Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-25-2019, 05:31 PM   #31
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14,849
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
All interesting points so far. Wouldn't a well done Pixel Shift image allow further enlargement than a standard shot? If I'm not mistaken, the image height and width stays the same, but the file is cleaner and can be up sampled more?
Thanks,
barondla
Norm's answer hits the nail on the head:

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Sometimes a pixel shift image is noticeably better, sometimes they aren't much different.
I would suggest take two - one with pixel shift, one without, do a crop of each image, print a sample of the part image to the size you want and compare.

11-25-2019, 05:50 PM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,976
QuoteOriginally posted by MJKoski Quote
Non-shaken, @ISO100, pixel-shift allows 1.5m wide print which can be inspected at 50cm distance without issues if lens is not a total potato. Done such print now 3 times. My usual end product is 1.25m wide.
So not a FA 43 eh?
11-25-2019, 06:23 PM - 2 Likes   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,159
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
How big have you printed a K-1 image and been happy with the results?
It is kind of tricky. it all depends on type of subject, ISO (lower is better), lens sharpness, steady camera, etc. The list gets really long as to what effects image quality. I agree with @normhead. We can get into a whole bunch of what constitutes a good image discussion. You need to try it for yourself. If you do not want to waste money on a big print and just want your curiosity satisfied, crop a section of what would be a large print and make some 8x10 prints and see how good they look.
11-25-2019, 10:02 PM   #34
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 234
RobA_Oz,

The A35-105 is a nifty lens, but can be a little finicky when the light is too direct or bright. Contrast is one thing and a little layering of brightness from center going toward edge. Best when light is angled closer to 90 degrees or higher.

The interpolating expansion algorithm that I have been using is bicubic based and seems to bring forth the image with minimal distortion. My impression is that this may be included in many post processing software packages. I use Corel software. You have to denoise and sharpen carefully. The enlargement algorithm expands the noise, also. If you try to sharpen too freely, you will generate halo effects on the edges of contours and the skyline. I look at enlarged sections to make sure the overall image will be reasonable. I have used it to enlarge K200D 10MP, K-5 16MP, and K-3 24MP images also. But not that large.

JB

11-25-2019, 11:42 PM   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,948
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Take-5-JB Quote
RobA_Oz,

The A35-105 is a nifty lens, but can be a little finicky when the light is too direct or bright. Contrast is one thing and a little layering of brightness from center going toward edge. Best when light is angled closer to 90 degrees or higher.

The interpolating expansion algorithm that I have been using is bicubic based and seems to bring forth the image with minimal distortion. My impression is that this may be included in many post processing software packages. I use Corel software. You have to denoise and sharpen carefully. The enlargement algorithm expands the noise, also. If you try to sharpen too freely, you will generate halo effects on the edges of contours and the skyline. I look at enlarged sections to make sure the overall image will be reasonable. I have used it to enlarge K200D 10MP, K-5 16MP, and K-3 24MP images also. But not that large.

JB
The A35-105 keeps coming up in this thread. Years ago had a friend shooting car races with LX, motor drive and a bunch of fancy glass. The A35-105 was the lens he loved the most. Will have to consider one.
Thanks,
barondla
11-26-2019, 02:32 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,159
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
If ever I need to print a few meters long on a wall, I'd just stitch a panorama from K1 files and it's cost nothing but a little bit of processing time on computer.
That is exactly what I did for a large panoramas printed on canvas (34"x165"). Photoshop did the stitching in a few minutes.

---------- Post added 11-26-19 at 01:39 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
If I'd look at a 5DSr (50Mp), a D850 (45Mp), a Z7 (45Mp) or A7rIII (42Mp) or even A7rIV (61Mp), or S1R (47Mp), the improvement vs Pentax K1 is so negligeable that the few additional Mp of those camera models aren't worth at all the money they cost.
I agree totally. I wanted to get the 645Z but the marginal resolution jump from K1 is not worth the hefty cost increase. From the samples I have seen, the noticeable resolution improvements show up in the 100-150MP sensors... and we know how much those systems cost. So for me, K1 is my medium format camera for some time to come.
11-26-2019, 02:43 AM   #37
Pentaxian
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,697
645Z excels in image aspect ratio = major reason to get it.
11-26-2019, 04:26 AM - 1 Like   #38
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,453
QuoteOriginally posted by Take-5-JB Quote
RobA_Oz,

The A35-105 is a nifty lens, but can be a little finicky when the light is too direct or bright. Contrast is one thing and a little layering of brightness from center going toward edge. Best when light is angled closer to 90 degrees or higher.

The interpolating expansion algorithm that I have been using is bicubic based and seems to bring forth the image with minimal distortion. My impression is that this may be included in many post processing software packages. I use Corel software. You have to denoise and sharpen carefully. The enlargement algorithm expands the noise, also. If you try to sharpen too freely, you will generate halo effects on the edges of contours and the skyline. I look at enlarged sections to make sure the overall image will be reasonable. I have used it to enlarge K200D 10MP, K-5 16MP, and K-3 24MP images also. But not that large.

JB
My issues with the A35-105 have been on low-contrast scenes, so quite the converse of yours. Thanks for the information on the enlargement algorithm.

---------- Post added 26th Nov 2019 at 10:28 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
The A35-105 keeps coming up in this thread. Years ago had a friend shooting car races with LX, motor drive and a bunch of fancy glass. The A35-105 was the lens he loved the most. Will have to consider one.
Thanks,
barondla
Itís a lovely piece of work, and optically itís a good lens to add to your collection. I find using a manual focus lens occasionally slows me down, which is good for the sort of shooting I usually do.

11-26-2019, 05:43 AM - 1 Like   #39
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Wouldn't a well done Pixel Shift image allow further enlargement than a standard shot? If I'm not mistaken, the image height and width stays the same, but the file is cleaner and can be up sampled more?
Having not done a lot of PS shots I don't know but would assume it might be a better starting point. I would have thought the software and resample algo you choose could impact the final result just as much ?
11-26-2019, 06:31 AM   #40
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7,784
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The limit of the K1 is about 80 x 120 cm, beyond that size it's getting soft unless standing further back when looking at the print.
I don't know where those numbers come from, but they do not hold true based on my experience. I explained in my post the largest prints I've done.
11-26-2019, 09:12 AM - 1 Like   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,017
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
I don't know where those numbers come from, but they do not hold true based on my experience. I explained in my post the largest prints I've done.
As enlargement increase the print gets software, that can't be avoided. At 80 x 120 cm from a K1, it's already 150 PPI (assuming perfect lens and very high shutter speed). For example , at 50 PPI is image is very soft. That mean, any camera has a limit of enlargement at which the print becomes soft.
11-26-2019, 09:27 AM - 2 Likes   #42
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,618
As I pointed out, I have a 42x30 K-3 image on my wall.
6000/42"=142 pixels per inch.
Given the usual rate of conversion, 142 pixels per inch translates into roughly 100 distinct lines per inch, more than enough for the appearance of sharpness.

120 cm = roughly 50 inches. From a K-1 7300 pixels divided by 50 inches is 146 pixels per inch and probably about 100 distinct lines per inch. I've succesfully gone as low as 110 pixels per inch or about 66 distinct lines per inch. 7300 with upscaling. That would be 66 inches from a K-1. I hate defining a low end that could conceivably stop people from printing images that have a shot at being acceptable, if that's the size they want. I wouldn't be able to guarantee a good image, but I also wouldn't be able to guarantee it wouldn't be a good image.

There's a wall size image where I get my ultra-sounds. I can sit in a tiny little office and take in a view of lake with forest, and cottage dock. It's very calming. Up close it's noisy and not terribly sharp, but still, it's an awesome image. Sitting in the chair four feet away while having an ultra sound it's almost just like being there. People way over think these things. My guess is it was less than an actual 40 distinct lines per inch before enlargement. That's 32 distinct lines per inch less than my minimum standard for a small print. I'm glad the guy who took the image and sold it didn't give a crap about preconceived notions of what would be acceptable based on what you expect from an 11/14 or smaller image.

And the argument that it would be better with a $15,000 camera is an incredibly stupid argument to make to someone who doesn't have 15,000 for a camera. It can still bring you joy. Intelligent people don't pass on joyful experiences because there might be something better.

Last edited by normhead; 11-26-2019 at 10:23 AM.
11-26-2019, 10:48 AM - 1 Like   #43
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7,784
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
As enlargement increase the print gets software, that can't be avoided. At 80 x 120 cm from a K1, it's already 150 PPI (assuming perfect lens and very high shutter speed). For example , at 50 PPI is image is very soft. That mean, any camera has a limit of enlargement at which the print becomes soft.
Respectfully, I'm with Normhead on this. I have images that appear very sharp and pleasing and which do not follow your calculations.
11-26-2019, 06:12 PM - 2 Likes   #44
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 253
24 X 36 poster is the largest I have printed......framed and displayed on a frame's wall
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-1  Photo 
12-03-2019, 07:07 PM - 1 Like   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 386
I have a 20X30 print of this image sitting behind me ready to go on my wall.

I am happy with the print, but need to work on ensuring that I do not trail my stars too much. The bigger you go, the easier it is to see that the stars are not quite spheres.

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!
a35-105, algorithm, camera, cost, dslr, enlargement, enlargement from k-1, full frame, full-frame, image, k-1, k1, lens, light, pentax k-1, resolution, software, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
You might want to buy those Vivian Maier books you've been holding off on purchasing. MD Optofonik General Photography 14 12-27-2017 10:41 AM
PDCU 5 algorithms for enlargement? JerryCoyote Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 12 11-07-2017 09:38 AM
What has been your biggest print ? westmill Pentax K-5 20 02-21-2012 10:11 AM
Thank you all! You've always been here for me! codiac2600 Photographic Technique 38 05-03-2008 11:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:48 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