D800 - how big can you print for wall display

[steve_congrave]

<p>How big are people printing D800 images?<br>

I'm investing in either a 36" or 44" roll feed inkjet and wondering what max size of wall prints I should be considering before I have to get into resampling.</p>

 

[richsimmons]

<p>Are you going to be using a RIP? Because that might take care of resampling for you. A D800 image right out of the camera is 7360 pixels wide. If you're printing at 240dpi, that's about a 31" wide print.<br /> But you should take into account how far your viewing distance will be. The further back it is, the less pixels you need.<br /> Here's a section of a wall I made. The photo on the left is from a D800. You can see there are no issues and this photo is 96" high.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>Whoops. Here's the photo. I should say this shot was taken with a Canon PowerShot S410, so the quality is not the best, but you can see the photos printed out really well.</p><div></div>

[steve_bingham]

<p>With a 44" it should easily produce 40" x 60" - no problem. At 240 (Epson) you might need some slight resampling. If you have a rip, it does if for you. Either way works well.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"How big can you print for wall display?" - How big is your wall?<br /> Seriously, I've seen great-looking mural sized prints from a little 10 megapixel digital compact. As long as the picture is strong enough, the viewer won't really care if it's still pin sharp when their nose is touching it - or they shouldn't.</p>

<p>Viewing distance should be proportional to print size, and as long as the picture looks sharp in an A4 print at 18" or so, then it'll still look sharp when blown up to 6 foot wide. You can't apply the strict "300 pixels per inch of print" rule that's often quoted. IMHO that's far too critical in the first place, and is a criterion that film almost never delivered on. No mural-sized print from film ever withstood nose-close examination, so why should we expect better from digital?</p>

<p>200 ppi is much more realistic, but even then only for smallish prints that are going to be held in the hand. Using that number of pixels per inch gives you a 3 foot wide print from your D800, but the thing is; most lenses on the market won't match that pixel resolution from corner to corner. So if someone wants to stick their face right up to a 4 foot print, then they're really not interested in pictures, only in technique - and who cares what that sort of person thinks of your pictures?</p>

<p>As a previous poster suggested, leave the RIP engine to do the interpolation. Any decent printer driver will upscale automatically and often does a much better job than over-hyped software like Perfect Resize or whatever. You'll almost never see blocky pixels in a print, if that's what you're worried about.</p>

<p>PS. RIP stands for <a href="http://resources.esri.com/help/9.3/arcgisengine/java/gp_toolref/geoprocessing_with_3d_analyst/understanding_raster_interpolation.htm">Raster Interpolation Processor </a>(or Processing), and is what every printer driver does as a matter of course. All it means is converting square single-colour pixels to the CMYK matrix of dots needed by most printers, and since it's almost impossible to constrain the spattering of ink within a strict square, the pixel shape is rounded off to become more circular.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>IMHO Rodeo Joes </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Viewing distance should be proportional to print size</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sums it all up. </p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>Thanks!<br>

I'm looking at Epson and Canon printers - the Epson is 720dpi NATIVE resolution and the Canon is 600dpi - does that mean that I am better off (and will get better prints) if I print at a multiple of the native resolution - 720/360/180 for the epson - 600/300/150 for the canon? Or does it make little difference?</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"... does that mean that I am better off (and will get better prints) if I print at a multiple of the native resolution?" Yes - marginally. It really only affects detail close to half the resolution of the printer's.</p>

<p>Some years ago I looked at the fineness of detail that could be got from my (then current) Epson, and from the Canon printer that I was contemplating getting. There was a microscopic difference in the resolution of a pixel-level bar pattern printed at 300ppi and 360ppi on the Epson, but I had to look really hard through a powerful loupe. I soon realised that Epson's claimed 2880 or 5760 dpi were just plain lies, and that the resolution stopped hard at 360ppi. Likewise Canon's printers can't resolve beyond 300ppi, but no matter; you won't see the difference with the unaided eye.</p>

<p>So, yes to get the ultimate resolution out of your printer you should use an integer divisor of 600ppi for Canon, or 720ppi for an Epson. However, I far prefer the more realistic rendering of my Canon over an ink-guzzling Epson.</p>

<p>Edit: BTW, 200ppi is also an integer divisor of Canon's 600ppi native, but not of Epson's 720ppi.</p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>Thanks!<br>

I guess the next question is how much benefit can be gained from multi color systems over and above CMYK?<br>

I have an opportunity to buy a slightly older printer that has a new head and a bulk ink 'conversion' but is only CMYK rather than a 6, 8, 10 or 12 color system. Using bulk ink seems to be a far more cost effective than the very expensive OE cartridges.<br>

I'm hoping to be creating prints for sale at some point and will I be restricted by having 'just' CMYK?</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Depending on a) your camera technique and b) your image processing techni the media you are printing on, 30x45 to 40

x60 inches is no problem for a D800.

 

RJ is right on the money regarding absolute printng resolution. My experience is that input file resolution to a Canon

should not be below 225 and for an Epson, below 180. For a very large print you can go a bit lower as it's unlikely that

you or your viewers will be close enough to the print to be able to see subtle differences in resolution.

 

But if you do a careful job shooting and processing your D800 images you can walk right up to a 30 x45 inch print made

on very glossy surface paper see no capture resolution limited breakup in the photo. Rougher surfaces have a lower

inherent resolution because of the roughness and ink spreading characteristics of the surface

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Sorry Steve! I might have confused things by saying just "CMYK" in connection with printers and RIP engines. It equally refers to CcMmYK and other multiple ink printers as well.<br>

The 8 ink Pixma 9000 pro that I have definitely gives better colour quality than my older Pixma 5000 with only 4 inks. I was able to get continuous inking systems for both of these printers as well, BTW. However you'll almost certainly have to profile the inks and paper from whatever supplier you choose, since the default driver profiles are only suitable for Canon's own inks and papers.</p>

<p>PS. If you're into B&W, then a printer that takes shades of grey ink is a definite must-have. You can't easily get good greyscale printing from colour inks, and there's a tendency to fading and lack of neutrality over the tonal range as well. You're probably looking at a 12 ink printer to get top-quality colour and monochrome output. Although it might be cheaper to convert a separate colour printer to take greyscale inks.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>It does, in fact, entirely depend on viewing distance.<br>

I have printed 4 foot wide banners with 6MP that came out just fine, because they were being viewed from 2 dozen feet away...</p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>Thanks Joe/Peter<br>

I'm definitely leaning towards the Pixma at the moment but the deal on the OCE is hard to pass up - it's almost a free printer given all the supplies that it would come with. Decisions, Decisions.<br>

<br />I'm with you on the viewing distance - in Vegas, the whole of the flamingo hotel was covered in a wrap of the Osmonds a while back - driving down the strip then whole thing looked amazing but close up, each 'pixel' was about 1/4" in size so as you got closer the harder it was to see what it was.<br /><br />What I have to weigh up is if I open a gallery store selling say 24" * 36" prints then what would be an 'ideal' resolution because when they look at the print in the gallery they will put their noses up against it but in their homes they would observe from 6' away. How do I decide what is 'ideal'??</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>There is no law against stitching for example so you can make huge prints with almost any camera - depending on the subject matter of course.</p>

<p>Another thing to keep in mind is that the resolution of the camera sensor is not the same as the resolution of the image. With the D800 you might have 36 Mpixels but you will not get 36 MPixels of information. So in a sense the image was already resampled when you shot it.</p>

<p>That said, get the largest printer you can afford that is suitable for what you want to print. You can always put a smaller roll in a larger printer but not the opposite. Keep in mind that ink and paper is expensive and you also have to consider service availability. Also framing, matting and all that stuff. Head over to the luminous landscape forum where there are many who do large format inkjet printing to get a grip on your options.</p>

<p> </p>