film resolution
    • f/2.8: 536 lpmm : 80 lpmm
    • f/3.5: 429 lpmm
    • f/4.0: 375 lpmm : 90 lpmm
    • f/4.5: 333 lpmm
    • f/5.6: 268 lpmm : 95 lpmm
    • f/6.5: 231 lpmm
    • f/7.7: 195 lpmm
    • f/8: 188 lpmm : 100 lpmm
    • f/9: 167 lpmm
    • f/11: 136 lpmm : 95 lpmm
    • f/16: 94 lpmm : 80 lpmm
    • f/22: 68 lpmm : 70 lpmm (should be 68 lpmm)
    • f/32: 47 lpmm
    • f/64: 23 lpmm

    Those are theoretical maximums, but no LF lens performs at 429 lp/mm at f/3.5. Also, Chris Perez quotes from his website the maximum film/lens combined resolutions at various f-stops. Bryan Guyer says that maximum film-resolution increases as f-stops are increased:

    >"However, film resolution has also been shown to vary appreciably with
    >aperture, and resolving power is always highest when the light source
    >area is minimized, to retard dispersion. This presents a troubled
    >dichotomy: Best lens resolution is achieved when shooting wide open, but
    >best film resolution is at ~ f22 (or smaller)!"

    I'm not sure I understand that, but he does quote the maximum lens/film combination as being 100 lpmm at f/8 (I quote these film/lens combination max's above).

    Best Lenses Wide Open

    Some of best lenses wide open, like the Xenotar 135/3.5 or 150/2.8 have been measured to get 20-30 lp/mm wide open at f/3.5 (I don't know about the Carl Zeiss ones); they've been measured at 60-70 lp/mm at f/8. Both of these are at center; outside of center, resolution drops to 10 wide open and 30 at f/8 for both lenses. The Kodak Ektar 203/7.7 has been measured at 67 lpmm average from 0-20 degrees from the axis, and 78 lpmm average from 0-10 degrees from the axis (calculated from the table at the bottom of this page).

    Wide open, and even at f/8, these lenses would most likely be doing portraiture work, where relative center is the most important. So, assuming human eyesight of 5 lpmm, maximum enlargements from 4x5 are as follows (for apertures f/11 and below, I assume it is used for portraiture or other isolation work, and that the middle part of the image is most important, thus discard edge-resolution; for the Xenotar 135/3.5 and Kodak 203/7.7, I assume full-use of the film from center to edge after f/11).

    • Schneider Xenotar 135/3.5 (~$400 - $800)
      • @ f/3.5: 20 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 4x (20" x 16" portraits) [5 megapixels]
      • @ f/8.0: 60 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 12x (60" x 48" portraits) [46 megapixels]
      • @ f/11: 40 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 8x (40" x 32" portraits) [20 megapixels]
      • @ f/16: 58 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 11.6x (58" x 46.4" portraits or landscapes) [43 megapixels]
      • @ f/22: 54 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 10.8x (54" x 43.2" portraits or landscapes) [38 megapixels]

    • Schneider Xenotar 150/2.8 (~$1500)
      • @ f/2.8: 30 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 6x (30" x 24" portraits) [11 megapixels]
      • @ f/8.0: 70 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 14x (70" x 56" portraits) [63 megapixels]
    • Kodak Ektar 203/7.7 (< $150)
      • @ f/7.7: 78 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 15.7x (78" x 63" portraits) [78 megapixel print]
      • @ f/11: 75 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 14.9x (75" x 60" portraits)* [72 megapixels]
      • @ f/16: 67 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 13.5x (67" x 54" portraits or landscapes) [58 megapixels]
      • @ f/22: 57 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 11.5x (57" x 46" portraits or landscapes) [42 megapixels]

    It seems like the Ektar 203/7.7 would be an excellent portrait lens if you can compose with f/7.7, and if that doesn't provide too much dof. Also an excellent "normal" lens. Likewise, the Xenotar 135/3.5 and 150/2.8 seems excellent for portraiture and landscape.

    * Measured aerial resolution for the Kodak Ektar 207/7.7 at f/11 was 103 averaged from 0 to 10 degrees from axis, as done by Larry and Linda Whatley; but 64 lpmm as done by Chris Perez (ctr + mdl).

    I have heard, but not seen any test results, some people say that the Kodak Aero-Ektar f/2.5 resolves hundreds of lp/mm wide open; but this is apparently at infinity focus, whereas at portraiture focus, it is much much softer (it didn't measure as sharp as the Xenotars). Maybe a good lens for astrophotography? (if you can tolerate the color).

    Nikon Nikkor-SW 90/4.5 or 90/8

    I assume these lenses effectively have the same optical performance (but data is from the 90/8):

    • @ f/11: 80 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 16x (80" x 64" portraits) [83 megapixels]
    • @ f/11: 73 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 14.6x (73" x 19" portraits or landscapes) [69 megapixels]
    • @ f/16: 65 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 13x (65" x 52" portraits or landscapes) [55 megapixels]
    • @ f/22: 56 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 11.2x (56" x 45" portraits or landscapes) [40 megapixels]

    Maybe a good environmental portraiture lens, but of course it's designed with landscape photography in mind, for which it is perfect.

    Diffraction Limits at f/32 and f/64

    Assuming all of the above lenses are diffraction limited at f/32 and f/64 (this is reasonable as the Kodak Ektar 203/7.7 pulls in 46 lpmm at f/32, just under the 47 lpmm diffraction limit), the maximum print size will be:

    • @ f/32: 47 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 9.4x (47" x 38" portraits or landscapes) [29 megapixels]
    • @ f/64: 23 lpmm / 5 lpmm = 4.7x (23" x 19" portraits or landscapes) [7 megapixels]

    By contrast, a Phase One P45 39-megapixel P45 back is 7216 x 5412 pixels. That corresponds to a 57" x 43" print at 5 lpmm. Of course, this is a favourable estimate, as it assumes any lens on the P45, no matter the f-stop, will actually resolve the full 39 megapixels. But the above estimates of maximum print sizes for LF were also favourable, as they didn't account for the film part of the 1/R equation.

    But yea, all of that kind of pretty much confirms what you said. The equivalent megapixels of a 4x5 range from 5 to 83 megapixels. If the numbers for the fast Xenotars wide open are representative of most Xenotar 135/3.5 and 150/2.8 samples, then if you need to shoot portraiture in low-light situations and can't have longer exposures, then you're probably better off with a DSLR (like my E3 + 58/1.2)...unless you want that uber uber narrow DOF (58/1.2 on an Oly E3 is very narrow dof...135/3.5 on LF is equivalent to 18/0.47 on Olympus 4/3rds, or 36/0.93 on 35mm in dof).

    If you're doing portraiture where you can stop down a little bit, to f/7.7 (and compose there for the Kodak Ektar), f/8, or f/11, then large-format will deliver absolutely stunning resolution (if you really want that much detail) that will be superior to the best MF backs.

    Landscapes where you can get everything you want in focus via tilts at f/11 or f/16 will be superb; more likely is f/22 which will also be great; if, due to the 3-dimensionality of your picture, you need f/32 even with tilts, then large-format will be equivalent to 29 megapixels. If you need to stop down to f/64, you might as well use a DSLR; enormous hit.

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    As mentioned previously, before you get too caught up in file size, you should instead pursue the IQ you desire...

    There is some posters on this list that will mistakenly advise you 4x5 scanned film contains 200 - 320 MP of data.... the realists are in the 30 - 50 MP range, which supports basic imaging fundamentals. It's not unusual on these forums for numbers to be off by a factor of 10x. You may want to glance at this current thread if your interested in a better understanding of the "recorded Mega Pixels" subject...

  10. #30
    David J. Heinrich
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    575

    Re: Large Format Photography to Grand Format Printing

    bglick,

    Given that the maximum resolution one gets from 4x5 under optimal conditions is 80 megapixels (maybe 150 with black-and-white), how deep do you think one should scan the film? I.e., to get the full resolution out of it, how much does one have to over-scan it?

Similar Threads

  1. Large Format at PMA 08
    By Really Big Cameras in forum Business
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 28-Jan-2008, 08:32
  2. Large format lens
    By Ho Pei Jiun in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 6-Jan-2005, 08:44
  3. Choosing a large format film medium
    By Rory_3532 in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2003, 19:40
  4. large format article discussion
    By john g in forum On Photography
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 26-Jan-2001, 13:30
  5. Diffraction and Lens Flare
    By Paul Mongillo in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-Mar-2000, 13:57

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •