image size/resolution

"Alan Justice" wrote:

I scan my 35-mm slides at 4000 dpi and print up to 13×19" on an Epson 2200 and they look great.

I don’t think you really need 4000-dpi *unless* the W x H is around 10 x10 or so. But unless you plan to do a much larger print

I got an order for a 3×4 foot print. I doubt it would
look very good if I just brought the file to a local guy to print on his large Epson (9800), although I assume the colors will be the same ("use embedded profile"). Does Photoshop 6.0 have a good res-up ability, or
the latest version? Increasing ppi with resampling in Image Size does not do it.

All Photoshops have option to "RESIZE IMAGE" to whatever size/rez you want. I believe the older Photoshop uses the term "DPI" when newer and current use "PPI", and some older Photoshops have option to set "LPI" (Line Per Inch) for Press, and the "LPI" has been removed

I’ve heard Guenuine Fractals program will increase
print size and maintain resolution, right? Is that the best solution? Do I need a drum scan? Or should I just send the slide to Calypso Imaging in Santa Clara and say "do it and bill me for megadollars"?

I don’t use GF nor any, but my understanding that they use some trick (or calculation) to allow you to print to larger size and the print look better than without. CS3 and CS3 have similar option/feature, and quite a few different techniques to increase the size for larger print.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:01:51 -0500, Joe wrote:

All Photoshops have option to "RESIZE IMAGE" to whatever size/rez you I believe the older Photoshop uses the term "DPI" when newer and current use "PPI",

Maybe you should investigate the difference between
‘Dots Per Inch’ and ‘Pixels Per Inch’, which is very far from being the same.

Dave

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:01:51 -0500, Joe wrote:

All Photoshops have option to "RESIZE IMAGE" to whatever size/rez you I believe the older Photoshop uses the term "DPI" when newer and current use "PPI",

Maybe you should investigate the difference between
‘Dots Per Inch’ and ‘Pixels Per Inch’, which is very far from being the same.

I don’t need to investigate anything, but you may do. Just re-read what I said then go from there.

Dave

In article ,
Joe wrote:

All Photoshops have option to "RESIZE IMAGE" to whatever size/rez you want. I believe the older Photoshop uses the term "DPI" when newer and current use "PPI", and some older Photoshops have option to set "LPI" (Line Per Inch) for Press, and the "LPI" has been removed

Photoshop has always used "pixels per inch," at least since version
1.0.7.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article ,
"Alan Justice" wrote:

I scan my 35-mm slides at 4000 dpi and print up to 13×19" on an Epson 2200 and they look great. I got an order for a 3×4 foot print. I doubt it would look very good if I just brought the file to a local guy to print on his large Epson (9800), although I assume the colors will be the same ("use embedded profile"). Does Photoshop 6.0 have a good res-up ability, or
the latest version?

The latest version has a marginally better res-up option ("Bicubic Smoother") than earlier versions. However, nothing, no software and no interpolation, will give you the results you’d get if you just re-scanned the transparency at an appropriate resolution to begin with.

Is re-scanning the slide out of the question?

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

tacit wrote:

In article ,
Joe wrote:

All Photoshops have option to "RESIZE IMAGE" to whatever size/rez you want. I believe the older Photoshop uses the term "DPI" when newer and current use "PPI", and some older Photoshops have option to set "LPI" (Line Per Inch) for Press, and the "LPI" has been removed

Photoshop has always used "pixels per inch," at least since version
1.0.7.

PPI wasn’t existed til later.

In article ,
Joe wrote:

Photoshop has always used "pixels per inch," at least since version
1.0.7.

PPI wasn’t existed til later.

Huh?

I have used every version of Photoshop since 1.0.7, and the term "pixels per inch" has always been used in Photoshop.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Alan Justice" a

In article ,
"Richard Normandeau" wrote:

Just to talk about res-up I imagine JPEG2000 would be the best file format to use because it uses wavelets and I think it wil render the most natural way.

All images resize the same way in Photoshop.

When an image is in Photoshop, it is just pixels. It is no longer compressed. It makes no difference if it started out as TIFF or BMP or JPEG2000–when it is open in Photoshop, it’s uncompressed pixels in memory. When it’s interpolated, it’s interpolated using bicubic interpolation, or whatever is selected in the Image Size dialog.

Maybe your awareness is not justified because the human eye has limits and you won’t look at a large picture just a few inches from it.

I hear that reasoning all the time–"nobody looks at large images up close."

That is highly contextual. You can never tell how an image will be looked at. I once did an enormous wall mural for an airport; file weighed in a over a gigabyte in size. The line for security ran alongside the wall; people looked at it from six inches away.

The viewing distance depends as much on the location of the image as on the size of the image.

Because the "normal" (understant statisticaly) eye is able to discriminate only 85lpi in "normal" contrast(that’s why your newspaper is printed at this resolution)and 100lpi in high contrast (black on white)at 40cm. So if a printer is able to print at 100lpi everything will be fine.

Not true. at normal reading distances, I can plainly see an 85-line halftone. So can most people. That’s why magazines are printed at 133, 150, or 175 lines.

Newspapers are not printed at 85 lines because that is all the "normal" eye can see. newspapers are printed at 85 lines because they are printed on cheap paper with web-fed presses. Between the dot gain of the paper and the speed of the press, 85 lines (or occasionally 100 lines) is about the best you can get.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

tacit wrote:

In article ,
Joe wrote:

Photoshop has always used "pixels per inch," at least since version
1.0.7.

PPI wasn’t existed til later.

Huh?

I have used every version of Photoshop since 1.0.7, and the term "pixels per inch" has always been used in Photoshop.

I do remember "DPI" when I was working on web design, and noticed Photoshop has changed to "PPI" also removed "LLP" couple versions ago.

On Sep 28, 6:59 am, tacit wrote:

All images resize the same way in Photoshop.

To rephrase correctly: Images resize the same way using the same Photoshop algorithm of interpolating pixels. However, quality in resizing depends on the original image. For example, a JPEG image resampling should be down after removing noise resulting from FFT lossy algorithm (to avoid resampling of the 8×8 pixel blockes). How about JPEG2000? Please refer to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG2000

to find out more about the imperfections involved in this kind of compression.

Maybe your awareness is not justified because the human eye has limits and you won’t look at a large picture just a few inches from it.

I hear that reasoning all the time–"nobody looks at large images up close."

That is highly contextual. You can never tell how an image will be looked at. I once did an enormous wall mural for an airport; file weighed in a over a gigabyte in size.
The viewing distance depends as much on the location of the image as on the size of the image.

It all depends on the content of an image. For example, if the image contains hairy details or even documents that contain text of 9 point size (that should be read by the viewer), then yes… You should be very close to read the text! And probably your file size will be large. HOWEVER, in 99.99% of the cases, large-format prints shall only target far eyes. Mostly, the graphic designer will only need 1:10 the real scale. For example if you are making an artwork that will print on a flexface with dimensions of 20 x 5 meters then all what you need is an image of 200 cm x 50 cm with a resolution of about 350 DPI. For your eye to trace (and comprehend) the content of 5 meters hight, you will probably need (at least) 3 meters distance. As for the prints that are really large and need tiling (I personally did one that covered a 12-STORY building facade) then only modest resolution is required (even 72 dpi will be QUITE enough). At that time the graphic contained an image and some words in the middle.

Newspapers are not printed at 85 lines because that is all the "normal" eye can see. newspapers are printed at 85 lines because they are printed on cheap paper with web-fed presses. Between the dot gain of the paper and the speed of the press, 85 lines (or occasionally 100 lines) is about the best you can get.

Yes, this is correct. Actually, it all depends on the quality of the paper. I know that some newspapers are printed on paper that withstands 133 lpi.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer