Looking for advice on large print request

[marvinchagler]

I have a client who is looking to do some prints for standard billboards, as well as large walkway billboards for airports etc. The specs they have given me are "45' x 25' @ 600dpi."

I know the viewing distance is supposed to be very close as you can potentially walk right beside them, but that just sounds crazy to me. 45 feet at 600 dpi?

If I'm understanding that right, it would be roughly 14x10 100MP files stitched together, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insight on if that is correct, or how one might go about building such a massive file. Any advice is appreciated, thanks!

 

[Boinger]

Are you sure they aren't reffering to print resolution and not photo resolution. That just sounds nuts / they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[marvinchagler]

Are you sure they aren't reffering to print resolution and not photo resolution. That just sounds nuts / they don't know what they are talking about.

If that were the case, do you know what photo resolution would be needed for that?

 

[faberryman]

if that were the case, do you know what photo resolution would be needed for that?

I calculate that as 58,320MP.

 

[tashley]

The client has no idea.

Apple does billboards from an iPhone.

45' = 540" @600 dpi/ppi = 324,000 pixels
25' = 180,000 pixels

= 58.32 billion pixels (see Fabberyman above)

or a stitch of (using an IQ4-150 with native file size of 14,204 x 10,652)

at least 23 frames horizontal stitch (assuming no stitching overlap, so make that, realistically, about 40 frames - and HTF do you stitch that without some vast, weird rig?)

by

at least 17 frames vertical (so with overlaps let's make that at least 25)

40 x 24 = 1,000 frames on the highest resolution camera money can buy.

There is no subject on earth, outside of a very well controlled studio, where you could keep light consistent across that number of exposures, which I estimate a VERY skilled and experienced photographer would take about 8-12 hours to shoot - if- IF - they could get the technical and equipment stuff sorted and find flash heads that could handle the tolerances of duration and colour temperature needed and a computer that could handle the file.

The client has no idea.... let's hope they don't want you to HDR it and focus stack.

 

[Satrycon]

probably the "lightbox" style super high rez billboards..they're usually around 30feet++ Ive seen some at Arrivals, in Incheon Airport, Korea.

I have a client who is looking to do some prints for standard billboards, as well as large walkway billboards for airports etc. The specs they have given me are "45' x 25' @ 600dpi."

I know the viewing distance is supposed to be very close as you can potentially walk right beside them, but that just sounds crazy to me. 45 feet at 600 dpi?

If I'm understanding that right, it would be roughly 14x10 100MP files stitched together, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insight on if that is correct, or how one might go about building such a massive file. Any advice is appreciated, thanks!

 

[Shashin]

You will simply need to uprez the file to their specs. The largest I have ever had to make an image was 165" x 165". This was for an exhibition, so people were going to walk up to it. But the print is not going to have infinite detail and viewers don't expect that--the photographic illusion is pretty resilient and robust. It did take some trial and error to get the image to look smooth. I used the Photoshop grain filter to replace pixel artifacts with a more even grain pattern. Sharpening can be more complex as you can start using radii larger than you would normally do. There was a lot of testing with 42" x 20" sections.

I think the subject and how it is photographed will also help. If you have narrow DoF or areas with little detail, those areas can stand a lot of enlargement. An image about color rather than detail would work better. Also, the higher up the area of the image is, the further away the viewer--the top of the image is going to have to be viewed from 30 or 40 feet away. I am not sure I would shoot with the print size in mind. I would shoot with the space it was going to be installed in in mind. How are people going to view it. We are the sight angles. This is not an exhibition and so people are not going to offer the scrutiny they might with an exhibition space. Most are in a hurry and tired.

 

[marvinchagler]

My guess is the design team isn't that familiar with billboard workflow in Photoshop, and are just seeing a line on the spec sheet for the output and thinking they need a raw image that matches that 1:1. Glad you all confirmed my thoughts, because that would be a ridiculous file, if it were even possible to create properly.

Appreciate the replies everyone!

 

[JeRuFo]

Ask them if they already reserved time on a supercomputer, otherwise there might be a delay of a few months.

 

[narikin]

Yeah, I'd be confident they mean output resolution.

I'm not clear - are you the photographer or the printer?

If photographer, either use 2/3 way stitching Phase One IQ4 MF digital in landscape mode, or one of those automated multi-pano cradles for a FF camera, and great MF lenses (Zeiss Otus?) with lowest ISO you can use.

If printer, use Q image, and their special upsizing. Print at 720dpi, sending a file at 120dpi for an Epson x880 generation printer gives great results (everyone says 180dpi, but trust me, that isn't so). 100dpi with the new P20000 generation works well too. Lowering the input resolution to the printer, at one of the exact native resolution divisibles, works better than excessive upscaling, imho.

 

[tashley]

Yeah, I'd be confident they mean output resolution.

I'm not clear - are you the photographer or the printer?

If photographer, either use 2/3 way stitching Phase One IQ4 MF digital in landscape mode, or one of those automated multi-pano cradles for a FF camera, and great MF lenses (Zeiss Otus?) with lowest ISO you can use.

If printer, use Q image, and their special upsizing. Print at 720dpi, sending a file at 120dpi for an Epson x880 generation printer gives great results (everyone says 180dpi, but trust me, that isn't so). 100dpi with the new P20000 generation works well too. Lowering the input resolution to the printer, at one of the exact native resolution divisibles, works better than excessive upscaling, imho.

I totally agree: let the printer handle the up-res.

 

[marvinchagler]

Yeah, I'd be confident they mean output resolution.

I'm not clear - are you the photographer or the printer?

If photographer, either use 2/3 way stitching Phase One IQ4 MF digital in landscape mode, or one of those automated multi-pano cradles for a FF camera, and great MF lenses (Zeiss Otus?) with lowest ISO you can use.

If printer, use Q image, and their special upsizing. Print at 720dpi, sending a file at 120dpi for an Epson x880 generation printer gives great results (everyone says 180dpi, but trust me, that isn't so). 100dpi with the new P20000 generation works well too. Lowering the input resolution to the printer, at one of the exact native resolution divisibles, works better than excessive upscaling, imho.

I'm the photographer. I've been talking with the agency producer, who has likely been sent a random spec document from one of their in-house designers and doesn't understand the workflow to build out a print like that. I'm not entirely sure who they have contracted to do the printing, but I'm going to see if they can put me in touch with the printer directly this week.

My guess is a single image from an IQ3100 (or especially IQ4150 if I can find that back to rent) will still look great at that size from a reasonable viewing distance of a couple of feet, and would be killer if I stitched even 2-3 images together.

 

[faberryman]

Isn't this a common issue: how do you blow up an image to a standard 14'x48' billboard?

 

[marvinchagler]

Isn't this a common issue: how do you blow up an image to a standard 14'x48' billboard?

Usually it's not really an issue, because typically billboards have a really low dpi and a viewing distance of 50+ feet at minimum. Just a bit of a weird and probably uneducated request that they are asking for an image that is 48 feet wide at 600 dpi.

 

[Shashin]

The printer might actually be working at 600dpi, but that does not mean the files needs to be that. The RIP shorts that out.

 

[RLB]

As long as your have a minimum of 150DPI (Quality DPI) at 100% scale of output, you should be fine. Assuming the "quality" of the file is excellent.

Many people get hung up on specific DPI for output. After 25 years of printing large scale professionally for museums, galleries and artist, I assure you their are far more important variables than "DPI". And ALWAYS, quality over quantity (file size). The variables include such things as: true optical quality of file, shadow and highlight detail, contrast range, imbedded noise from sensor, overall percentage of image the main subject represents...shall I go on?

Bottom line: the actual quality of the file will dictate the true limits of enlargement, not the file size in MB.

The type of output device, RIP, media used, relative viewing distance all play significant roles too. Using a 100mp or 150mp Phase sensor and and a great lens should cover your needs. Billboard printers are not capable of printing ANYWHERE near 600dpi, a number which only fine art printers achieve. Billboard printers (the output devices) are designed for speed, not quality to be viewed from 3" away. Otherwise it would take a weeks to print a single billboard. Did I mention dot gain?

Robert

Bullivant Gallery

 

[PedroL]

Yeah, I'd be confident they mean output resolution.

I'm not clear - are you the photographer or the printer?

If photographer, either use 2/3 way stitching Phase One IQ4 MF digital in landscape mode, or one of those automated multi-pano cradles for a FF camera, and great MF lenses (Zeiss Otus?) with lowest ISO you can use.

If printer, use Q image, and their special upsizing. Print at 720dpi, sending a file at 120dpi for an Epson x880 generation printer gives great results (everyone says 180dpi, but trust me, that isn't so). 100dpi with the new P20000 generation works well too. Lowering the input resolution to the printer, at one of the exact native resolution divisibles, works better than excessive upscaling, imho.

You are absolutely right. Just make sure to use divisibles of the printer used. My experience is only with Epson, but Canon might be different.

 

[earburner]

From my experience billboards are designed and rendered in adobe Indesign to pdf or eps and then tiled and printed with a rip program. InDesign works with low rez previews and renders the output file line by line so you don't need a super computer.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Another printer here, and I completely agree with Robert. DPI is just another link in the imaging chain. Asking for a 600dpi billboard print is like asking for a backhoe that can drive at 250 miles per hour. If your Phase 100mp back isn't enough to do this job, then it is somewhat astonishing how we managed all these years...they have those billboards at the airport I use regularly, and they look terrible up close, as many of the files are made on Canon 5D's and so on and photoshopped to hell...at least here in Iceland. Clearly, you are going to give them better quality, but again, I agree with Robert in that the baseline quality of the file is the most important when doing huge enlargements. If the file does not look pristine at 100%, then it will likely not look great when very large. If it does, it is remarkably robust. This is one of the reasons MFD tends to enlarge so well...even when it was lower resolution. The per pixel quality has always been high. Same thing with film. As soon as you add in color noise, CA and other digital issues that are more common in smaller formats, things start to go south.

As long as your have a minimum of 150DPI (Quality DPI) at 100% scale of output, you should be fine. Assuming the "quality" of the file is excellent.

Many people get hung up on specific DPI for output. After 25 years of printing large scale professionally for museums, galleries and artist, I assure you their are far more important variables than "DPI". And ALWAYS, quality over quantity (file size). The variables include such things as: true optical quality of file, shadow and highlight detail, contrast range, imbedded noise from sensor, overall percentage of image the main subject represents...shall I go on?

Bottom line: the actual quality of the file will dictate the true limits of enlargement, not the file size in MB.

The type of output device, RIP, media used, relative viewing distance all play significant roles too. Using a 100mp or 150mp Phase sensor and and a great lens should cover your needs. Billboard printers are not capable of printing ANYWHERE near 600dpi, a number which only fine art printers achieve. Billboard printers (the output devices) are designed for speed, not quality to be viewed from 3" away. Otherwise it would take a weeks to print a single billboard. Did I mention dot gain?

Robert

Bullivant Gallery

 

[marvinchagler]

Thanks Stuart and Robert, really great info! Haha I like the backhoe comparison, might end up having to use that depending on how conversations with them go.

I did end up getting a document from them this morning, check out the attached image for anyone curious.

Based on this sheet, worst case scenario do you think this would still work reasonably well if shot on a 5DMKIV? I imagine quality would only go up if using a 5DSR or IQ3100, but depending on certain set ups I may have to change systems from the Phase.