Scanning LF Negative 4"x5"

<p>I am just starting in with LF and am curious; does any one know how large a file would be of a scanned 4"x5" negative to make a large print say 44" x 54" ?</p>

<p>The file would be about 600Mb at 300dpi.</p>

<p>There is not 600 megs "worth" of info in a 4x5 negative; more like a few hundred.</p>

<p>One can make 44x54" prints from any size file you want to. If that is just part of a hockey dasher board; it is sub VGA; ie Barbie cam. </p>

<p> Practically; much 4x5 is really just scanned in the 2000 dpi region; this is a 230 meg file.</p>

 

<p>Work it out:<br>

44x55" is an 11x enlargement, so assuming a 300ppi print, you'll need a 3300ppi scan. Assuming 3 bytes per pixel (8-bit RGB), </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In [4]: 4*5*3300*3300*3/1024/1024.<br>

Out[4]: 623.1298828125</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So about 600Mb it is.<br>

Notably 3300ppi is beyond the optical resolution of flatbed/desktop scanners, so you can either</p>

<ul>

<li>take it for a drum-scan, or</li>

<li>settle for less than 300ppi (reasonable: if you're pixel-peeping a large print that close, get a life), or</li>

<li>investigate alternative tricks (super-resolution/enfuse from several scans offset by a few pixels)</li>

</ul>

 

<p>I measured a 4x5 exposure. It is not quite 4"x5". Mine was 94mm x 118mm. Your results may vary. However with those dimensions in mind...<br>

<br />44" @ 300PPI = 13,200 <br />45" @ 300PPI = 16,500 <br /> <br>

13200 x 16500 = 217,800, times three for three colors equals 653.4MP for the file size. However it would be referred to as a 217.8MB scan. <br /> <br>

13200/94 = 140.43 pixels per mm or 70.2 lp/mm in a scan. <br />16500/118 = 139.85 pixels per mm or 62.92 lp/mm in a scan. <br /> <br>

Those numbers are assuming that you use every last bit of the exposure. It would require a scanner capable of giving 3550+ real PPI, not the advertised specification. There are a few, but very few 4x5 lens/film combinations that will provide those numbers in the center of the exposure. Plus 70 lp/mm is quite possible in the center of the film, but at the edges, 50 lp/mm would be a very high number. <br /> <br>

Sounds like you need 8x10 film. Even though lenses that cover 8x10 don't get any where near 70 lp/mm, you'd be dealing with a lot more real pixels of information on the film as there are some 8x10 lenses that exceed 35 lp/mm at the edges (1/2 of the lp/mm needed on 4x5). 2000 PPI is quite doable with high quality flatbed scanners and would give you a little working leeway on the edges. <br /> <br>

On the other hand you can compromise on a little less PPI in the print. That is not something I like to do but have to sometimes. <br /> <br>

A. T. Burke</p>

 

<p>As Beavis and Trumann said; one cannot polish a turd. </p>

<p>You can do all the wacky math you want; most folks do not drum scan 4x5 at high numbers; it is often just wastefull</p>

<p> A huge common average is just 2000 dpi drum scans for 4x5. It really is a newcomers thing to scan 4x5 at absurdly dpi's; or you are not paying the bill; or you have a 1 in 100 killer negative </p>

<p>In all my scanning since 1989 for the public; all I can say is 600 megabytes is total bull dung for 4x5; you drank the Koolaid. It is turd in a punchbowl number. It is like saying Home depot has 80 Horsepower lawn powers; you have a factor of 3 to 4 error best case. </p>

<p>You can get a 4000 dpi drum scan; or 3200, 2800, 2400, 2000; or even 1600 and 1200 too.</p>

<p>The few clients that I have had that I farmed out 4x5 for 4000 dpi scans did it for ego reasons; I can downsize the damn things and loose NO details; in about all cases. As a printer; it gets old to see turd polishing still after 21 years of scanning.</p>

<p>What a 4000 or 3200 dpi drum scan sometimes does is grab some actual details on axis; in rare cases. It is real typical that 1/3 way out one really only needed 2400 to 2000; and the corners maybe 1600. </p>

<p>If you really want 600 megabytes of usefull real pixel; use a bigger format; ie 5x7 or 8x10 or 11x14. </p>

<p>If you want real data recorded; strive to get some design margin. Use more film area, scan at lower dpi numbers. Pictorial images is what most folks print; BUT for who do scan tests like 1:1000 test target numbers; and using film curves where the response is low.</p>

<p>If one scans 4x5 at 4000 dpi and 8x10 at 2000 dpi; or 35mm at a zillion dpi; 8x10 wins.</p>

 

<p>If the question is how large of a file do you need for a great looking 44x55 inch print that answer is less then 10MBytes.<br>

<a href=" MByte Image</a><br>

That would me a 44x55 inch print at 150 ppi. The pixels are very sharp and unless you have your nose in the print you would not be able to tell the difference between a print at 150 and 300 ppi. So the short answer is you need around 10 Mbytes for a great looking 44x55 inch print. However that just says what you could get away with, that stores the image in jpeg mode with a fair bit of compression and whereas you would never see the difference in a print that large disk space is cheap so keeping a tiff would make sense. And since disk space is cheap you might as well scan at 2000 ppi, which gets you up to 240 Mbytes. </p>

<p>In making BIG wall maps that are say 42" by 72" or 84"; one can have files that are 1 gig in size. One has actual details; street names; tiny fonts. 4x5 is too small for this, it is created with either mapping programs, CAD, combos of many detailed aerials. If this extreme; one can be printing at a real 300 ppi or 360 or 400. That is required when roads are close and one has names. 150 ppi will just not cut it then.</p>

<p>If it is a 72x72" image on a dentist office wall while you are in a chair; it might be 10 feet away. Thus instead of 300 ppi at 1 foot; one only needs 30 ppi at 10 feet. This means one only needs a 6x6cm negative scanned at 2000 dpi.</p>

<p>The issue /trap about everybody falls into; is not defining the VIEWING DISTANCE. If one wants a great 72x72" print with gobs of details so one can be 1 foot way; go shoot 8x10 film or 11x14 film. </p>

<p>In old process camera work; our old rule was never above 4x; thus for 72x72" one needed negative of 18x18".</p>

<p>The concept of being conservative to get actual repeatable results is often not one on photo.net; thus one has endless talk of 4000 dpi scans; like they always somehow work all the time.</p>

 

<p>Kelly, You've added a whole bunch of parameters and suppositions about the author's question. Unfortunately, no details were given as to what the intention was for the image.</p>

<p>As someone whose primary photo income is from large mural size prints for designers, I typically have MF and LF images drum scanned to file sizes around 400 to 500 mb. Of course you don't need 300 ppi prints for some viewing distances, but my colleagues (who shoot mainly MF panos) and I are always working with files of that size.</p>

<p>While you can print at 150 ppi, I personally don't care for the loss of resolution. You are right, in that the negative must be very good to get a high res image, and the workflow in PS to ensure the image is prepared for that size printing can be tedious, but that's what I trade in. Printing sub-par images at that size simply magnifies the problems. But the OP didn't specify much information about the intentions for his image, nor the workflow to get there. So forgive me for polishing the turd... I didn't know that's what I was working with.</p>

<p>Regarding 400 to 500 mb scans, without seeing the pixels it is really hard to say if all those extra pixels are buying you anything. That is why in discussions like this I think it is a real good idea to at least post a few 100% crops. I have seen a lot of 4000 ppi scans that when down sized to 2000 ppi loose very little detail and what detail is lost would not be seen in a print.</p>

<p>As for how many pixels are needed for a large print, without seeing the pixels it is hard to judge, if the pixels are sharp enough then you really had to get you nose right up to a photo to see the difference between 150 and 300. Where a lot of people think 300 is needed comes from having pretty soft pixels to start with. A print make with soft pixels at 300 ppi will look lots sharper then a 150 ppi print with the same softness of pixels. But that speaks more to the quality of the pixels then how many pre inch are needed.</p>

<p>Michael, I think Kelly's main point, with which I agree, is that although many common printers natively print at 300 ppi, and this is about an 11.6x enlargement (at least from my 4x5 film holders, 96x121mm), that does not mean it makes sense to simply crunch the numbers and say you need a 3493 ppi / 1.26 GB (at 16 bits per channel, or 630 MB at 8 bits per channel) scan.</p>

<p>In a recent photo.net thread (<a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00X4Nd">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00X4Nd</a>), a know-nothing know-it-all posted a chart asserting that 8x10 film contains over 1 <em>gigapixel</em> of information. Basically, he derived this figure by saying if you scan 8x10 film at 4000 ppi, that's what you get. Of course, 4000 ppi is about 79 lp/mm, and very few (if any?) 8x10 lens-and-film combinations will capture anything approaching that. Indeed, at typical 8x10 apertures, diffraction will limit you to far less resolution. Recall that one of Ansel Adams' early photo circles was called Group f/64. Well an 8x10 at f/64 has the same depth of field as a 35mm with a roughly equivalent field of view at f/8. Anyway, even at f/32 (DoF equivalent to 35mm at f/4), diffraction is going to put a hard limit around 50 lp/mm, with some effect starting around 25 lp/mm. So assuming you want more than really shallow depth of field, the 8x10 is going to be limited to around 500 MP, assuming everything else (including both lens and film giving 100% MTF at 50 lp/mm--ha!) is <em>perfect</em>. So for almost all real-world 8x10 frames, a 1200 to 2000 ppi scan will get essentially all the real picture detail that is there.</p>

<p>With 4x5 the case is not quite so dire because, all else being equal, you shoot with the lens two stops wider open and diffraction becomes the problem at twice as high a resolution. But at a common taking aperture of f/22, the combined effects of diffraction, garden-variety lens performance limits, and film MTF roll-off mean that substantial detail finer than about 35-40 lp/mm (about 1800 to 2000 ppi) is pretty unlikely. Scanning at a higher resolution than appropriate for the limits of the real detail in the film makes no sense.</p>

<p>The upshot of all this is that the OP probably should get the 4x5 film scanned at about 2000 ppi, which would capture essentially all the <em>real</em> detail in the shot and give him about 172 ppi at the intended print size, which he could then up-interpolate to make the print (or perhaps better, if a pro is printing it, let the RIP do the up-interpolation). In 16 bits per channel RGB, such a scan would result in about a 400 MB uncompressed TIFF, and at 8 bits per channel, about 200 MB.</p>

<p>I had a picture I wanted to do at 30x40 inches which is the largest that Chrome in San Diego could put on silver halide paper with their printer, a Chromira ProLab I believe. They scanned my 4x5 Astia. I had tested several lenses on Astia in a studio with a 1951 USAF chart to find one that would give 50 lp/mm, even near the edges at F: 5.6 and/or F:8. With the chosen lens I took the picture and had it scanned on Chrome's Scitex EverSmart Pro scanner at 2400PPI, necessary for 300PPI printing. It was very sharp right up to as close as my eyes could focus. </p>

<p>Anything larger would have had to entail some compromise be it less PPI in the print or "over-scanning (scanning beyond the detail available in the original). </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Thomas,<br>

When you say give you 50 lp/mm that has little meaning, what was the contrast at 50 pl/mm and what was the contrast of the target? It is all well and good to talk about number like 50 ln/mm but unless we see the pixels it mean very little. As I have said before a print at 300 ppi when the pixel as soft is really not worth any more then a print at 150 ppi when the pixels are sharp. how about showing us how sharp the pixels are that you are talking about, and not with a test chart but the real scene.</p>

 

<p>Scott, when you say it would be helpful to see a 100% crop: how would that be meaningful if it is at 300 dpi, and monitors are 72 dpi? You'd lose a lot of sharpness in that exercise, wouldn't you? On 4x5 images, I believe I am getting something by scanning files at that size and printing the equivalent of 300 ppi. I have tried smaller sizes of equivalent negatives to see if I could save money, and I wasn't happy with the output I was getting from the smaller files.</p>

<p>Now if you scan a 4x5 at 500 mb, and print 16x20" prints, I totally agree; you're wasting time and processing power.</p>

<p>Michael, a 100% crop helps me what kind of sharpness you are talking about at 300 ppi. It is somewhat meaningless to talk about what ppi is needed for a print if we don’t know how sharp the pixels are.<br>

For example if we print this image at 300 ppi the print would be fairly sharp, plenty good enough for a large print.<br>

<a title="pretty_good_at_300ppi by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4913026648_83aa7c1be0_o.jpg" alt="pretty_good_at_300ppi" width="600" height="450" /></a><br>

If your pixels look about that sharp at 300ppi I would say you will get a sharp print.<br>

But that image is upsized from an image at 200ppi to 300ppi, the 200ppi image is here<br>

<a title="sharp_at_200ppi by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/4912423419_1d5c6d93e7_o.jpg" alt="sharp_at_200ppi" width="400" height="300" /></a><br>

Since the top image came from the bottom one it is clear that if you can get a sharp print from the top image at 300ppi then you can get a sharp print from the bottom one at 200ppi.<br>

I have seen people argue for the need of 300 ppi and when we see just how soft the pixel are it is clear why they believe that they need 300 ppi.<br>

I hope this makes sense.</p>

<p>It all depends on the printer, paper and tolerance for quality compromises.</p>

<p>Specifically, 24"x30" test prints from a 5DII (150dpi) look awful next to 4000dpi scans of 6x7 (360dpi) printed on my Epson 7880. The printer's native resolutions are 360 and 720.</p>

<p>It is not a minor difference. It is night and day. The 5DII is unacceptable and 6x7 is plain perfect.</p>

<p>I am not sure I understand how some people find 150dpi acceptable for a print that is to be displayed. I regretfully printed at 24x36 for photographers commissioned work they took with 5DIIs to later find out they framed them for their clients and ended up on a wall. Not good.</p>

<p>What I find in printing for the public is most all folks are *FIXATED* on the 300 ppi number; thus folks are always upsizing to this number.</p>

<p>Their ego makes them BELIEVE that upsizing and scanning at absurd dpi levels creates more details</p>

<p>Thus if their image sharp input for a poster is un-upsized image is 36x54 inch image at 50 ppi; I might as a printer upsize it to 100 to 150 to smooth it out.</p>

<p>****Most all folks believe if one upsizes more to 300 or 360 ppi; it will look better and the man on the grassy knoll will appear.</p>

<p>Folks watch CSI New York on TV and see details come out as they process a crime scene image off a security camera or cell phone; thus 99 percent of folks think that if one scans at 5400 dpi or upsizes 10x; one will see details come out.</p>

<p>Turd polishing is common. You would not believe what the general public does.</p>

<p>Folks will take an image from a 3 megapixel digital; and upsize it so on image requires a DVD; ie one gets 1 to 2 gig images.</p>

<p>If anything the public is dumber; folks FIXATE on 300 ppi and upsize it; even if the image is a dumb VGA screen capture for a giant poster.</p>

<p>Thus there is a greater Goober factor in dealing with the public today in printing than in past eras. It is not uncommon to have folks upsize a file 100 times to hit 300 ppi; because always believe 300 is better. Thus if Kilroy's poster image is really just 15 ppi; they will upsize to 300. One can print a sample section at 100, 150 and 300 and see no difference; but they usually will not believe a sample either.<br>

<br /> It is like a whole mess of folks equate more pixels is better; even if one sees no difference at all. Thus on has a dumbing down of inputs and much hand holding.</p>

<p>It was far easier 10 to 20 years ago to deal with the public about digital printing. Often in that era one got a digital file or a transparency to scan and the public allowed printers to do their jobs.</p>

<p>Today everybody is now an expert;</p>

<p>Thus if a client brings in a crappy Kodachrome shot with an Instamatic; I might look at it on a light box and see it is not so sharp.</p>

<p>Today the client will often want a 4000 dpi film scan; or farmed out drum scan for an crappy original that really only holds say 1200 dpi worth of info; ie a dumb flatbed is overkill.</p>

<p>One has the delicate situation where here I have scanned 35mm since 1989; and the know it all newbie client has a giant ego; and wants an expensive drum scan that is wastefull.</p>

<p>One can show many folks on a light box that the original is just fair; and many folks still want a high end scan. If one just does it without mentioning it; one can get labeled as ripping folks off. If one brings it up; you deal with their fragile egos.</p>

<p>The bulk of folks read that giant prints need 300 ppi and that 35mm holds gobs of info. Then they bring in a poor original; and want it scanned or printed at high levels.</p>

<p>10 to 20 years ago the average Joe would look at their beloved slide on a light table and believe you that it only needed a moderate scan. Today many folks are stupider; yes dumber.</p>

<p>A huge number of folks today seem "not to get it" that there are good pixels and useless ones; ie bloated.</p>

<p>In a way a printer today is like a chap that works on automatic transmissions; and the customer now dictates all sorts of goofy things that drive up costs; add no value.</p>

<p>Michael;</p>

<p>Re "Kelly, You've added a whole bunch of parameters and suppositions about the author's question. Unfortunately, no details were given as to what the intention was for the image."</p>

<p>One has the CORE tenet on photo.net that about 99 4/10 percent of all folks who ask these daily questions about :<br>

(1)"how big can I enlarge",<br>

(2)"what file size;<br>

(3) "what ppi"</p>

<p>have no details.</p>

<p>You see with an actual professional job; one has an actual client. One has a purpose for an image. Thus one can box in the distance of the print.</p>

<p>One has on Photo.net many many thousands of the same question; that get repeated every day.</p>

<p>It is like asking on Shipping.net how much string or tape is required to ship a box; but nobody provides any details as the boxes size or weight.</p>

<p>Call up Home Depot and ask them what wood costs to build your gizmo. When they ask what the gizmo is; say what does this matter; just answer the simple question!</p>

<p>Folks want an exact answer; but cannot provide any details; since they have zero goals.</p>

<p>The basis of every one of these daily questions on photo.net is to ask a fuzzy question; and provide no viewing distance; no details; not purpose. It is in the DNA of most folks to want exact a black and white answer to a fuzzy question</p>

<p> Most all folks will yak; walk over hot coals, debate; than actual provide any details.</p>

<p>On has on Photo.net often the same type of question being asked and answered on a dozen active threads. A whole mess of folks give answers; when their really are no details. About 99 percent of folks are assumers</p>

<p>Mauro,<br>

<br />

<p>It would help if you could post a sample of the image that you found unacceptable at 150pp. </p>

<br />

<p>Overall I find that many photographers look at prints in ways that the public does not. We tend to stick our noses right into the photo and are unhappy if we see softness from 10 inches away, which is find for a 4x6 inch print and ok for a 8x12 inch print. When you start getting to prints up in the 20x30 inch range people no longer view from 10 inches away, even 20 inches is fairly close for a print that size.</p>

<br />

<p>

<p>So I see two different cases regarding 150 ppi, in one the pixels are soft to start with and the viewing distance is much closer than normal. In the other the pixels are sharp and the viewing distance is reasonable.</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>Mauro; in order for 300 to look better than a 150 ppi image one has to have two things:</p>

<p>(1) One has to be closer that 2 feet away</p>

<p>(2) One has to actually have a usefull image at 300 ppi; not the common upsized stuff folks worship here</p>

<p>I base this just on printing over 300k worth of images over the last 20 years.</p>

<p>Typically customers who worry about 150 versus 300 creates the worst images; ie no soul. So much of their brainpower is wasted on what doesnt matter; that they often do not use an image with impact.</p>

<p>These do not matter "It all depends on the printer, paper and tolerance for quality compromises."</p>

<p> You really need a non bull-dung image that is really 300 ppi and not the typical upsized one.</p>

<p>Almost NEVER is the printer the real limit; it is the lay publics images; often upsized.</p>

<p>A core tenet on photo.net is endless talk of what ppi to send to printers; with little if any focus about delivering images that really hold details at 300 ppi.</p>

<p>If the image really is only 100 ppi; upsizing to 300 does not make details appear.</p>

<p>A core tenet on photo.net is the slacker ways of believing upsizing and 300 ppi brings more details. As Beavis and Truman said; one cannot polish a turd.</p>

<p>The sad fact is that the bulk of the lay publics inputs for poster today can be printed on my brand new Canons; or 1994 Novajet and they limit of quality is NOT the 300 dpi 1994 Novajet that just supports about a 165 ppi image and NO more</p>

<p>The limit is almost never the printer at all; it is the publics dumb images that are not the best.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kelly, you are correct generating a 360 dpi print master through scanning won't give a better output than 150 dpi master if the picture was out of focus or taken with a plastic lens.</p>

<p>Conversely, an 8000 dpi scan from a good Velvia shot will contain more detail than a 4000 dpi scan.</p>

<p>Scott, here is a print test you can run at home:</p><div></div>

<p>Mauro;</p>

<p>The 35mm stuff I have farmed out that is for scanning above what a common 4000 dpi Nikon or Canon film scanner "will do" has at best been nothing to rave about.</p>

<p>In a few few *rare cases* more details are pulled out</p>

<p>Thus often a 5400 ,6400, or 8000 dpi high end scan really does nothing at all but waste gobs of money.</p>

<p>I farm out stuff like this for lay customers to please their big egos. They are BS'er s at heart; thus their makeup craves BS scans too ! :)</p>

<p>You really with a scan like this trying to pull out info past about 75 line pairs per mm on film ; which is a pipe dream one most originals. With a high end scan; details at the 75 line pair number might gain tad more contrast; if one looks hard.</p>

<p>It is more of a pipe dream since folks who get 75 line pairs per mm do it with fine grain B&W and shoot 1:1000 test targets; with camera on granite blocks.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> ***Going past 4000 dpi is like vacuuming the kitchen floor eight times; instead of four times; in theory it is better.</p>

<p>You pick a tad more crud; that one really would have to hunt for to tell any difference.</p>

<p>A math major likes this type of stuff; you double or triple costs and gain 1/2 percent improvement; that in an actual giant print 1 out of 1000 folks might notice' maybe 1 in 100 if you SHOW them were to look.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Scanning at absurd dpi numbers does feed many folks egos.</p>

<p>One does an in house scan at 4000 dpi on a 3 grand Nikon film scanner; and the customer BELIEVES that a higher end scan is warranted.</p>

<p>One has to tactfully try to steer Mr Ego from wasting money; or saying they are wrong. Thus I farm their "stuff" out for a higher end scan; and almost always not more details are captured, Having done this for along time; the trend is getting worse.</p>

<p>A typical higher end like your 8000 dpi of Velvia from amateurs or pros *about never* contains any more details than a 4000 dpi one. This happens maybe in one out of 100 to 1000 cases.</p>

<p>Having farmed out thousands of bucks worth of stuff for Mr Ego; his ego just flushes cash down the toilet. It is usually just turd polishing; folks want to believe that their beloved original has 160 line pairs per mm on film and a high contast; but the features are really at 50 line pairs per mm with some contast.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> To say that a 8000 dpi scan pulls out more info than a 4000 dpi one is stretch; a lie to a customer. It does sometimes in rare cases; in a few best case originals.</p>

<p>If BS'ed like this to customers; I would not be in the scanning business since the 1980's.</p>

<p>In Farming out stuff above 4000 dpi; the print shop here has to deal with Mr Egos deflated ego when a scan come back; since the more expensive scan of their original is about the same as the in house 4000 dpi one. Sometimes it is worse too. Some want me to farm it to another place; or eat the scan cost. It sort is like is an insane customer wants their lawn mower blade to be as sharp as sissors or a razor blade. They pay gobs extra in cost; and results are practically exactly the same.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> TRANSFER FUNCTIONS:<br /> *****The camera's Lens; FILM, and scanner have a response curve of resolution versus contast.</p>

<p>Beyond 4000 dpi both film and scanner are down in response (contrast/ modulation) ; and now one has the product of THREE hokey things down in the weeds.</p>

<p>***A typical person who wants a scan beyond 4000 dpi believes in their mind that then will get 4 times the details.</p>

<p>They ignore the response rolloff; in their mind the 3 bogeys have high contrast at hundreds of line pairs per mm; thus getting details past 4000 dpi is a slam dunk.</p>

<p>It really is more like completing a long bomb in football; or a grand slam in baseball; or a hole in one in golf; or a hat trick in hockey; it is not something that happens with ease all the time for the average pro player.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br>

*****Thus with the public at least one has to say that:<br /> scanning beyond 4000 dpi; or<br /> polishing ones riding lawn mower; or<br /> removing a 1 oz letter from ones car<br /> ***will probably not noticeablly improve performance in a radical way; ie you probably will not notice.</p>

<p>Mauro; your left print is already blurred</p>

<p>Here is your captured image downsampled by 150/360; so it is now NOT UP SIZED.</p>

<p>you have stacked the deck for you argument; since the un-upsized image is really not sharp at all:</p>

<p>You started off with a blurred image:</p>

<p>The text in the screen capture is sharper than the image itself<br /> you stacked the deck!</p>

<p>You lens faults show</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/PNdesktop/mauroPicture21.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is a direct 100 percent pixels non upsized image; see how it is sharper</p>

<p>you can see fine cracks in the fireplace and you have fuzzy flowers,<br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmStones.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>non cropped 35 megapixels</p>

<p>\<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmFull.jpg" alt="" /></p>