30D Print size limit

In your experience (not what the specs say), What is the largest print you have

been able to CONSISTANTLY make from a RAW file by the 30D with

out "uprezing"?

 

Thanks

 

Jason

Big. Really big, bigger than the 10D and bigger still than the D30... Asuming that the 30D should theoretically be the same as the 20D, the biggest I have made was 2m x 2m. No problem.

I will print non-croped 11 x 16.5, however I just printed a 30 x 18 5 shot panorama done in portrait mode, this is the reason I want a higher res camera like the 5D.

Hi Jason

 

"Without uprezzing" would be a simple mathematical calculation of your image size divided by the output dpi. Typially printes are made at 300dpi but 240 is sufficient. So 3504/240 is 14.6" on the longer side.

 

IMHO you can easily double this - 200% with uprezzing on a 30D file and even 300% is not bad at all.

without uprezzing.. consistently straight from raw.. well .. converted as jpeg... as big as I like.. you should have something in your question that specifies how resolute or sharp you may want it or viewing distance.. etc.

I have a number of clients who are very happy with 20x30" prints from my 20D. They're on matte paper, and if you look *really* closely you can see they're a bit soft, but at normal viewing distances they look great.

We routinely print 20 * 30 and 24 * 36. Upclose you can see a bit of softness starting to appear, but from normal viewing distances they're fine - absolutely fine.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

The largest that I have printed is 12X18 on 13X19 paper. I resize using Genuine Fractiles 5.0.3 in PS CS3. I am sure 20X30 resized in GF would be stunning. I have resized using GF to 12X16 using JPEG files from my wife's 6.0 MP Canon SD 700 IS on matte paper with stunning results.

Depends entirely on viewing distance.

 

Think about billboards.

Yes, billboard. Or the side of a transport truck.

<p>

It's all about viewing distance.

I remember getting the D30 when it came out, bill boards were printed from its files as some printers are less than 5dpi. I have no problems with 12x18 size and 20x30 works fine using S-Spline tech. Usually large prints are on matt or canvas and framed so are fine viewed normally on a wall. never saw anyone checkin with a magnifier. I`ve heard that some converters upres during conversion anyone do that

and see any difference?

BTW RAW converter I meant to say could be ACR.

Lets say, a viewing distance of arms length.

You can't go wrong with a 4 by 6 borderless snappy.

Ah Doug beat me to it :) Jason everyone has a different length arm, what one is happy with others would not. Try cropping 6x4`s out of various enlargements to see how far you can go before you start to dislike the results. 6x4`s are chear to print.

 

HTH

 

cheers

This all goes to show that unless one is interested in printing pin shaprt billboards, then they are suckers if they believe that an extra million pixels will give them much better images. Pixel count is a marketting ploy to convince people they must have the latest camera.

Arms length, you can do a 20x30 from any DSLR made in the past 5 years and it will look

as good as anything you could make from 35mm and even medium format. The secret is

that digital cameras have much better acutence than film, and continuous tone areas lack

the chunky grain that film has when enlarged to such a degree.

 

Try it side by side, and see for yourself. A side bonus is that a 20x30 from a film neg /

chrome will cost you a buttload of money, but a 20x30 from a digital file on a Lightjet is

$20.

Without resampling, it depends on the number of ppi.

 

At the standard 300ppi that most labs ask for for inkjet and chromogenic lightjet prints, the 20D will give you a 7.787 by 11.68 inch print without resampling. At 1 ppi, the 20D give you a 2336 by 3504 inch print.

 

Each printer has an optimum dpi. Even if a printer can print up to 300 dpi, it often looks better at a slightly lower number, e.g. 240, 256, etc. Each one is different. You have to do tests with your particular printer to figure out exactly what dpi gives you the best image quality. On the printer I most commonly use, usually just choose a standard image size for a particular camera or cameras, and let the ppi fall where they fall, unless it is just low, at which point I choose a smaller image size. Unsampled 10D files at my standard 8x12 size end up being 256 ppi and they look OK. Not as good as an RA print from similarly rated film, but OK. 20D files at the same size end up being 292 ppi, and look better, although still not as good as similarly rated film and RA print. Files from my 1D Mk. I end up being 206 ppi, so I print them at a the smaller size of 6x9 instead, and I end up with 274.667 ppi. I then change this to 275 and end up with a 5.993 by 8.96 inch print. The prints from the 1D are by far my favorite. For the subject matter I shoot with that camera, I think the smaller size works perfectly, and 275 dpi also appears to be around the printer's sweet spot.

 

Keith

It's not all about what resolution you print at, but what kind of resolution the human eye

can see at typical viewing distances for each print. You neglected to say what the viewing

distances are for your prints, Keith. Do you look at them from an inch away? A foot? 18"?

Because with each increase in viewing distance you need less resolution on the page, and

the print will maintain the same visual sharpness at each range increase.

 

Also, a continuous tone image (from a lightjet) needs a lot less resolution than an inkjet or

other halftone process in order to have the same detail per area.

 

Most viewers, in my experience, can not appreciate anything more than 4lpmm on the

print. Eagle eyed people, or photographers who view 20x30 inch prints at nose length,

may need 7-8lpmm.

 

Ctein's book Post Exposure will help out with understanding prints tremendously. 300dpi

is total overkill unless you are viewing at nose length. 200dpi is about the limit of vision

for a perfectly acute eye, at an 18" distance.