NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>Some of the main reasons for looking at the 4000 series are larger prints,
>printing B&W from my computer with good results and an ability to print on
>canvas. The 4800 would probably turn the trick for these needs. Although
>I've
>seen stunning black and white done with the 4000 on mat paper it was done
>using a RIP, which is just going to add to my cost. A friend has just taken
>delivery on the Epson 9800. Perhaps I should stick with my 1280 and make
>some
>arrangement with him.
>
>
Wish I had a friend with a 9800 - or even a 4800. :-)
>This does bring up another question. If one wanted to upsize a raw e-1 file
>to get reasonable results with 44 inches as the short side, what measures
>might one take?
>
Hmmm, 1920/44 = 43.6 ppi. You are probably going to need to upsample.
How much depends on what the viewing distance is going to be.
My limited experience and the advice in Mastering Digital Printing
suggest two alternatives for the upsampling. The first thing to try is
simply sending the original size image to the printer with dpi set high.
The driver will upsample to what it thinks is the optimum. Since this is
based on its "knowledge" of how the actual printer mechanism works, it
may even do the best job.
For upsampling before printing, I recommend you try Fred Miranda's
Resize Pro. It is different than most interpolation apps., in that it is
designed around the known pixel size and characteristics of specific
camera bodies, so it can do a better job than generic algorithms that
don't know anything about the image being processed. When it came
outoriginally for C & N bodies, I bought a copy for the 300D and did
this comparison <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/resize.htm>. My
conclusion was that it is a lot better than the PS bicubic options and a
noticably better than his generic Stair Interpolation. At optimal
settings, it seems to somehow bring out more detail while reducing
visible noise. FM indeed.
I have not yet gone the next step and printed these upsampled images. I
suspect that there may be less apparent differences than on screen. In
any case, it seem pretty likely that the image with the best detail and
fewest artifacts at full pixel res on screen will be as good as or
better than any others when printed.
I wouldn't mention this except that FM now has a version for the E-1
<http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/OlympusRP>. For $30, I don't see
how you can miss.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|