600mb images?

LongLensPhotography

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
18,833
Name
LongLensPhotography
Edit My Images
No
Have you ever lost a sale because you didn't have a large enough file to print across a wall at high dpi? I just did!

Were they expecting phase one 150mp or whatever back or simply wanted more than possible?
The new Pentax MF would be just 40 and not that cheap. It is effectively my vw Tiguan fund we are talking about.

Can you justify a hassy and make better returns from that or just ignore the above?
 
no - but if thats a big issue for you get a d810. If you need MF or your market demands it then it won't be for output size
 
Phase One do an 80 megapixel back with the IQ180 and IQ280. You could always hire a rig like that if it was financially worthwhile. What were they wanting printed?
 
Laudrup said:
Phase One do an 80 megapixel back with the IQ180 and IQ280. You could always hire a rig like that if it was financially worthwhile. What were they wanting printed?
Click to expand...

If I knew that a one off job would need MF I would just hire. Problem is you don't know when you don't shoot for an assignment. I can't really reshoot that image.

D810 - I am not sure it is that much bigger than 5d3 considering it needs all new glass.
 
I wouldn't worry about being all things to all men. You've got excellent shots on your site and there will always be that one client demanding more than you can realistically provide.
 
If they just wanted more resolution, could you have just taken multiple shots and stitched them together later? I know it doesn't help after the matter but it's an idea?

I've got a 66.6MB jpg with a resolution of 26328x2904 of a Shoreline panorama shot of where my parents live in Canada :) Plenty of detail there!
 
Ok am I a little confused but could you have not taken multiple shots and stitched them together to make the high resolution you are after.

@Pookeyhead did a 40 image shot of his greenhouse if I remember correctly and when zoomed in you could see the individual water droplets.

I can't find the thread but sure @Pookeyhead can assist.

Edit: @Phal got in just before me.... written at same time on same page I think Etienne
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
36mp vs 24mp. If thats useful or not is up to you
Click to expand...

certainly bigger files, around 30% more resolution I believe. It is true that I could be served slightly better this year by Nikon for some of my photography, but really that is not enough to flick back and forth every 2 years. The MF body that I can't afford would be a major leap forward.

Phal said:
If they just wanted more resolution, could you have just taken multiple shots and stitched them together later? I know it doesn't help after the matter but it's an idea?

I've got a 66.6MB jpg with a resolution of 26328x2904 of a Shoreline panorama shot of where my parents live in Canada :) Plenty of detail there!
Click to expand...

If you asked me to do one right now, this would be the only viable option, provided the subject is really static (about 30-40% of my photography). Sadly there is nothing I can do now about the 3-year old file in question.
 
Last edited:
What about a Sony A7R for your canon glass, might come in handy when you need higher resolution.
 
robj20 said:
What about a Sony A7R for your canon glass, might come in handy when you need higher resolution.
Click to expand...

NO! I will not fuel the market-destroying mirrorless market; the lack of viewfinder is a horrible thing even on tripod.
 
? It has a viewfinder. Any lens can be adapted to it, i myself am using some old Canon FD lenses with great results. Its a tool that does a job i don't see where emotion comes into it.
 
robj20 said:
? It has a viewfinder. Any lens can be adapted to it, i myself am using some old Canon FD lenses with great results. Its a tool that does a job i don't see where emotion comes into it.
Click to expand...

Not optical one, and I refuse to work with limited resolution blinking EVF or 40 year old soft legacy glass, that was barely designed for massive 8x10" enlargements.

The EVF has much higher resolution, with 2.4 million dots (1024 x 768 RGB pixels), versus the 921,600 dots (640 x 480 RGB pixels) of the LCD monitor.
Click to expand...

That is one of the worst EVFs for 2014 in any mirrorless body, and LCD is equivalent to 2007 1D mark III (the worst bit about that camera).

and if you like it is a £2k detraction from my Tiguan / MF fund.
 
Last edited:
It's quite likely that the client was confusing sharpness and image quality with file size. In which case, you could just interpolate to whatever file size makes them happy?
 
HoppyUK said:
It's quite likely that the client was confusing sharpness and image quality with file size. In which case, you could just interpolate to whatever file size makes them happy?
Click to expand...

what do you think:
This would be used for a vinyl print 6935mm x 2680mm to cover a wall for an office fit out. We would need it in highest res possible, 450-600MB
Click to expand...
 
i just scanned in some large format 5x4 film. 48bit colour at 2400dpi , came to around 98megapixels and just over 500megs an image. You Nikon lightweights got nothing to moan about ;)
 
Bah come on, whoever wrote that is clearly confused and only knows a little bit about what they're talking about it, thinking they know a lot.

You can't help all of the people all of the time... move on and laugh about their silliness.
 
yep, besides you cound have a 600mb blurry image, or just save in a really ineffiecent format

plus of a foveon sensor gets about double the detail of a bayer sensor
 
oh and the evf on the sony's is fine, my favourite viewfinder is either leica M, or rb67
 
pingu666 said:
yep, besides you cound have a 600mb blurry image, or just save in a really ineffiecent format

plus of a foveon sensor gets about double the detail of a bayer sensor
Click to expand...

16bit uncompressed TIFF is usually used for this or properties / info? tab in photoshop. I still can't get near unless I go crazy blurry.

pingu666 said:
oh and the evf on the sony's is fine, my favourite viewfinder is either leica M, or rb67
Click to expand...

I'll leave that discussion to the others - I am simply not interested in product that doesn't meet all my needs and costs a fortune.
 
Tintin124 said:
Ok am I a little confused but could you have not taken multiple shots and stitched them together to make the high resolution you are after.

@Pookeyhead did a 40 image shot of his greenhouse if I remember correctly and when zoomed in you could see the individual water droplets.

I can't find the thread but sure @Pookeyhead can assist.

Edit: @Phal got in just before me.... written at same time on same page I think Etienne
Click to expand...


I no longer have the image.. it was just a test after all, but the resolution was unbelievable. I use the IQ180 quite regularly, and the stitch from the D800E files FAR out-resolved the IQ180.. it was insane. It was also GIGABYTES in size, and brought a 6core machine to it;s knees, so not something you'd want to do every day. The problems of course are that you can't just take one image, and that curtails the use of moving subjects, crowded streets, or any set that contains movement.

Sometimes, you have to shoot medium format. Simple as that. 35mm is just not up to massive wall sized prints, even the D800E/D810... not if you have a discerning client anyway. Your local restaurant or whatever, will probably be happy with any old crap you give them, but a discerning client with definite print requirements will not be happy if you turn up with a small format camera. Surely the OP spoke to the client, and knew what they wanted though? Why not just hire the gear and mark up the final invoice? If they are so discerning about quality, surely they must appreciate that such a job will not be cheap.

HoppyUK said:
It's quite likely that the client was confusing sharpness and image quality with file size. In which case, you could just interpolate to whatever file size makes them happy?
Click to expand...

If they are aware of file size needs, then they'll probably not be fooled by an interpolated 24MP image from a 35mm camera :) You can't add what's not there.


essexash said:
i just scanned in some large format 5x4 film. 48bit colour at 2400dpi , came to around 98megapixels and just over 500megs an image. You Nikon lightweights got nothing to moan about ;)
Click to expand...


It should have been FAR larger than that! A D800 TIFF at only 16bits is 205MB! and at 32bit, a D800 file is around 415MB.

When I scan a 5x4 neg on the Flextight it comes in at over 2GB, and that's at 14bit. At 48bit it would be a round 10GB in size! Besides... PPI means nothing... that's just print resolution. If you mean the dpi resolution of the scanner... that won't be optical. What kind of scanner you using? A flatbed? If so.. you're getting nowhere near 2400dpi resolution.What are the actual pixel dimensions of the resulting file? At 48bits a D800 file would be FAR larger than your 5x4 scan... somewhere in the order of 800MB.

You're doing something wrong :)

Also... why you scanning at 48bit? You do realise that level of bit-depth is simply not necessary and an utter waste of time?
 
Last edited:
looking at your website a evf would be completely fine for your work, really they only suffer vs flappy mirrors with sustained continous shooting of something moving pretty quickly. the actual resolution you get out of ground glass isnt that great.
a a7x, a77 a99, new olympus? all have great evf's, way better than the old ones.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Surely the OP spoke to the client, and knew what they wanted though? Why not just hire the gear and mark up the final invoice? If they are so discerning about quality, surely they must appreciate that such a job will not be cheap.

If they are aware of file size needs, then they'll probably not be fooled by an interpolated 24MP image from a 35mm camera :) You can't add what's not there.
Click to expand...

If I haven't made crystal clear yet - it was library sales enquiry. I wish they asked me to shoot it for them - I'd simply hire P1 and bill them.

5D3 gets me a measly 126MB and obviously the file in question is much older and smaller yet :(

pingu666 said:
looking at your website a evf would be completely fine for your work, really they only suffer vs flappy mirrors with sustained continous shooting of something moving pretty quickly. the actual resolution you get out of ground glass isnt that great.
a a7x, a77 a99, new olympus? all have great evf's, way better than the old ones.
Click to expand...

Thank you, please don't try to sell me so hard what I have not asked for. I hate bloody things, full stop. I'll more likely drive Honda Jazz or Corsa than buy one of these.
 
pingu666 said:
looking at your website a evf would be completely fine for your work, really they only suffer vs flappy mirrors with sustained continous shooting of something moving pretty quickly. the actual resolution you get out of ground glass isnt that great.
a a7x, a77 a99, new olympus? all have great evf's, way better than the old ones.
Click to expand...

The dude doesn't want one, and I don't blame him. There are proper camera's available with the same resolution.
 
My customer just had a 4 metre x 1 metre long print made from a 5 stitched-pano. I dont see what the issue is. Just some imagination and maybe a lot of stitching then some post to clean up any people who have walked across the frame.

If you wanted just a HUGE file, just save it as a 32bit TIFF. That'll suck up your hard drive though you might not get it to fit on a DVD lol.
 
Carlh said:
My customer just had a 4 metre x 1 metre long print made from a 5 stitched-pano. I dont see what the issue is. Just some imagination and maybe a lot of stitching then some post to clean up any people who have walked across the frame.

If you wanted just a HUGE file, just save it as a 32bit TIFF. That'll suck up your hard drive though you might not get it to fit on a DVD lol.
Click to expand...

I large file of a small format image fools no one. I'm sure the customer would have complained, and any professional would not put their reputation on the line by up-ressing crappy files to just hit a file size target. I certainly wouldn't do it... I have some integrity as a professional.

As for stitching, he's already explained that this was a sale of a stock image he had already taken.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The dude doesn't want one, and I don't blame him. There are proper camera's available with the same resolution.
Click to expand...

well yes a proper camera has issues with scanning, if you mean a film camera ;), but my point is you dont need a flappy mirror anymore for his type of work, and the good evf's are pretty much equal now, and have some useful advantages... just seems abit silly to me to dissmiss camera's hes not even tried, over something that probably will make negliable difference in the end.
 
pingu666 said:
well yes a proper camera has issues with scanning, if you mean a film camera ;), but my point is you dont need a flappy mirror anymore for his type of work, and the good evf's are pretty much equal now, and have some useful advantages... just seems abit silly to me to dissmiss camera's hes not even tried, over something that probably will make negliable difference in the end.
Click to expand...


I wasn't referring to film cameras. EVFs suck! Stop evangelising abut mirrorless. We get it... you think they're great, but he's already told you twice he has no interest in them :)
 
Oh... and to answer the OP's other question: I wouldn't buy anything as a professional tool unless it could pay for itself within 6 months MAXIMUM. Bad investment otherwise. If you can afford one, and just want one, sure, but I'm assuming this is the only time you've been approached by a client who demands such quality, and you could well be investing in it for nothing. Hire when needed is my advice, but only when the client's demands require it (and the budget is there)... not just to look cool or anything.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It should have been FAR larger than that! A D800 TIFF at only 16bits is 205MB! and at 32bit, a D800 file is around 415MB.

When I scan a 5x4 neg on the Flextight it comes in at over 2GB, and that's at 14bit. At 48bit it would be a round 10GB in size! Besides... PPI means nothing... that's just print resolution. If you mean the dpi resolution of the scanner... that won't be optical. What kind of scanner you using? A flatbed? If so.. you're getting nowhere near 2400dpi resolution.What are the actual pixel dimensions of the resulting file? At 48bits a D800 file would be FAR larger than your 5x4 scan... somewhere in the order of 800MB.

You're doing something wrong :)

Also... why you scanning at 48bit? You do realise that level of bit-depth is simply not necessary and an utter waste of time?
Click to expand...

well thats the file size the scanner software saves it at, i guess its compressed in some way then. Im using an Epson v750 which plenty of independant tests have shown it can hit 2400, ending pixel size is 10824 x 8600 which indeed doesnt correspond to 5x4's worth of pixels so i reckon i am doing something wrong somewhere, im missing 300pixels!

And yeah 48 bit is a waste of time, i just confused the other day in the way photoshop uses "bits" and the way the scanner software uses them, usualy its just 16bits which gives me a 280meg tif, compressed no doubt.
 
essexash said:
And yeah 48 bit is a waste of time, i just confused the other day in the way photoshop uses "bits" and the way the scanner software uses them, usualy its just 16bits which gives me a 280meg tif, compressed no doubt.
Click to expand...

As was pointed out in the thread when you asked about it, 16 bit is the same as 48 bit (i.e 48 bit = 16 bit per colour channel), hence why some scanning software refers to it as 16/48 bit.

Its just a different way of representing the same thing! Personally I always just refer to it as 16 bit as that avoids confusion.
 
Last edited:
essexash said:
well thats the file size the scanner software saves it at, i guess its compressed in some way then. Im using an Epson v750 which plenty of independant tests have shown it can hit 2400, ending pixel size is 10824 x 8600 which indeed doesnt correspond to 5x4's worth of pixels so i reckon i am doing something wrong somewhere, im missing 300pixels!

And yeah 48 bit is a waste of time, i just confused the other day in the way photoshop uses "bits" and the way the scanner software uses them, usualy its just 16bits which gives me a 280meg tif, compressed no doubt.
Click to expand...

TIFF with zip compression? The scanned 48 bit actually refers to 3x16bit for each colour channel. So it is the normal 16bit. I think.
 
ok fair do's Apologies for derailing a little. It was just a whimsical reply to the thread.
 
essexash said:
well thats the file size the scanner software saves it at, i guess its compressed in some way then. Im using an Epson v750 which plenty of independant tests have shown it can hit 2400, ending pixel size is 10824 x 8600 which indeed doesnt correspond to 5x4's worth of pixels so i reckon i am doing something wrong somewhere, im missing 300pixels!

And yeah 48 bit is a waste of time, i just confused the other day in the way photoshop uses "bits" and the way the scanner software uses them, usualy its just 16bits which gives me a 280meg tif, compressed no doubt.
Click to expand...


For that pixel resolution, the file size you mention would be appropriate for a 16bit TIFF, not 48 bit.

s162216 said:
As was pointed out in the thread when you asked about it, 16 bit is the same as 48 bit (i.e 48 bit = 16 bit per colour channel), hence why some scanning software refers to it as 16/48 bit.

Its just a different way of representing the same thing! Personally I always just refer to it as 16 bit as that avoids confusion.
Click to expand...

Yeah... there's a difference between 48bit, and 48bits per channel. What you have is a 16bit TIFF. Still seems a little weak IMO. That MASSIVE negative is only giving you twice the file size as a D800. My scans are over 2GB (at 16bit) from a 5x4 neg. What a waste. You're not even scratching the surface of what a 5x4 neg can do.

essexash said:
ok fair do's Apologies for derailing a little. It was just a whimsical reply to the thread.
Click to expand...

It's all interesting stuff :)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
For that pixel resolution, the file size you mention would be appropriate for a 16bit TIFF, not 48 bit.



Yeah... there's a difference between 48bit, and 48bits per channel. What you have is a 16bit TIFF. Still seems a little weak IMO. That MASSIVE negative is only giving you twice the file size as a D800. My scans are over 2GB (at 16bit) from a 5x4 neg. What a waste. You're not even scratching the surface of what a 5x4 neg can do.



It's all interesting stuff :)
Click to expand...
It is! I've learned something from this thread, very interesting indeed :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
My scans are over 2GB (at 16bit) from a 5x4 neg. What a waste. You're not even scratching the surface of what a 5x4 neg can do.
:)
Click to expand...

yes but your not using a "normal" scanner that the rest of us have access to are you so of course yours are bigger. I do bow to your knowledge on a lot of things but there is always a degree of willy waving to your posts. Yes yours are bigger and better and mine never will be, well done for getting the best out of other peopls gear, im using the best that i can afford so yes, im getting the best out of the negs that i can. Again, apologies for the thread derail.
 
Last edited:
essexash said:
yes but your not using a "normal" scanner that the rest of us have access to are you so of course yours are bigger. I do bow to your knowledge on a lot of things but there is always a degree of willy waving to your posts. Yes yours are bigger and better and mine never will be, well done for getting the best out of other peopls gear, im using the best that i can afford so yes, im getting the best out of the negs that i can. Again, apologies for the thread derail.
Click to expand...

Woah... no willy waving here (it's not like I own the scanner or anything). I'm suggesting there's something not quite right here... not trying to belittle you in any way. 2400dpi for a 5x4 neg should be around 13,000 pixels across and at 16bit depth be around 700MB at least. Something weird going on with the scanning software?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top