Need help comparing 6 MP and 8.2 MP at 30x40

03/29/2006 03:04:48 PM · #1

I'm interested in seeing if either sensor on the 300D or the 350XT can reach to a 30x40 when shooting RAW. Is someone willing to send me a well shot RAW taken on the XT (or the 20D). I'd like to crop an 8x10 portion of it after being blown up to 30x40 size and compare it with one of mine.

30x40 is the ultimate size I want to reach and I don't know how little/much the 25% jump in pixels would help. Then next jump, of course, is quite expensive (damn the 30D not being 10MP!).

anybody willing to help? I can PM you my email or if you have MSN Messenger you can send it that way.

03/29/2006 03:17:25 PM · #2

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You need to just bite the bullet and pick up a used 1 ds or the 5d if 30x40 is your end goal. ;o)

Your lenses should be able to render all that detail as well, so nice primes or great zooms.

Message edited by author 2006-03-29 15:18:15.

03/29/2006 03:22:07 PM · #3

HAve you ever tried shoooting vertical and stiching a scene together? For some of your seascapes it should work just fine. Shoot like 4 verticals to make one big horizonatal file.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

03/29/2006 03:22:25 PM · #4

Photozone uses an XT to do all their lens testing. They don't put up raw files, but they do put up full size jpg's (on most lenses, not all).

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

03/29/2006 03:24:47 PM · #5

and there's always image stacking

03/29/2006 03:32:56 PM · #6

Originally posted by hopper:

and there's always image stacking

That's just HDR, it won't help him print any bigger.

He would need to tile a scene together.

03/29/2006 03:39:56 PM · #7

76ppi (300D) or 88ppi (350XT) is way on the low side, even if you use an excruciatingly sharp lens and extract all possible detail out of the RAW file. You'd certainly want to upsample, and then you'd have some softness when viewed close-up.
Stitching a pano is a great way to increase resolution without incurring hardware expenses. Just a two-pic portrait-oriented stitch could gain you quite a bit.
Panos are not the answer to everything though. Sometimes hardware is really demanded, specifically in situations where there are dynamic elements to the scene. Even the 1DsII only puts you at 125ppi, but the difference will be greater than the numbers would have you believe. Both the 5D and the 1DsII produce less "mushy" fine detail due to less agressive AA filters. The 5D produces files that are actually very close in detail to the 1DsII. If you really want to print at this size, and high-detail landscapes are your thing, look very seriously at the 5D. It is, IMO, the best combination of performance and price today for this application. With the upcoming Canon rebate, it will be an incredible deal.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

03/29/2006 03:42:19 PM · #8

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by hopper:
and there's always image stacking

That's just HDR, it won't help him print any bigger.

He would need to tile a scene together.

Actually, if done right, image stacking can increase detail. That said, it has the same pitfalls that HDR has, namely that if *anything* moves the slightest bit, things look like doo-doo.

petrakka

03/29/2006 03:46:41 PM · #9

consumer Dslr @30x40 = yikes.

do what those people said or start shooting medium or large format and scanning. I just blew up a shot from my 200$ yashicamat to 35x35 at 200 dpi and it looks sweet...and i could have scanned it at even higher resolution.

//photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4884/1696/1600/trails1.1.jpg thats what I printed, no way a d70 or rebel xt could blow up that big and look the same.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

03/29/2006 03:54:46 PM · #10

I have printed 30x40 from my 20d without any problems..i just upsample the work from the 78dpi (out of camera res at 30x40) to 150 dpi in 5% increments... the prints look fine.

digitalpins

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

03/29/2006 03:54:59 PM · #11

but also if its a poster and being hung on a wall of course, nobody is really going to be eye level with it and is going to be looking at it that close (like less than an inch away), so from far or with it being hung it will look great.

When I had and started out with my little Nikon 4300 4mp camera I blew up two of my photos to 20x30 and up close the edges were not sharp but in a frame and hanging up on the wall it looked great.

03/29/2006 04:15:50 PM · #12

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I have printed 30x40 from my 20d without any problems..i just upsample the work from the 78dpi (out of camera res at 30x40) to 150 dpi in 5% increments... the prints look fine.

What are you comparing them to?

For me, I compare all my large prints to what a large format traditional print used to look like.

03/29/2006 04:23:58 PM · #13

thanks for the replies guys. Brent, I've thought about vertical panos for my landscape stuff. I've been working on a good pano attachment for my tripod, however, the seascapes would be tough as they tend to be >4" exposure and the water is in motion, there would be a ton of work required to stitch those sections together.

I would obviously upscale the shot and was curious as to how different the 300D looked to the 20D or 350XT using this method. A 5D may be the ultimate answer, but as I haven't make $1 on my photography, the little woman would probably not consider $2600 to be an "incredible deal" as kirbic puts it.

In all honesty, I don't need to make money on my photography, I do well enough as an MD, BUT I have thought of using photography as a profession to "retire into". With that, I feel that any shots I'm currently collecting for my portfolio which are worthy are sorta wasted as they are only 6MP and the enlargement potential is limited. I've done 16x24 with good results, but have never tried 30x40 and think the results would likely be disappointing.

03/29/2006 04:35:45 PM · #14

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Have you ever thought about shooting MF or LF film? But a $2600 5D would suit you better. IT would probably do you for a few years. That rebel isn't enough camera for your skills.

03/29/2006 04:48:57 PM · #15

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Have you ever thought about shooting MF or LF film? But a $2600 5D would suit you better. IT would probably do you for a few years. That rebel isn't enough camera for your skills.

I was dreaming about MF yesterday, but it would mean a whole new setup and $$$. I'd be better off slowly building up the L-glass I have and using a camera that can take advantage of what I have.

You wanna donate that 5D you got to a good cause?

03/29/2006 04:50:29 PM · #16

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Have you ever thought about shooting MF or LF film? But a $2600 5D would suit you better. IT would probably do you for a few years. That rebel isn't enough camera for your skills.

I was dreaming about MF yesterday, but it would mean a whole new setup and $$$. I'd be better off slowly building up the L-glass I have and using a camera that can take advantage of what I have.

You wanna donate that 5D you got to a good cause?

I am dontaing it to a good cause. The " me getting a 1Ds Mark II" cause. ;o)

You can get a pentax 67 with a 45mm lens for like $900 or less. Be more than enough to give you a taste.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/29/2006 05:22:10 PM · #17

Originally posted by kirbic:

It depends hugely on viewing distance though.

The shot behind me in this picture

Is about 12ft wide, from a shot from a Canon G2 (2272 pixels wide) That gives an image of approx 15 dpi prior to resizing, yet it looks perfectly acceptable at a distance of a few feet or so (even with me grinning smugly infront of it)

Yes the picture has been manipulated, but the point is you can make very acceptable, large prints from even 4Mp or smaller files, if treated properly. I've seen wall sized prints from 6Mp files that are stunning - yes they don't stand up to inspection from a foot away, compared to a medium format image, but still you can get very useful results from current SLRs (or even old PnSs), from low resolution files.

Message edited by author 2006-03-29 17:22:49.

03/29/2006 05:36:34 PM · #18

Gordon, you're certainly correct on all counts. I did in fact make some assumptions which I did not spell out. Most importantly, I assumed that DrAchoo was really wanting to approach those stunning results you see that look as good from 1 foot as they do from "normal" viewing distance.
On my AZ trip a couple weeks ago I shot some casual landscapes with the 5D, and was simply amazed at the difference in detail compared to my old 10D. The difference was much more apparent than I'd expect, given the 1.4x difference in linear resolution. I would not be afraid at all to go to 30x40 with the 5D... well, OK, 26.7x40 ;-)

03/29/2006 05:36:59 PM · #19

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by kirbic:
76ppi (300D) or 88ppi (350XT) is way on the low side, even if you use an excruciatingly sharp lens and extract all possible detail out of the RAW file. You'd certainly want to upsample, and then you'd have some softness when viewed close-up.

It depends hugely on viewing distance though.

The shot behind me in this picture

Is about 12ft wide, from a shot from a Canon G2 (2272 pixels wide) That gives an image of approx 15 dpi prior to resizing, yet it looks perfectly acceptable at a distance of a few feet or so (even with me grinning smugly infront of it)

Yes the picture has been manipulated, but the point is you can make very acceptable, large prints from even 4Mp or smaller files, if treated properly. I've seen wall sized prints from 6Mp files that are stunning - yes they don't stand up to inspection from a foot away, compared to a medium format image, but still you can get very useful results from current SLRs (or even old PnSs), from low resolution files.

Would you hang one in a gallery with your name on it?

03/29/2006 05:39:43 PM · #20

Yes, kirbic is correct, I'm going for gallery quality stuff here. it's possible my own 16x24s aren't even up to that snuff, although I think they look pretty good.

So nobody has a RAW for me to crop and print?

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/29/2006 05:40:39 PM · #21

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Would you hang one in a gallery with your name on it?

It's already hanging with my name on it and they bought it for a reasonably large amount.

Certainly higher resolution is better, but that doesn't mean you should totally discount say a 8Mp camera as being not up to snuff.

Otherwise I'd suggest an 11x14 view camera and a really big enlarger, maybe a cinema projector would be a good starting point ? Clyde Butcher does some good stuff that way...

Message edited by author 2006-03-29 17:45:07.

03/29/2006 05:46:26 PM · #22

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I can e-mail you a 5D RAW file you can play with, but I warn you, you might be hooked ;-)

03/29/2006 07:05:56 PM · #23

sent you a PM kirbic

03/29/2006 07:10:02 PM · #24

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

sent you a PM kirbic

I shall pick it up when I get home, about an hour or so...

fitmpdnsthtr