Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/03/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think this "double the pixels to get smoother, more realistic details " this is the very definition of suspect. I tried finding that everywhere and it comes up blank. I really don't think there is an up side to up sizing. I think its a loose louse proposition. In other words I think my details don't need to be more realistic and I've never heard there would be a problem with them. My hit on this whole digital thing after an even dozen years of crunching pixels is upsizing your images is the last thing you'd ever want to do. On a list of things you'd want to do to a digital file upsizing ain't not on it! You're best off doing what is being said which is stick to the original size of the file and let the pixels play out as they lay. In other words if you end up with a file smaller than 300 or 240 dpi or whatever you think its optimal then just print it anyway. I made a big print at 120 dpi once! Didn't look so terrible! Even with the lights on! In the past years people have realized that printing at way lower rezs than what has been considered viable can work out just fine. Other than that there's third party software from the past (i.e. Genuine Fractals or SI Pro). Some think its just as good now to use tricky techniques in Photoshop instead and the third party stuff is not worth it any more. Me I'd just go out and buy a big boy camera namely a D800 or the Sony or go medium format if I needed output on a larger scale than is in my present comfort zone. I'd like to hear what size the prints are that are being done and what of and how they look so far on the wall; as it all can get to be a theoretical exercise in goggling what people on chat groups say about it. As in just printing it this newer bigger size and see what it looks like. You never here "these big prints I'm making I wonder if they can be improved?" its always a future tense thing. Not you of course Bob! On 3/22/14 7:45 PM, "Bob Adler" <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > Hmmm. Lemme check again. Could have been a cropped image I used. But my > question still stands: if I double the pixels to get smothered, more > realistic > details as Howard stated, how do I then downsize the dimensions to retain > that > effect? Thanks, Bob Sent from my iPad > On Mar 22, 2014, at 4:38 PM, Ken > Carney <kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote: > > Bob, > > There must be a wrong setting > somewhere. I don't have a Leica M but I imagine the file size is larger > than > 3352 px. My 5D II files are 5616 px. Jeff Schewe says that upsizing to > 200% > is usually no problem and that has been my experience with "preserve > details" > in Photoshop. The 5616 px files are 18.7" at 300 ppi, so I could have some > cropping room with modest upsizing in PS. Lord only knows what we are > talking > about with your MF gear :) or whatever the emoticon is for envious. > > Ken > > >> On 3/22/2014 4:59 PM, Bob Adler wrote: >> Hi Howard, >> Trying to wrap my > layman's brain around this. >> When I bring an M240 file into CC from LR with > no resolution change, it is 2,682 x 3352 px at 360dpi. It is 7.45 x 9.311 > inches in size. >> So if I use bicubic smoother and upsize the number of > pixels to 2x(2,682 x 3,352) or 5,364 x 6,704 at 360dpi I should get the > effects you are predicting: sharper looking images with smoother gradients > BUT > is now a 14.9 x 18.622 inch size. >> What needs to be done then if I want my > print size to be at the original dimensions: 7.45 x 9.311 inches? Or a > larger > size than the now 14.9 x 18.622 inches? >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> Sent from my > iPad >> >>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 7:40 PM, Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net> > wrote: >>> >>> Poking around with huge degrees of enlargement and up-sampling > (but perhaps not irrelevantly so for making large prints of landscapes, > etc) > in PS with files from M9, M240, NEX-7,and D800 (not E), I found: >>> >>> 1. > The D800?s 36MP FF sensor with the current Nikkor 35/1.4 at f/5.6 produces > conspicuously better detail near the limit than the M240?s 24MP FF sensor > with > the Summilux 35 ASPH at 5.6 does, and the NEX?s 24MP APS-C sensor (same > pixel > size as a 54MP FF sensor) with the kit 18-55 zoom set to produce the > equivalent of FF 35mm FL produces about the same image resolution as the M. > This is not the end-all of important sensor characteristics, but it can be > an > important one under some circumstances. What this tells me is not only > that a > 24MP FF sensor does not put modern premium prime glass to the test, but > also > that even inexpensive modern kit-zoom glass would not be outclassed by a > 54MP > FF sensor with regard to resolution. This would seem exactly analogous to > the > role of fine-grain film back in the day (anyone remember that stuff?). One > wonders what Leica AG (and every other manufacturer?s) engineers make of > this > fact, and whether there is a 54MP camera (M540?) or beyond in their minds. > Of > course, as with Microfile film, the part of the "need spectrum? such > capability occupies would be very small. Still, Microfile had its > enthusiasts > beyond microfilming documents for efficient filing. I?d like to know what > pixel count (disregarding tradeoffs in noise etc) corresponds to the innate > resolving power of the best modern glass at center and optimum aperture. > Given > the improvement produced by the ~25% linear increase from 24MP to 36MP and > the > 50% increase to (an effective) 54MP, it?s clearly at least 1.5 times, and > maybe twice, the linear count of a 24MP sensor (i.e., ~50 to 100MP). And > what > pixel count corresponds to the best general-use emulsions from the Age of > Film > (K64, Plus-X, etc) in terms of lp/mm? Anyone have a reference? These > results > also make me wonder about the actual utility of the new superpremium normal > lenses, the 50mm Summicron ASPH and Nikon?s 58mm 1.4, with current sensors. > Maybe they extend the envelope in which they are not outmatched by the > sensor > further from the center and from the optimal aperture beyond what lesser > lenses do. >>> >>> 2. Doubling the linear number of pixels H and W in PS > produces a clearly smoother image, with what appears to be better > resolution, > near the limit. I know that in theory this is illusory, as creating new > pixels > from the averages of their parent and neighboring pixels cannot add new > information. But the appearance of doing so is strong, and I think this is > a > result of the fact that for the most part, natural subjects are not wholly > random but have fractal dimensions and high degrees of internal > correlation: > for example, linear or continuous features are common, such as areas, edges > and boundaries, and so on. Such features are not likely to be confined to a > few pixels but to extend over many. Multiplying pixels as is done in PS can > create a powerful illusion of making a linear feature seem better defined > and > sharper. If you took a picture of a wall of tiny square, randomly colored > tiles such that the image of 4 tiles in a square exactly occupied an entire > pixel, the original file would make the 4 look like 1, with a color > representing their average (this is a thought experiment, ignoring the fact > that we deal, Foveon aside, with single-color pixels and Bayer patterns). > Pixel-doubling would then produce not a faithful depiction of the actual 4 > tiles making up the square, but an illusion of 4 tiles and an artificial > average color for each of the virtual tiles. But this is a very unnatural > situation, and in real life, with natural subjects, what appears at any > given > point in an image is likely to closely resemble what appears at the points > that correspond to the adjacent pixels, so that pixel-doubling does, in at > least a semi-real sense, have the effect of increasing the visual > resolution > of the image. I think of up-sampling the original file to increase the > pixel > count as ?unmasking? information that was implicitly there as a result of > the > innate characteristics of the physical world. >>> >>> ?howard >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information _______________________________________________ Leica Users > Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/