[Leica] Digilux 2 - wait for 8mp???

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Richard offered:
Subject: Re: [Leica] Digilux 2 - wait for 8mp???


>I don't think there are that many bits from the Digilux 2!!! In any case, 
>digital files scale up very well. I have a picture printed at 11x14 taken 
>with the Leica, scanned at 4000 and printed at 360 DPI (so I was scaling 
>DOWN) and then compared to a print of similar subject taken using the 
>Minolta A2 at ~5MP resolution (it can go up to 8 normally) so it was 
>upscaled from ~170 DPI to 200 DPI at the 11x14 resolution. At normal 
>viewing distance, the Minolta print looks pretty good too. Obviously the 
>details are not there and frankly I like the color better from my Provia 
>slides but it really is not bad at all from 5MP.<<<,,


Hi Richard,
I understand what you lads are talking about when you make reference to:
>>>I have a picture printed at 11x14 taken with the Leica, scanned at
4000 and printed at 360 DPI <<<<<<<<


What I don't understand is this:
>>>(so I was scaling DOWN) and then compared to a print of similar subject 
>>>taken using the
> Minolta A2 at ~5MP resolution (it can go up to 8 normally) so it was 
> upscaled from ~170 DPI to 200 DPI at the 11x14 resolution<<<<

I understand scanning film and using the Digilux 2 and doing all my slide 
and B&W scans at 4000 and making whatever slide or print size from that. The 
digilux is always used in highest size JPEG as it takes for ever in RAW to 
shoot, so I just gave up on it.

My printer is "set to 300" whatever print size is required, again most times 
12"X18" and the results are quite amazingly fine quality. Different from a 
wet tray print, however I've given up on people when they make constant 
comparisons between wet print to an Epson 2200 print, as I see that 
basically comparing apples and oranges, I think. Yep when one compares they 
look different, but that doesn't mean one is better than the other. Because 
if you look at one in one room and then go to another room and look at the 
other print you can't help but think they both look fabulous. ;-) Well OK in 
my small digital mind anyway.

Generally from film print size is 9" X whatever to make the print and 
printed on the 2200 at 300. Sometimes I set it at 200 if I think I've 
enlarged a section a tad much. But rarely do I see any difference.

I save the 4000 scan as my main file then I make whatever print sizes I want 
later. However, quite a bit of what we print for final print is 12X18 on 
13X19 Epson paper.

I never cease to be amazed at the quality of the prints, particularly colour 
as it's amazing. I have a very simple system as I do most of the settings on 
auto everything. ;-) And it always looks so good I never mess with them. 
However, I must admit I'm slowly playing more with slidie bars and watching 
what happens on the screen. Then when it looks... "cool!" ;-) I save and 
print. ;-)

How all this happens and why? Man I don't have any idea at all. :-) I just 
do whatever that makes it look good. :-) Save & print. :-)

ted