advertisement


Film v Digital

I think that's a technically incorrect statement.

No it isn't. I was referring to the resolution of the printed image, not the image in the computer.
Yes, the resolution is the resolution, which is why you can't print 6mp @ A0 at standard print res.
 
Cliff, I am not digging a hole.

review the thread - it seems that only you and I have any actual real world experience of printing above A3.

Everything else listed here is based upon theoretical arguments.
 
I don't mean to be bragging here, but I once printed a poster that measured 4 x 6 feet at 300 dpi. I think the .tif came in at ~700 MB.

If anyone wants to blog this on some nerdy site I'm OK with it, but please don't use my real name.

Joe
 
I'll just say i've got some lovely 12*16s from 6mp cameras hanging on the wall, and i've just finished printing a Delta 3200 35mm shot to 12*16. The 6mp shots are very clear and fine, and the Delta 3200 is grainy, and contrasty, and also rather fine in a different way. Wouldn't be happy with one and not the other.
 
it seems that only you and I have any actual real world experience of printing above A3.

OK, so, did you scale the image up first ? Or not? If you didn't, did you select the option for the printer to automatically scale it?
 
Patrick,

My 4x5 scans are more than a GB ....
With LZW lossless compression?

Joe

P.S. My output wasn't a photograph, though. It was a conference poster made in Quark, output as an .eps, then rasterized in Photoshop to a 4 x 6 feet image at 300 ppi.
 
We've an A0 colour plotter at work. Printing anything other than vector (drawing) files generates staggeringly-large plot files, as you might expect. Say 300 x 300 dots x 24 bits of colour x 48 x 33 inches approx ~ 625MB in CMYK inks (although it will do a true 600*600!) even if the source file isn't.

Doesn't guarantee the results look any good without suitable prescaling of course....
 


advertisement


Back
Top