How is 70"x90" print possible from İQ180?Help needed?

[Wayne Fox]

@ Wayne and Bob

Just for my better understanding: why first uprezzing it a little "too much" and then scaling it down again?

the best resize algorithm is bicubic, but to optimize it you must scale the image in "even" increments. So a 200% uprez in bicubic will result in less artifacts and cleaner detail than if you would uprez it 170% or something like that. For continuous tone devices like the lightjet (where each pixel of the file corresponds to a single pixel of the image) you then have to rez it to exact pixel dimensions, but now stepping down will enhance the image. The difference is subtle but worth doing.

As others mentioned, if you are using a high quality lab they may be able to maximize your quality, because they are familiar with some of the expectations of the machine. I can get better results doing it myself than using the tools available for my Noritusu and Chromira printers, but then I am also a printer, having owned and operated photo labs since 1977, and working with digital printing since the introduction of Kodak's LED printer in the 90's.

so it's going to depend on the lab and the skill of their operators.

 

[Kai Birkigt]

the best resize algorithm is bicubic, but to optimize it you must scale the image in "even" increments. So a 200% uprez in bicubic will result in less artifacts and cleaner detail than if you would uprez it 170% or something like that. For continuous tone devices like the lightjet (where each pixel of the file corresponds to a single pixel of the image) you then have to rez it to exact pixel dimensions, but now stepping down will enhance the image. The difference is subtle but worth doing.

Thank you, sounds very logical. :thumbup:

Best
Kai

 

[etrump]

Hi Stefan,
I have Perfect Resize 7 and find Bob's method of uprezzing and down razzing using CS5 to be noticeably better. That used not to be the case in CS3 and below...
Best,
Bob

Agreed, the difference is noticeable at 100% and will be visible in a lightjet/chromira print. The quality of output on these printers is pretty amazing.

It also helps if you have a sharpening toolkit designed for continuous tone printers. I use photokit sharpener but suspect there are others just as good. Photokit has a tendency to overdo the lighter side of edges. They do the lighter and darker transitions as separate layers making it easy to adjust to taste with opacity tweaks.

If you can see artifacts at 100% you will most likely be able to see them in the finished print under close examination with the naked eye. The inkjet method of slightly over-sharpening is not a good idea with contone output. (IMHO)

 

[Wayne Fox]

Agreed, the difference is noticeable at 100% and will be visible in a lightjet/chromira print. The quality of output on these printers is pretty amazing.

It also helps if you have a sharpening toolkit designed for continuous tone printers. I use photokit sharpener but suspect there are others just as good. Photokit has a tendency to overdo the lighter side of edges. They do the lighter and darker transitions as separate layers making it easy to adjust to taste with opacity tweaks.

If you can see artifacts at 100% you will most likely be able to see them in the finished print under close examination with the naked eye. The inkjet method of slightly over-sharpening is not a good idea with contone output. (IMHO)

Are the terms contone and continuous tone interchangeable? I know I see a lot of labs and photographers using them like this, but it seems originally the term "contone" was a printer that used dots of varying sizes and densities without the use of a halftone screen to simulate continuous tone (inkjet printers when they were beginning to be refined for high quality output I believe were often referred to as contone printers in their marketing speak, I recall Kodak making a big deal out of their 5260 wide format printer with what they called dynamic contone.)

(sorry, guess I'm bored tonight ...)