Hi,
I hope that somebody can give me an idea.
I want to get 30x20inch print of image 600x800pix.
I know that with this size I can not do. If I use software to enlarge the resolution to 3,000x2,000pix, the result looks very bad on the screen.
What is the best to do?
(scan the small print with high resolution?)
Or I just forget it?
Thanks in advance
Roberto
I hope that somebody can give me an idea.
I want to get 30x20inch print of image 600x800pix.
I know that with this size I can not do. If I use software to enlarge the resolution to 3,000x2,000pix, the result looks very bad on the screen.
What is the best to do?
(scan the small print with high resolution?)
Or I just forget it?
Thanks in advance
Roberto
You are probably out of luck ...
If I had a high resolution printer AND scanner, I might try stepwise enlarging: print, scan, enlarge to 150%, repeat.
If you do that 4 times, the 800x600 image will now be 2700x2025 pixels.
I have never tried this, so I don't know how it works in real life; it is just a theory.
One other thing: the print image from a good printer will be better than the image on the screen, but you need a way to "add" pixels (as the technique above clumsily tries to do.) There may be software programs that attempt the same thing - that "smooth" out the pixels on a small resolution image to generate a 300 dpi print image.
Hopefully someone else has better advise!
If I had a high resolution printer AND scanner, I might try stepwise enlarging: print, scan, enlarge to 150%, repeat.
If you do that 4 times, the 800x600 image will now be 2700x2025 pixels.
I have never tried this, so I don't know how it works in real life; it is just a theory.
One other thing: the print image from a good printer will be better than the image on the screen, but you need a way to "add" pixels (as the technique above clumsily tries to do.) There may be software programs that attempt the same thing - that "smooth" out the pixels on a small resolution image to generate a 300 dpi print image.
Hopefully someone else has better advise!
Can you define "small print". Is that 4x6"? If that is all you have, the best way I see is to first get the maximum information (read: resolution) out of that. Any following step will only reduce the quality.
For a reasonable print quality count with 200dpi, so 4000x6000pixels. That's a scan of the original 4x6" at 1000dpi.
Depending on the quality you get on your screen you can try to sharpen a bit, but don't overdo, because in the big 20x30" blowup every effect will enlarge and sharpening may look aweful.
Save the result as tiff to maintain maximum quality. Jpeg compression is likely to show at such enlargements.
Don't expect miracles, the end result will lack sharpness but depending on the purpose of the print it may be satisfactory.
Robert
For a reasonable print quality count with 200dpi, so 4000x6000pixels. That's a scan of the original 4x6" at 1000dpi.
Depending on the quality you get on your screen you can try to sharpen a bit, but don't overdo, because in the big 20x30" blowup every effect will enlarge and sharpening may look aweful.
Save the result as tiff to maintain maximum quality. Jpeg compression is likely to show at such enlargements.
Don't expect miracles, the end result will lack sharpness but depending on the purpose of the print it may be satisfactory.
Robert
Thanks Mark and Robert for your reply!
The original photo has 660x880pix, 300pix/inch and 5.6x7.4 cm print size.
The quality of A4 print by Cannon i9100 is very good .
I use Photobox.ie for poster prints and the photo need to be send in jpeg format.
Do you need some more info for advise?
Thanks again for the reply!!!
Roberto
The original photo has 660x880pix, 300pix/inch and 5.6x7.4 cm print size.
The quality of A4 print by Cannon i9100 is very good .
I use Photobox.ie for poster prints and the photo need to be send in jpeg format.
Do you need some more info for advise?
Thanks again for the reply!!!
Roberto
27.04.06, 01:19
Post 5 of 20
Personally I have not had specific experience of this size of size increase but I would seek to increase the image size using bicubic resampling at 10% increments until the required size is reached - there may be some softness created after so many re-samplings. Then at the end try USM at varying settings using trial and error till you get the best end result. Print resolution should be around 300dpi. Good luck. regards, Paul.
Thanks for your comments.
I will go for scan - enlarge 50% - print - scan .......
I will go for scan - enlarge 50% - print - scan .......
Please let us know what you discover, Roberto.
Best wishes, MW
Best wishes, MW
I will do Mark.
29.04.06, 17:38
Post 9 of 20
Hi Roberto - I have just created a 800x600 pixel image and enlarged it to 3000x2000 pixels in one step in PS .. then I sharpened it a little .. to be honest the difference is not hardly noticeable and I would even suggest the sharpened enlargement looks better - this leads me to the question, why do your enlargements done in an editing software package look bad ??
Thanks Paul to take time and for help.
Here is the part of image after enlargment for A3 print size and zoom to 100%:
[fc-foto:5548590]
I use only PS ellements but this should not be athe problem, I think.
Here is the part of image after enlargment for A3 print size and zoom to 100%:
[fc-foto:5548590]
I use only PS ellements but this should not be athe problem, I think.
29.04.06, 20:55
Post 11 of 20
So that is the image at print size ... it sure looks worse than mine .. I can only presume that the image I tested was a better starting image in terms of resolution and noise etc and the image is just being stretched to its quality limitations .. and yes, Elements is fine - as should all editing packages be for re-sizing really. Please be aware though that a larger image will often be viewed from farther away and whilst degredation is unavoidable when enlarging like this the viewing distance will render some of the degredation less visible from farther away. Look at bllboard adverts that may be dreadful close up but when viewed from a distance become fine ... Hope you get somewhere with the scanning although I fail to see how scanning to an enlarged size can be better than direct software interpolation and resampling. Regards, Paul.
Hi All,
I printed the above version of the photo in A3 format and looks OK.
Does not look so bad as on the screen.
I printed the above version of the photo in A3 format and looks OK.
Does not look so bad as on the screen.
01.05.06, 21:50
Post 13 of 20
Excellent, Regards, Paul.
I just received 30x20 inch poster of the photo and is OK.
30 x 20 inches? Wow! That's great, Roberto. Printer technology is still a mystery to me.