| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2005 11:18:10 AM · #1 |
I just met with an ad agency to discuss a new billboard campaign that my company will be doing. I was brought in to give my opinion on the campaign but also as the photographer for the product part of the billboard. The product (two beer bottles and trimmings) will occupy about 1/3 of the billboard, so about 12x16'.
After the meeting, he and I sat down and discussed the photo setup. Once that was done, he asked what I used as equipment. When I said 20D at 8.2 MP, he implied that wasn't enough. I said I could look into renting a 1Ds MKII, but now find that they're not renting those here, only the MK I, which will only give me 11 MP.
Any opinions on whether the 20D images, slightly upsampled can yield a high quality image for that size?
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 11:22:12.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:19:33 AM · #2 |
I reckon it is. If you look at a billboard up close you'll see the pixels are the size of golf balls because they are not meant to be seen up close. From the road they look just fine. I am no expert but I think its ok.
June
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:28:29 AM · #3 |
Depends. How far away are the viewers going to be?
This calculator might give a hint, although it focuses on diffraction rather than whole resolution.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:31:04 AM · #4 |
I work for a billboard company. We ask that all photos be a minimum of 300dpi at 1/4" = 1' scale... so you're talking 3" x 12" at 300dpi... You will be FINE. Trust me.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:33:37 AM · #5 |
Who ever does the billboard printing is likely going to use a RIP to uprez the image no matter what the original resolution. Going from 8.3 to 11 is only going to make it marginally better to begin with anyways. Even with a 22 mp camera without uprezing it's only going to be about 25-30 dpi.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:35:26 AM · #6 |
Usually for billboards, medium format is used for optimal resolution. Maybe you could rent one?
The other solution would be to shoot RAW and use the PS CS2 RAW pluggin to upsize your image (bottom left) then save as tiff once imported into PS. If you still need it bigger, the PS CS2 bicubic smotther works wonders on tiff.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:45:30 AM · #7 |
yeah, some of y'all are making this more trouble than what it is. we use pictures out of all kinds of cameras in our everyday business. we have 5mp cameras that we've shot photos with and stuck them on billboards. you simply can't tell from 500' away, which is probably about the distance people will be viewing your 12'x48' board from. if you don't believe me, go to my company's website and download a template... Templates Here our clients use these every day. :)
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:47:55 AM · #8 |
There is also a big difference between a billboard or poster on the wall of a building. And one on a highway with a 100-400ft viewing distance.
See, you have to know your relative resolution. For example: The difference in resolution on my 61" HDTV and a standard TV is a fair difference. I can watch DVD's fine. But I cannot watch VRC tapes. The resolution is too low for the distance between my TV and my couch.
However, if I set my couch back another 6ft. It would not be a problem. Likewise, if I sat 1ft away from my TV, it would not matter if I was watching an HDTV broadcast. The quality would still be poor and pixelated at that distance.
However, I will wager that 8 megapixels will probably be fine. I remember seeing some tests this past year in a photo mag of a Canon 1Ds MK II versus 35mm color film. And the quality of the zoomed in crop of the digital photo blew the 35mm away due to much lower noise.
So I would focus on using the lowest ISO setting you have in order to minimize any noise in the photo.
- The Saj |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:48:59 AM · #9 |
For what it's worth, I've supplied 3 billboards with photos, all from my little Sony 717 5mp camera. One was a church building and took up most of the billboard. One was me (for my Realtor marketing), and one was for a local hometown event.
They seemed to be fine from this non-pro's standpoint. I suppose it depends on whose standards you have to meet as to what is acceptable. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:50:31 AM · #10 |
This was what I was thinking. I mostly always shoot RAW, especially for ANY paying job, and was going to upsample to 11.2 MP but CS2 will allow me to go to 17.5, or as high as 25.2 MP. Is this really reasonable, or is it just not a good idea to upsample that much?
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
The other solution would be to shoot RAW and use the PS CS2 RAW pluggin to upsize your image (bottom left) then save as tiff once imported into PS. If you still need it bigger, the PS CS2 bicubic smotther works wonders on tiff. |
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:53:30 AM · #11 |
You'll be fine, unless they plan on having people look at their billboard from 1 m away...highly unlikely scenario. Another way to do the job is to shoot in segments and stitch them together...like a panorama...but you will NOT need to do that.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 05:21:03 PM · #12 |
A photo that I made in 6 mp mode on my FujiFilm S602 camera (3.1 mp, 6 mp interpolated) was used as a background image for advertising on a tractor trailor last year. I don't know how they did it, but they told me reproducing it at that size wouldn't be a problem. When I asked what the minimum photo size should be when I delivered it, I was told 8x10 at 300 dpi was fine. They probably used my hard copy to enlarge it.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 17:21:43.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 06:11:40 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by mcrael:
A photo that I made in 6 mp mode on my FujiFilm S602 camera (3.1 mp, 6 mp interpolated) was used as a background image for advertising on a tractor trailor last year. I don't know how they did it, but they told me reproducing it at that size wouldn't be a problem. When I asked what the minimum photo size should be when I delivered it, I was told 8x10 at 300 dpi was fine. They probably used my hard copy to enlarge it. |
They probably used a RIP or Raster Image Processor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_image_processor
A raster image processor (RIP) is a component used in a printing system which produces a bitmap. The bitmap is then sent to a printing device for output.The input may be a page description in a high-level page description language such as PostScript, Portable Document Format or another bitmap of higher or lower resolution than the output device. In the latter case, the RIP applies either smoothing or interpolation algorithms to the input bitmap to generate the output bitmap.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:35:59 PM · #14 |
| If the subject is static, you could always stitch multiple images |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:47:05 PM · #15 |
| Send us the bottles, we will shoot them on our 48 megapixel betterlight for $200, you charge your client $500 (pocket the difference) and blow the photo up the size of a Goodyear Blimp :-D |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:47:38 PM · #16 |
| I've seen billboards larger than that, printed from 3Mp images. The dpi was somewhere around 15 - you should ask your printer what dpi they actually require. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 08:09:14 PM · #17 |
well I guess you will be fine with your 20d. However I know a photog that had to shoot some billboards and rented the 22mp back for his hasselblad because of it. his work is at //www.nabilelderkin.com
if i were you i would rent a hasselblad or a 4x5 and shoot chrome and scan because you can get huge resolution from that, and both of those wouldnt be too bad to rent i imagine because a medium format cam set up isnt really more costly than a dSLR set up like yours usually. thats if there is really a concern about getting high quality without huge cost. though drum scans aren't cheap either.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 08:13:14 PM · #18 |
So, what, nobody believes annasense...?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 08:28:16 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by dahved:
So, what, nobody believes annasense...? |
annasense is correct....you can pretty much put crap up on a billboard and from 500 feet it looks just as good as the internet.
The only reason we shoot so high a resolution (my D2x is the lowest rez we shoot) is we never know where our images will go.
We do not tell clients to pay us $150 an hour for studio time and shoot photos that will be limited where we can use them.
We charge $150 an hour whether we shoot D2x, medium format, betterlight or whatever. Now for $200, our Betterlight photo can go in a fashion catalogue, a center truck in Vogue, on a building in Times Square, on a billboard, in a newspaper, in a sell sheet..wherever.
Why shoot medium film and scan and then introduce steps in a process when digital blows all film away now? The only time we shoot film is for stadium panoramas at night, big architecture where we need our view camera or our aerials.
Anyhoo..annasense is right in this scenario, 8 megapixel will be fine. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 10:08:44 PM · #20 |
| THANK you. Nine years in the industry should give me a little credibility. :) Thanks for backing me up... |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 10:19:19 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by annasense:
THANK you. Nine years in the industry should give me a little credibility. :) Thanks for backing me up... |
nope, you need 10 years before we can beleive you :O (j/k) I beleive you.
what I find interesting is that many companies require LARGE amounts of MP's to use your photo if its from a digital camera. But when looking at their publications the images submitted from digital cameras dont look very good to me. Maybe they have a gruddy printer or poor photo editor and need to make up for it by asking for largre images.
James
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:40:41 PM · #22 |
Thank you to all who replied. Pretty much reassures me that I should be OK with what I got (although, deep down, I was kind of excited at the NECESSITY for a more PRO model - can anyone say: "Boss, I need a 1Ds MkII, really. It's only $10,000. A bargain!")
Anyhow, should I do the upsampling and give him a 11 or 17 or 25 MP file (with PS CS2 RAW editor) or leave it 8MP and let them do the rest?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:50:07 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Originally posted by annasense:
THANK you. Nine years in the industry should give me a little credibility. :) Thanks for backing me up... |
nope, you need 10 years before we can believe you :O (j/k) I beleive you.
what I find interesting is that many companies require LARGE amounts of MP's to use your photo if its from a digital camera. But when looking at their publications the images submitted from digital cameras dont look very good to me. Maybe they have a gruddy printer or poor photo editor and need to make up for it by asking for largre images.
James |
I am with you on this one!
What I found out when I moved over to my latest company and started handling a lot of photo quotes everyday is this...
CYA..........Lots of media buyers are working on behalf of somebody else and need quantifiable numbers to get apples and apples quotes.
We have one clowney photo service bureau we compete against all the time that tells media buyers jobs require at least a 13 megapixel digital camera because they use a Canon 1Ds mkII and they know we use Nikon D2x's for all 35mm work which of course is @ 12.4 megapixels.
The advertising business gets scummier every year....too bad those fools try to pass off epson 10000 inkjet prints as the same as Lightjet or Durst Lambda output. Sigh.....:-/
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 23:52:40. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 01:19:11 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Chiqui:
I reckon it is. If you look at a billboard up close you'll see the pixels are the size of golf balls because they are not meant to be seen up close. From the road they look just fine. I am no expert but I think its ok.
June |
Note that these are typically "halftone dots" and not "pixels". In most types of offset printing, we try and have two pixels (in each direction) to make up each halftone dot. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 01:22:57 AM · #25 |
you should prob. use upsizing software to increase your pixel count... for specific examples on what works best for upsizing see the alamy thread. I personally like genuine fractals but i've heard adobe raw does a pretty good job, or bicubic smoother with a slight unsharp mask.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 04:20:05 PM EDT.
