Billboard sized image resolution

I've been asked to provide 'enormous' hi res images for shop fronts from my Nikon D850. Not what I do regularly, hence my need for help. I submitted jpg images of 300 dpi, long edge size 8256 pix which aren't big enough. They also want to use images for huge billboards in a shopping center.

 

Can someone enlighten me as to what I must do? I'm using Lightroom/Photoshop.

Many thanks.

You can always upsize that in like PhotoShop. If you look at them closely, most of those billboards are of fairly poor quality. However, people normally view them from a distance so that you don't need any extraordinary resolution.

Shun's exactly right. Consider the viewing distance and you'll be able to select an appropriate px density for the finished pieces. You might also talk to a large format printer to find out what kind of pixel densities they use for various formats. Two of my sons work for a large format printer (think enormous banners and vehicle wraps), and they tell me they don't need any special resolution to print those images. Again, coordinate with the printer and all should be OK. You should ask what kind of an interpolation algorithm they use for enlargements and how best to set up the source file so they can best apply those algorithms. It is unlikely you will be able to create a full-size image they can use, but the printer should be able to take a high-quality image from your D850 and enlarge it to meet the requirements. There's a good discussion of image re-sizing and interpolation HERE. Edited June 7, 2019 by DavidTriplett

I don't know about your other large prints but billboards don't require much. I won a photo contest once with a 8x10 inch print that was sized 300 pixels to the inch. I enclose a disc of the resolution of the 8x10 inch print. They made a billboard from that file.

If

'enormous' hi res images

are really your goal your only chance is to pick static subjects shoot them, whack your tripod, re-shoot (several times) and stack the results during PP. - No clue how such gets done exactly; I'd re-watch some Northrup YouTube videos about it, if I had to do it.

 

In all other cases I'd try to argue with a client over a letter / A4 sized "test strip" printed at the low resolution my camera puts out, placed in billboard' / whatever's viewing distance, if this is good enough.

 

Yes, average billboards sport damn huge screen dots / low res.

There are many ways to get super res images from a 'standard' FX camera sensor.

 

The D850 will get you the max single shot res.

 

After that, there various methods to increase that.

 

Multi-shot framing and stitch the bits is the most frequent.

I see that nowaday there are many of the electronic billboard. What is the best resolution on one of those? You wouldn't need more pixels than those billboard to print your billboard right.

I checked with my son at the large-format printer. He tells me they routinely use 72 dpi when they print billboard-sized items intended to be viewed from a distance (such as semi-trailer-sized vehicle wraps). At the D850's native resolution of 8280x5520 72 dpi translates (roughly) to almost 10 feet/3 meters wide. Using advanced interpolation you could easily go even larger and still maintain apparent resolution. Or, you can up the resolution for smaller/closer prints. In any case, working with a competent printer and with reasonable expectations, you should be able to provide the large format images your client needs.

Digital signage tends to be repurposed 1920x1080 TV panels - although there are exceptions where people have stacked a lot of adjacent screens.

 

If someone wants an "enormous" print and the full-size output of a D850 won't do, they're doing something wrong. Sure, you could do multi-shot super resolution, get another factor of two by some AI upscaling, maybe stitch with a tilt-shift... And you'll end up with a file too large for the printers to handle.

 

As David suggests, I suspect someone may have looked at your 300dpi images, calculated the 28" long edge, and worke worried unduly. I've certainly looked at lots of billboards well under 72dpi.

 

Keith (if you'll forgive the link to a Canon shooter) has a bit of a discussion here. He's got other stuff on his site about print workflow.

jmaphotography, One of the programs I own and use occasionally is ON1 Resize known in the past as "Genuine Fractals". The work around in Photo Shop used to be to enlarge in 10% increments using the Image > Image Size and choosing Bicubic Smoother sampling method. I have used that method in the past but I am not sure how good it is. Good hunting.

Depending on what you're shooting, you can also use a shift lens to take, say, 10 pics, each at the fully shifted position... and stitch.

 

I'm guessing you might get to 80MPix that way

 

Late Edit. Just saw Andrew G got there first with a shift lens...;)

... I submitted jpg images of 300 dpi, long edge size 8256 pix which aren't big enough. ...

Who told you they aren`t big enough?

Printshops run rip-software to bring images to needed size, so maybe there was someone with little knowledge between you and the printshop, if so, contact the printshop directly and ask what to do.

Digital signage tends to be repurposed 1920x1080 TV panels - although there are exceptions where people have stacked a lot of adjacent screens.

 

If someone wants an "enormous" print and the full-size output of a D850 won't do, they're doing something wrong. Sure, you could do multi-shot super resolution, get another factor of two by some AI upscaling, maybe stitch with a tilt-shift... And you'll end up with a file too large for the printers to handle.

 

As David suggests, I suspect someone may have looked at your 300dpi images, calculated the 28" long edge, and worke worried unduly. I've certainly looked at lots of billboards well under 72dpi.

 

Keith (if you'll forgive the link to a Canon shooter) has a bit of a discussion here. He's got other stuff on his site about print workflow.

 

I don't think you would need to upsize an image from the D850 for billboard. I think the billboard looks OK at 1920x1080.

I see that nowaday there are many of the electronic billboard. What is the best resolution on one of those? You wouldn't need more pixels than those billboard to print your billboard right.

 

Churchill Downs-the race track close to me-likes to advertise their "4K" video board. I've seen it and it is indeed the crispest and clearest such video board I've seen, although bear in mind that the closest viewers under normal circumstances are ~1000 ft away(at least my estimate looking at Google Maps on the distance from the board to the grand stands).

 

4K is about 1/4 the resolution(half in each dimension) of the D850 native resolution.

I've just had someone showing off an 8K TV (about 80", IIRC) to me. You can see the pixels from a few feet away, but you also have a distorted view of the screen unless you get farther back; I wonder whether video content for 8K is going to start using wider lens angles.

 

There's any argument for high quality billboards in, say, actual size body shots for fashion store windows, as with putting clothing on mannequins: people may see a item from a distance, but want to get close to see detail, although "close" probably doesn't mean 300dpi. Of course, a human model will probably move, so you're in trouble with multi-shot approaches; a long edge from a D850 would still get you an actual height person at about 100dpi, which isn't bad, especially with a little digital enlarging. You probably need to prepare to edit every physical blemish on the model, though - someone getting that close will see pores quite well.

 

To do better than a D850... Well, Panasonic have a 100MP medium format body that's only slightly stupidly expensive, and I think Phase One can do you 150MP if you sell them your house (giving you a bit under double the D850's resolution). Is there such a thing as a telephoto tilt shift lens that would allow you to use multiple cameras and overlap nodal points? (I suspect geometry says no, but...) Otherwise, stacking with some digital alignment might work. If there are multiple models in a composition, shoot them separately and combine the results, but that's not a bad idea anyway. Don't forget you may be balancing depth of field and diffraction: a billion pixels full of bokeh may not be what the client wants.

 

For static subjects, stitching is easier - that's how various gigapixel images are made, and they are sharp at wall sizes - but the files are obviously enormous.

 

For some subjects, it's easier to cheat and render it on a computer. Jewelry, especially.

 

What are the shops?

 

This all assumes someone can get within a couple of feet of your prints and still wants to see detail. Billboards on the London underground often have halftone screens measured in mm per line pair, not the reverse, even when you can stand by them. A roadside hoarding or image above a shop is going to be worse - and increasing local contrast will have more perceptible effect than actual resolution. Plus I'd rely on horrible lighting.

 

Text tends to be sharper, because it's easy to do that, but also bear in mind that photographic edges tend to be softened by depth of field and diffraction anyway; you'd get aliasing if not. Demands are likely to be way lower than someone might think. It's very hard to do much better than a D850 (and decent glass) anyway, so competition offering 500MP images is cheating somehow.

 

Only one billboard has annoyed me recently, and that's the Matalan one that just went up near my office. It says "Mens, womens, kids" on it. There's currently a ladder up to it, and every day I fight the urge to draw in some apostrophes. Sharpness wouldn't bother me at all.

I recently shot images for a trade show booth. The printer wanted 100 ppi minimum on images that were going to be maybe 8' tall. That's 9600 pixels, plus you want a bit more for cropping. I think the requirement is a bit nuts, but the logic might be that people walk right up to images at the booth, so the usual rules of viewing distance don't apply. Anyway, not happening with my antique D200, so I just did about 5 really crisp images with my best lens, and stitched them together with Microsoft ICE. Worked out just fine. A D850 would have been a way better tool, but my ship hasn't come in yet.

 

BTW, at that level I leaned that RAW converters are not all created equal. If you go that route, be sure to pixel-peep at high magnification to see how the converter handles things near high contrast edges.

BTW, at that level I leaned that RAW converters are not all created equal. If you go that route, be sure to pixel-peep at high magnification to see how the converter handles things near high contrast edges.

 

Out of curiosity, what RAW converter did you end up using for this project?

I've just had someone showing off an 8K TV (about 80", IIRC) to me. You can see the pixels from a few feet away, but you also have a distorted view of the screen unless you get farther back; I wonder whether video content for 8K is going to start using wider lens angles.

 

There's any argument for high quality billboards in, say, actual size body shots for fashion store windows, as with putting clothing on mannequins: people may see a item from a distance, but want to get close to see detail, although "close" probably doesn't mean 300dpi. Of course, a human model will probably move, so you're in trouble with multi-shot approaches; a long edge from a D850 would still get you an actual height person at about 100dpi, which isn't bad, especially with a little digital enlarging. You probably need to prepare to edit every physical blemish on the model, though - someone getting that close will see pores quite well.

 

To do better than a D850... Well, Panasonic have a 100MP medium format body that's only slightly stupidly expensive, and I think Phase One can do you 150MP if you sell them your house (giving you a bit under double the D850's resolution). Is there such a thing as a telephoto tilt shift lens that would allow you to use multiple cameras and overlap nodal points? (I suspect geometry says no, but...) Otherwise, stacking with some digital alignment might work. If there are multiple models in a composition, shoot them separately and combine the results, but that's not a bad idea anyway. Don't forget you may be balancing depth of field and diffraction: a billion pixels full of bokeh may not be what the client wants.

 

For static subjects, stitching is easier - that's how various gigapixel images are made, and they are sharp at wall sizes - but the files are obviously enormous.

 

For some subjects, it's easier to cheat and render it on a computer. Jewelry, especially.

 

What are the shops?

 

This all assumes someone can get within a couple of feet of your prints and still wants to see detail. Billboards on the London underground often have halftone screens measured in mm per line pair, not the reverse, even when you can stand by them. A roadside hoarding or image above a shop is going to be worse - and increasing local contrast will have more perceptible effect than actual resolution. Plus I'd rely on horrible lighting.

 

Text tends to be sharper, because it's easy to do that, but also bear in mind that photographic edges tend to be softened by depth of field and diffraction anyway; you'd get aliasing if not. Demands are likely to be way lower than someone might think. It's very hard to do much better than a D850 (and decent glass) anyway, so competition offering 500MP images is cheating somehow.

 

Only one billboard has annoyed me recently, and that's the Matalan one that just went up near my office. It says "Mens, womens, kids" on it. There's currently a ladder up to it, and every day I fight the urge to draw in some apostrophes. Sharpness wouldn't bother me at all.

 

When I was in Japan in April I saw an 8K TV demonstration at a store. It was an over the air broadcast by NHK. I didn't think I could see the pixels at a couple feet away on a 60" screen.

8K at 60" is just under 150ppi. It certainly depends on the content and the contrast of detail (and hence applies less to photographic images), but I'd kind of expect visible pixels from 2'. It's about one minute of angle, which IIRC is where Apple start saying "retina". It's certainly an argument for diminishing returns over 4K, though.

Out of curiosity, what RAW converter did you end up using for this project?

 

I'm a po boy, so I don't use Adobe products. The RAW converters I have available are the one in Paint Shop Pro, Aftershot, that's bundled with some versions of Paint Shop Pro, the old one called Rawhide (that has a lot of Bayer options to fool with), Nikon's converter and the one in Qimage. And, of course, the one in the camera. What I found was that for white lettering on a black anodized surface, where you want detail in both, the camera actually did a surprisingly good job. The Nikon converter was probably best, not surprising, since they know more about their files than anybody. I think that's the one I used for the project. Then came Qimage and Aftershot. I always forget I have Aftershot, so I haven't done much with it. Rawhide isn't bad, but it hasn't been updated in a long time and seems to crash a lot on my machine. Actually, it doesn't crash, it just stops loading and I get an error message from the OS. The converter built into Paint Shop Pro has weird and confusing controls and didn't have any benefits that would make me use it.

 

What I look for is how the high contrast edges and handled and how much noise I end up with in the adjacent areas. Naturally most converters have at least some adjustments beyond the basic tonal stuff, so I can't say one is fundamentally better than another, but within my abilities, Nikon Capture NX-D seems best. Day to day, I use Qimage the most because I find the controls very easy to use (yes, it has a learning curve) and not much can beat it for handling color management and for printing. I should probably play with Aftershot more to see just how good it is (or isn't).