LARGE prints

So I have a scan from a small negative: 56cm x 56cm. It's about 360mp. I go
to the local camera store and ask them if they can do a 40"x40". They say,
"Sure, our printer is 40, but we can't do anything like 300ppi."

Izat true? WTF? I mean if a person does a truly highrez image and the inkjet
printer can't handle it, then what can a guy do?

I can reshoot it in 4x5. Hell, I can do it in 8x10, but if the final 40"
square is just some lame rez, I gotta ask what good is digital printing?

"2" wrote in message ...

So I have a scan from a small negative: 56cm x 56cm.

Umm, the *negative* is 56 cm on a side? That's 22 inches on a side.
Did I get that right? May I ask the source of this amazing negative?
Where do you get film that size?

It's about 360mp.

If it's really a 56 x 56 cm negative, I guess that's a low-res scan.
Again, may I ask how this scan was made?

I go to the local camera store and ask them if they can do a 40"x40". They
say, "Sure, our printer is 40, but we can't do anything like 300ppi."

Sounds like they're incompetent, or they misunderstood
your request, or you misunderstood their response.

300 dpi @ 40" x 40" isn't outrageous. That's 90K pixels
per square inch, times 1600 square inches, equals 144
million pixels. Any decent large-format printer should be
able to handle that without breaking a sweat.

FWIW, I routinely print 110 Mpixel images (330 Mbyte)
at 24 x 30" (from scans of 4x5") on an old Epson 7000.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

2 wrote:
So I have a scan from a small negative: 56cm x 56cm. It's about 360mp. I go
to the local camera store and ask them if they can do a 40"x40". They say,
"Sure, our printer is 40, but we can't do anything like 300ppi."

Izat true? WTF? I mean if a person does a truly highrez image and the inkjet
printer can't handle it, then what can a guy do?

I can reshoot it in 4x5. Hell, I can do it in 8x10, but if the final 40"
square is just some lame rez, I gotta ask what good is digital printing?

That seems kind of crazy to me, that they can't handle 40 x 40 at
300ppi. I would look for someone else to do my printing.

Having said that if you are making the print from scanned 4 x 5 film I
don't think you would see all that much difference between in a print
at 300ppi and 200ppi. I would not want to drop much below 200ppi
however.

If you are getting 360MP from 6x6 film you would have to be scanning at
over 8600 ppi, are you sure you did not mean 360 MB not MP?

Scott

rafe b wrote:
"2" wrote in message ...

So I have a scan from a small negative: 56cm x 56cm.

Umm, the *negative* is 56 cm on a side? That's 22 inches on a side.
Did I get that right? May I ask the source of this amazing negative?
Where do you get film that size?

I missed that, I read it as 56mm or a from frame from a 6 x 6camera,
which is I am sure what he is using.
Not the problem goes the other way, a 360 MP scan from 6 x 6 is rather
extreme.

That would scale to something like 100MP for 35mm.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

rafe b wrote:
"2" wrote in message
...

So I have a scan from a small negative: 56cm x 56cm.

Umm, the *negative* is 56 cm on a side? That's 22 inches on a side.
Did I get that right? May I ask the source of this amazing negative?
Where do you get film that size?

I missed that, I read it as 56mm or a from frame from a 6 x 6camera,
which is I am sure what he is using.
Not the problem goes the other way, a 360 MP scan from 6 x 6 is rather
extreme.


Yes, indeed. Stafford prolly forgot his Ritalin this morning.
He's being sloppy with units, so I'm not sure I trust his
numbers all that much either.

He says, "It's about 360mp" [direct quote]. That's 360
million pixels. Okay, fine.

According to my calculations, even if that were 56 x 56 mm
(instead of 56 x 56 cm) the scan would have been done at
something like 8800 spi:

sqrt(360 e6) = 18974 pixels
56mm = 2.204 inches
18974 pixels/2.204 inches = 8606 pixels/inch


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b wrote:
Yes, indeed. Stafford prolly forgot his Ritalin this morning.
He's being sloppy with units, so I'm not sure I trust his
numbers all that much either.

He says, "It's about 360mp" [direct quote]. That's 360
million pixels. Okay, fine.

According to my calculations, even if that were 56 x 56 mm
(instead of 56 x 56 cm) the scan would have been done at
something like 8800 spi:

sqrt(360 e6) = 18974 pixels
56mm = 2.204 inches
18974 pixels/2.204 inches = 8606 pixels/inch


My best guess is he meant 360MB not MP this would work out to a scan at
close to 5000 ppi, still very high but not as crazy as 8600 ppi..

Enlarging a 6x6 photo to 40x40 inches is an enlargement of a bit over
18 :1, so worrying about 300 ppi printing for that case is pretty
silly. I figure a 6x6 frame good for about 20MP, which when printed at
40x40 works out to about 110 ppi.

Having said all that it still seems odd that a printing service that
can't do 300 ppi in large prints is nuts.

Scott

rafe b wrote:

"2" wrote in message ...

So I have a scan from a small negative: 56cm x 56cm.

Umm, the *negative* is 56 cm on a side? That's 22 inches on a side.
Did I get that right? May I ask the source of this amazing negative?
Where do you get film that size?


http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?...TS&Category=70

If you want bigger special order it -)

Nick

--
---------------------------------------
"Digital the new ice fishing"
---------------------------------------

2 wrote:
So I have a scan from a small negative: 56cm x 56cm. It's about 360mp. I go
to the local camera store and ask them if they can do a 40"x40". They say,
"Sure, our printer is 40, but we can't do anything like 300ppi."

Izat true? WTF? I mean if a person does a truly highrez image and the inkjet
printer can't handle it, then what can a guy do?


Sounds like an older system, and probably their workflow uses closer to
200 than 300. However, the difference would probably be noticeable, even
on a not so good scan.



I can reshoot it in 4x5. Hell, I can do it in 8x10, but if the final 40"
square is just some lame rez, I gotta ask what good is digital printing?




Find another place to do the prints. The problem is not "digital
printing". The problem you are having is your local vendor.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"rafe b" wrote in message
t...

Umm, the *negative* is 56 cm on a side? That's 22 inches on a side.
Did I get that right? May I ask the source of this amazing negative?
Where do you get film that size?

Duhhhhh. 56mm

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

That seems kind of crazy to me, that they can't handle 40 x 40 at
300ppi. I would look for someone else to do my printing.

Aha! I got some more news. Their computer is darned near obsolete! I has no
horsepower, nor RAM! They simply cannot handle very large file!

It makes me wonder how much longer they will be in business. The owner is
retirement age.

If you are getting 360MP from 6x6 film you would have to be scanning at
over 8600 ppi, are you sure you did not mean 360 MB not MP?

Ya know, I'm wondering if I forgot to screw on my head before I posted.