Up-rezzing images

[barry_passaris]

<p>This is a newbie question...<br>

I want to create A2 size prints from 35mm slide film. If I use some type of up-rez software, will this larger print be comparable to an A4 size print for instance or will there be alot of image degradation?<br>

FWIW, I will be printing on an inkjet, on either Hahnemuhle Rag or canvas.<br>

Which software do you recommend? I am considering Alienskin BlowUp 2.<br>

Any advice appreciated.<br>

Thanks.</p>

 

[john_a5]

<p>The question isn't complete. Upsizing from what? If you have a 50mb file, for instance, and it is a good scan, a 40x50 inch print could be possible if you only used PS for upsizing (which is as good as the 3rd party software in most cases). The quality of your file is a much bigger factor than anything else--well, size does matter as well!</p>

[barry_passaris]

<p>Thanks John. I'm currently using an old Nikon Coolscan4000 scanner which produces 135mb files from 35mm film format. So if I have a good quality scan, software (either PS or plug-in) can achieve a 16x20 print from a scanned 35mm film image. I ask because I'm fairly inexperienced in the digital darkroom. I know from the old darkroom days that x10 enlargement from film was the enlarging limit (to my eyes anyway) w/out the image degrading considerably.<br>

I'm still awaiting my inkjet printer so I haven't had a chance to experiment as yet with upsized images as prints but I have read that PS plug-in software like Alienskin does a better job than just upsizing via PS. True?</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>A 16 x 20 print? No problem if done correctly. I have an old 4000 which I gave to my wife.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Barry, the old rules of thumb related in large part to grain. Scanning does not eliminate the grain nor minimize it. If the slide is a fine grain film, obviously you will get a "cleaner" image. I have seen wonderful 16x20 prints from 35mm slides, so use that as your rule. These things, darkroom or digital, are pretty much the same when it comes to film and printing. Digital is actually more forgiving--no grain--so a larger clean print is more readily achievable--but sharper, maybe not!</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>If I use some type of up-rez software, will this larger print be comparable to an A4 size print for instance or will there be alot of image degradation?<br /></em><br>

Sorry, but you can't get something for nothing. Regardless of method, if you enlarge a 35mm-captured image to A2, it will look visibly worse than if you enlarge it to A4, especially assuming you view both prints at the same distance (which probably means looking at less than the entire image from the A2). This is an 18x enlargement. It may look good enough, but it may not (depending on the subject, the technique, your personal standards, etc.), and there's no way it will look as good as a 9x enlargement, all else being equal.</p>

<p><em>up-rez software</em></p>

<p>There's no such thing, despite people calling it that. You cannot create more resolution than the original capture recorded. You can up-<strong>scale</strong> or up-<strong>sample</strong> or whatever you want to call it, and it may well look better if you do that before printing, but all the software can do is make the greater enlargement look smooth; it can't make it more detailed (that is, add resolution).</p>

<p>Another thing, even the highest resolution 35mm slide film, Fuji Velvia 50, has, per Fuji's own data sheet, MTF response down to 50% at about 45 lp/mm. That means that a 35mm frame can only give you about 2160 x 3240 lines of resolution--assuming a perfect lens, perfect technique, etc. Above that, finer detail rapidly shows less and less contrast, and soon becomes unresolvable. So an A4 print will be right on the edge--it can display in a manner you eye can see all the detail, but if you go bigger, your eye will be able to see the lack of detail, and related lack of sharpness. At A4, the 45 lp/mm on 35mm film could theoretically give you a real 261 ppi; at A2, you're down to a theoretical maximum of 131 ppi.</p>

<p>But all of this is somewhat academic. Why don't you try one or two, and see what you think? You may well decide that the quality is good enough. If you don't yet have a printer that will print A2 (and those are expensive), get an A2 print or two from a commercial lab. It won't look as good as an A4 print from the same film frame, but you might like it.</p>

 

[ben_goren]

<p>Barry,</p>

 

<p>Who will be doing the printing?</p>

 

<p>If it’s not you, don’t do anything to the file you have. Let the printer worry about

how to get the most out of it. What that entails is only of academic interest. Trying to be “helpful” will only get you marked as a blundering idiot.</p>

 

<p>If you’re the one doing the printing…it all depends on the pixel dimensions

involved.</p>

 

<p>In Photoshop’s “Image Size” dialog box, <strong>UN</strong>check the

“resample” checkbox, and enter your desired print dimensions. If the resulting PPI is

150 or above, just print the file and let the printer driver software worry about it. If the PPI is in the

100 - 150 range, make a test print and see if you can live with the results. If you’re not

happy, go back to Image Size, and <strong>CHECK</strong> the resample checkbox. Type in 300.

Experiment, if you like, with the three different Bicubic options. Make a test print</p>

 

<p>If you’re still not happy…then you probably shouldn’t be printing quite so

large. If you really need / want to, then that’s the time to start experimenting with other

resampling software, such as Genuine Fractals.</p>

 

<p>Up to a doubling of the pixel density, differences between the different algorithms is pretty much

invisible. Up to a tripling, it’s insignificant. Beyond that and you’ll discover two things.

First there’s no “one size fits all” algorithm; some do better with certain types

of detail, an others do better with others. Second…though some are impressive, none are

really satisfactory. That is, don’t expect miracles; the computer can’t manufacture

information that isn’t there to begin with.</p>

 

<p>As a point of reference, your monitor is about 100 ppi, and newspaper photographs have a real-

world resolution in that same range. It’s great for arm’s-length viewing distances (and

more), but not if you want to stick your nose up against the print; for that, 300 ppi is ideal (though

there’s a hint more very fine detail barely visible at 600 ppi). But for something like a

billboard, 10 ppi is ample, and you might even be able to get away with 1 ppi.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[barry_passaris]

Excellent responses everyone. Your advice is most helpful in affirming some of my assumptions and then some!

 

I will do some experimenting once the printer arrives to see what's possible.

 

I gather from your comments that there isn't a software preference (eg. Blowup 2 is better than Genuine Fractals or vice versa) and most function in similar ways?

 

Cheers.

[mattb1]

<p>A lot of good answers. Depending on your printer you may not need to do much. If possible look at getting RIP software package, it will handle the printing and if you get a good one it will do the scaling that is necessary, no need to mess around with re-sampling your file. If you can't find a RIP then ask questions about your specific model, as the 'best' approach is very much manufacture dependent.</p>

<p>16x20 from 35mm film is more than pushing the limits IMO, sucess will be based on your subject and quality of the scan. IMO resampling won't do much and may make matters worse.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>Excellent responses everyone. Your advice is most helpful in affirming some of my assumptions and then some! I will do some experimenting once the printer arrives to see what's possible. I gather from your comments that there isn't a software preference (eg. Blowup 2 is better than Genuine Fractals or vice versa) and most function in similar ways? Cheers.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> Actually, there are good and then better methods. If you're having the print done by a quality service bureau let them do the upsizing. If you're having a print made on a machine like a LightJet or Durst Lambda, those machines have interpolation routines that will automatically size the file to the requirements of the machine - and they will do a better job that you can with interpolation software. If you are having an inkjet print made, they should be using raster image processor (RIP) software that will have better interpolation software and dithering routines - again, let the service bureau do the interpolation. You need to work with a quality service at the size you want to make - don't try and do it yourself unless you have a lot of time to learn the best way to get it the file sized correctly.</p>

<p>I have a 44-inch printer and do the interpolation myself. Last summer I spent nearly 9 weeks testing different methods of interpolation by buying five different interpolation sofware packages, using Photoshop, and testing the printer driver for interpolation. I made 18x29 inch (image size in the print) prints of three different images from a 10 megapixel camera and compared all of the software one-on-one at standard viewing distances, close-up, and examined with a 5x linen tester loupe. At that time, Qimage Studio, using their Pyramid interpolation, was by far the absolute best method if you're printing it yourself.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Steve, thanks very much for the 2010 update! It is good to hear that Qimage is still the best, as it was several years ago. The downside then was that it prints but does not save to disk. Is that still true?