Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-22-2016, 06:43 AM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 399
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
Heh Heh, "giclee," i.e. let's give "inkjet" a french name so we can charge more for it.

Photo Rag is a matte paper, so absolute resolution is not as critical, but from my reading, it can handle individual detail at 600ppi well, so there is definitely room for higher res in your sized prints, and increased detail does contribute a lot to what we perceive as tonal depth in printed images.
Thanks for responding dcshooter:

Yup, it could be a posh name being used in this case, but then again it might not. Instead it's referring to a high level print output, which stands up to scrutiny from the several printers I compared against. Their colour management is also spot on, andI can confidently colour proof. I'm not being defensive, coz my instinct is also to rebel against posey labeling - it's just in this case the product/service works rather well !

Ref the resolution the native dpi is 300 for the printer I'm using. I doubt supplying 600 dpi is going to make any difference as it will be scaled down during the printer's RIP and then subsequent 8 ink passes. Anyway the more resolution that k-1 offers isn't going to create a 600 dpi image for an A2 sheet. So I'm curious what is behind you're reasoning ?

02-22-2016, 06:55 AM - 1 Like   #17
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,258
I plan to buy a K-1 and throw it in my bag for when the situation warrants. I'd be a little concerned about pixel peeping comparisons on the forum, the forum does not do prints from the images.

The best way to print is to upscale the image to the best for the printer DPI, which is 300 DPI for Canon and 360 for HP and Epson, if memory serves me well. AN interesting feature I noticed when testing primes against zooms with TCs and primes in terms of how the resolution held up. Sometimes the prime images looked a little fuzzy while a smaller image upscaled to the same size looked cleaner. I had a makeshift test chart and there were some artifacts on the test chart. Though main lines of the test pattern looked better on the lower res. up-sampled image, but those images lacked the detail where there were artifacts.

SO, what this tells me is the the algorithms used to upscale images are so good, they actually clean up consistent edges of lines and curves that might have looked a little rough if you did not have to upscale. The printer artifacts were quite unsightly tiny blobs of ink, that I would not have wanted in my final print anyway, even if the were in the original. So in essence upscaling the image actually improved the appearance of the print, compared to more subject resolution. Long ago, in the early days of digital photography I went to workshop held by singer song writer Buffy Saint Marie, an avid amateur photographer on this very issue. IN the only real world test I know of where a K-01 image was compared to a D800 at A2, a non-photographer, who didn't know which was which, said she like some parts of the K-01 image, and some parts of the D800 image, and couldn't pick a clear winner. Any image 120 or over will upscale nicely, and no one has ever defined the point at which people will actually prefer the larger MP image.

To me the real advantage to the K-1 is probably going to be upscaling pixel shifted images to ridiculous sizes. That level of detail in the pixel shifted pixel peepers should translate to fine detail at 8' by 12'.

We regularly print landscape of canvas up to 20x30 with no noticeable lack of image appeal. People going and standing 8 inches away or examining prints with a loupe has nothing to do with image appeal. Even though the real resolution of some of our prints is less than 10 MP, and the resolution before upscaling is less than 100 DPI< those prints still look good properly printed, even at 20x30 inches.

SO, the salient points.

Unlike film, digital images can look better upscaled.

If you take a print and print it it a natural resolution, say 300 DPI on a Canon printer, that would be like a contact print on film. IF you want to be able to enjoy the full amount of detail captured by the camera, you're going to have to upscale the image. Also like film, the you will never see the fine detail in the print if you print at a real 300 DPI. IN my experience a real, 150-200 DPI will help you make the most of any print in terms of fine detail and 100 DPI (expanded to 300 or 360 DPI with software) is quite acceptable for landscapes and many art images.

Digital is way ahead of film in terms of making large prints from small negatives. Many seem to be incapable of understanding, the negative size is the MP, not the size of the sensor. So don't get fooled by the resolution advocates. You have to find the right size for your style. Too much resolution will lead to messy prints with lots of lost detail printed too small to be seen without a loupe.

Printing is an art of it's own.

I've never seen an adequate explanation of the benefits of hi res printing where all the cameras used were 16 MP or higher, and the results were tested by the general public to establish whether or not they preferred the 16 MP image over the 36 MP image. As a person who also does some craft show work, I've taken what would be considered chances, using the standards advocated on this forum and other sites, and been surprised by high sales of images that were printed at bigger sizes than the forum and internet wisdom suggest they should have been.

So I'll sign off by saying, if I'd listened to the guys who say you have to have more MP to make larges size prints, it would have cost me thousands of dollars. If you have a colourful print that depends on colour and texture, not detail, go as large as you want from your 10 MP point and shoot. Don't be intimidated by the guys who say you have to have a certain amount of MP for a certain size print. In my experience, it will cost you money to listen to them. The artistic value of the print is far more important than the resolution at which it's recorded. Honestly, if I walk around my room with a bunch of 20x30 inch canvases, I can't tell which ones were higher res images, and which ones were lower res. (And neither can the general print buying public.) I have to go back to the originals on the computer if i want to know.

The reasons to buy the K-1 will be better colour clarity due to pixel shifting, more Dynamic Range (if there is more) , and better low ISO performance,(if it's two stops better or more.) It's more about the technical reproduction , improvements in colour values, and noise reduction values than the resolution from my perspective. And the numbers aren't in yet on those things, but the Pixel Shift is a great start. And a great example how 36 MP isn't just 36 MP. My guess is you could put a K-3II with pixel shift up against a D810 image and win the large scale print battle at lest 50% of the time with blind testing against an unbiased group, no matter what size you went to.

The Pentax pixel shift and Foveon sensors both show, a bayer pixel is not all it could be using a standard bayer configuration. 36 MP bayer is not 36 Mp pixel shift or Foveon.

And the "more is better guys" got their experience when average was 2-3 MP and "big " was 6 MP.

Last edited by normhead; 02-22-2016 at 07:22 AM.
02-22-2016, 07:36 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 399
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I plan to buy a K-1 and throw it in my bag for when the situation warrants. I'd be a little concerned about pixel peeping comparisons on the forum, the forum does not do prints from the images.

The best way to print is to upscale the ...... (removed for brevity by responder ...)

The reasons to buy the K-1 will be better colour clarity due to pixel shifting, more Dynamic Range (if there is more) , and better low ISO performance,(if it's two stops better or more.) It's more about the technical reproduction , improvements in colour values, and noise reduction values than the resolution from my perspective. And the numbers aren't in yet on those things, but the Pixel Shift is a great start. And a great example how 36 MP isn't just 36 MP. My guess is you could put a K-3II with pixel shift up against a D810 image and win the large scale print battle at lest 50% of the time with blind testing against an unbiased group, no matter what size you went to.

The Pentax pixel shift and Foveon sensors both show, a bayer pixel is not all it could be using a standard bayer configuration. 36 MP bayer is not 36 Mp pixel shift or Foveon.
That's a helpful response normhead. Thank you.

I agree where you're coming from on many of your printing points. The general buying public has a different view on the printed output to we photographers in most cases. I've started to experiment with different dpi resolutions and interpolations and the differences are both marginal and somewhat unpredictable, to my eye... and that's not taking in the crucial viewing ambience and glass used when displaying work. I'll continue to test & test ...

Taking all the possible parameters involved in getting a piece of work in front of potential customers reduces some of the gains that could be achieved (pixel shift apart) between the K-1 and the K-3. I guess we'll have to wait for the DR figures, but looking at DXOmark (ok I don't really trust them), the Nikon D8100 sensor at 100 ISO is only about 1/2 stop better than the K-3. The D8100 does have slightly better tonal figures, but until we see what the Ricoh engineers have done, then I guess we will not know. ... And then I'm back to the printing limitations, ie much lower DR for the papers (higher DR in post allows greater processing potential, I realise) and the glass and viewing problems etc . etc.

Thanks for offering another view, it really helps cement ideas ...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, a2, aspect, detail, food, full-frame, iso, k-1, k1, pentax, pixel, print, questions, randy, resolution, shift, topic
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does the K-3 Render Reds/Browns Better than Prior Pentax DSLRs? Sagitta Pentax K-3 5 02-23-2015 06:44 PM
k-3 colors - better than k-5? yusuf Pentax K-3 5 07-01-2014 02:58 AM
Second camera... is the K-30s AF really better than the K-5s? Ubuntu_user Pentax K-30 & K-50 16 08-16-2012 06:29 AM
With HDMI out & 3.5mm stereo mic in the K-01 is better than the K-30 for video jogiba Pentax K-01 2 05-22-2012 01:52 PM
Will the k-5 make my pictures look better than my k-x? justtakingpics Pentax K-5 23 05-29-2011 06:38 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top