How big can you go???

P
Posted By
ps1
Oct 17, 2006
Views
273
Replies
7
Status
Closed
Am seriously thinking of going from film to digital, specifically the Canon 5D (can’t afford the 1DS MKII). The question I have though, is can I enlarge (interpolate/up rez) a 12 megapixel RAW file to around the 24 x 36 to 30 x 40 inch range — usually Lambda — and still have an acceptable print?

That is to say that currently I shoot 35mm transparencies (some medium format) & have them scanned at about 120 mb then printed. I just want to be sure that the above mentioned file will be equal to or better than the film version.

Anyone with experience with this?

TIA,

Geoff
Related Tags
big how

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

CS
Carl_Stawicki
Oct 17, 2006
Create a Photoshop document with the max pixel dimensions the camera has to offer. Then go to Image Size and play with the width/height without resampling. The resolution will drop as the w/h gets higher. Enter the largest dimensions you want and see how far the resolution drops. You need to decide what your lowest acceptable resolution is to decide how large an image can go without interpolating. Also remember the the bigger the print, the farther away the viewer is intended to be, so a high resolution may not be important — but that’s another judgment call.
B
Bernie
Oct 17, 2006
And remember, a Lambda’s native resolution is either 200 or 400 ppi and some image will go down to 100 ppi on it and still look quie good
PF
Peter_Figen
Oct 17, 2006
I’ve made really nice 24 X 36 inch prints from my 5D. The difference between a 5D and a 1DsMKII is very slight and you’ll only see it if you are using the best lenses at the sharpest apertures. In order to get the most out of a 5D file at those print sizes, you will need to shoot raw files and then process them either in CaptureOne, interpolating in PS afterword or in Raw Developer and interpolating at the time of processing. They are both about equal when used the way I described and both are considerably better than either ACR or DPP. Contrary to what Carl posts, you will definity see a benefit from interpolating up and then sharpening – and usually two round of sharpening at different radii and amounts are in order. If your image is one that benefits from Lab adjustments, then sharpening in Lab will usually be the best method.

Large prints on a Lambda can be made at 200 dpi, which helps your resolution problems. The papers used in them do suffer from a very limited gamut, but if you need high gloss or metallic, they can be very nice.

I’ve made numerous direct comparisons between Canon digital and several 35mm film types, and the digital – both the 5D and the 1DsMKII have far exceeded the film in sharpness and detail every time. I shot E100GX, Provia F, Velvia 50 and T-Max 100 and scanned them all on my Howtek HR8000 at 8000 ppi with the 3 micron aperture. All digital files were then rezzed to match the pixel dimensions of the hi-res scan – approx. 240 mb 8bit, and then carefully examined side by side on a Sony Artisan. The digital files had no grain, almost no noise and a much higher level of actual resolved detail, which, on large prints IS noticeable. The comparisons were made using the same lens – a Canon 200mm f/1.8 @ f4 or 5.6 – and swapping bodies, all with mirror lockup and remote release, mounted on a modified heavy duty Majestic tripod. A single autofocus point was used for focus.
RR
Reed_Reed
Oct 17, 2006
I agree with Peter,

Digital camera files enlarge better than the best I can do with drum scanners and 35 mm film. I can’t see any improvement beyond 4000 ppi scanning, but have compared very large prints from 4000 ppi Howtek scans, 8000 ppi Screen scans and lots and lots of DSLRs.

While these comparisons never utilized the same subject matter (they were never tests to begin with), printed DSLR files consistently look sharper, grain-free, smoother, with more dynamic range than printed transparency scans at very large size (24 x 36, 20 x 30). We don’t even bother to check which camera produced the digital files anymore as even 6 MP DSLRs are able to beat 35 mm film scans.

The quality of DSLR images is especially impressive under controlled conditions, as in a studio shot under electronic flash. When the exposure is perfect and the modeling is done right, DSLR shots are the best. We’ve gotten such files from the Fuji S3 that just seemed to hold together no matter how big they were printed. Studio shots from full frame Canons and the Nikon D200 and D2x also are beyond anything we can scan from 35 mm film, and even from a lot of medium format.
P
ps1
Oct 17, 2006
Thanks for the reponses.

Just ordered the 5D. FWIW, now is a good time to buy Canon as they’ve just come out with their "double rebates", (up to $600 off a 5D as well as discounts on lenses, flash etc).
Check it out here <https://www.web-rebates.com/canon/Main/Default.asp> under "Current Offers".

Digital camera files enlarge better than the best I can do with drum scanners and 35 mm film

Wow. I’m dating myself here, but I remember when digital first came out, I thought I’d never see it surpass film in my lifetime… The last time my wife & I took a trip I went to the local camera shop to get some slide film, the refrigerators were all but empty so I went to the other "pro" joint & took their last 6 rolls! That experience and the convenience of seeing the results now (with digital), wrestling with hand inspections at airports with freezer bags full of exposed film made the decision to go digital a no brainer.

Thanks again for help in the decision.

Geoff
DR
Donald_Reese
Oct 17, 2006
I am sure you will never look back,especially if you start shooting tripod mounted and combining multiple exposures of a scene. you can just do so much more once you learn the capabilities. stop over in the photography forum if you care to sometime.
PF
Peter_Figen
Oct 17, 2006
In some of the comparison testing I did, if I looked at the sharpest films with a very high powered loupe or microscope, the film actually did equal or better the digital, but no scanner, even at 8000 ppi could resolve that detail and no enlarging lens projecting onto paper could ever come close to printing it, so for all practical purposes, and in hard copy prints, the digital looks better.

There are some scenarios where film, even though lower resolution will look better, and those showed up photographing a standard resolution target where the digital rendition of the progressively smaller parallel lines was decidedly choppier than the film, which had analog smoothness. Probably the reason some folks still prefer vinyl over CD.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections