Can a ink jet printer really resolve all the detail from a Leica image?

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At 300 lines per inch, can a ink jet printer really resolve all the detail from Leica's modern digital cameras (60 megs) and best best Leica lenses?   

[StS]

That depends on the size of the print. Simply divide the pixel number of the sensor in one direction by 300 and you get the lenght of the print (in inch) where the camera is using all available print pixels. The lens plays an important role as well, more important, apart from being able to resolve the limit of the sensor it has a distinct impact on how the whole picture is rendered.

In practice, this is irrelevant, for my personal purposes everything more than 24 mp does not contribute more to a higher image quality.

Stefan

[thebarnman]

That's interesting.  I shoot on transparency film and project it with a Leica projector (of course.)  I know all the resolvable detail that's possible to resolve from the slide is there but I started to think it might be time to give digital a try.  To me that means making prints then of course I started thinking is there any limiting factor on the print from the digital information.  

 

Do you happen to know the pixel number of the sensor in one direction of the newer 60 meg sensors?  

 

 

 

 

[Ecar]

1 hour ago, thebarnman said:

Do you happen to know the pixel number of the sensor in one direction of the newer 60 meg sensors?  

9528 x 6328

[M11 for me]

60'000'000 Pixels = (3*X)*(2*X) = 6 * X^2

10'000'000 Pixels = X^2

X = 3'162'000 Pixels

(3*X)*(2*X) = 9'500'000 Pixels * 6'300'000 Pixels approx . . .

whereas 3 and 2 (the numbers in the brackets) stand for the format of the sensor resp. the image. ^2 stands for square.

[thighslapper]

Simple maths gives you a 33inch print on 1:1 pixel level with 60mpx and 300dpi

That isn't the whole story as even at larger print sizes there is both ink bleed and interpolation that yield detailed images way beyond the theoretical 1:1 level.

Furthermore 300 dpi is about the maximum resolving power of the human eye at normal close handheld print distances (about a foot), so unless you are viewing larger than 3 foot prints with your nose up against them they will appear to be perfectly rendered. 

Modern Leica lenses probably exceed the resolving power of 60mpx with a fair margin to spare, so that's not the limiting factor. (*)

In my experience of scanning 35mm slides, current digital sensors produce way more detailed images. 

(*) the Fuji XH2 has 40mpx crammed onto a small APS-C sensor ..... and Fuji admits only the latest of its (excellent) range of lenses can fully resolve to this pixel density. 

Edited April 22, 2024 by thighslapper

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Stunden schrieb StS:

That depends on the size of the print.

That's right.

.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb StS:

Simply divide the pixel number of the sensor in one direction by 300 and you get the lenght of the print (in inch) where the camera is using all available print pixels.

That's wrong.

First of all, ink printers don't have, or create, pixels. They emit dots—and a dot is not the printed equivalent to a pixel. If pixels are atoms then dots are quarks. So please stop confusing ppi and dpi!

Second, this magic number 300 is just a daft myth. At a print size of 20 × 30 inches (50 × 75 cm), a 60 megapixel image is far, FAR from any limits. Even a 6 MP image will look just fine at that size. Compared to 35-mm negatives or transparencies, for printing you're better off with digital as soon as the pixel number exceeds, say, 10 or 12 MP. For more than a decade now, we have digital cameras which are way better than 35-mm film ever was.

In real life, you can always print as big as you want. Sure—at some point, the image's individual pixels or lack of finest detail may become perceptible when scrutinizing the print at reading distance. But then, the print will be so big you'd have to step back from it to see the picture. Then you won't see any pixels anymore.

[dpitt]

5 hours ago, thebarnman said:

That's interesting.  I shoot on transparency film and project it with a Leica projector (of course.)  I know all the resolvable detail that's possible to resolve from the slide is there but I started to think it might be time to give digital a try.  To me that means making prints then of course I started thinking is there any limiting factor on the print from the digital information.  

 

Do you happen to know the pixel number of the sensor in one direction of the newer 60 meg sensors?  

 

 

 

 

As @01af pointed out, you will have plenty of resolution with a 60MP camera (in theory).
I think that most film negatives yield a resolution comparable to 8MP - 20MP digital today. And 20MP is with very special slow emulsions probably. Having said that it is really hard to compare film with digital. So if this is your first digital camera, I would recommend starting with a nice 24 MP camera.
The quality of these pixels matters more than the amount of pixels. e.g. my 10MP Leica M8 still out resolves some of the 24MP bodies on the market today.

Going above 24MP could possibly bring other issues. It would make the step into digital a bit harder and more expensive (more performance ,  RAM and storage needed on the post processing side) and harder to work with. Think of issues that you would have with shooting 6x6 film.... higher shutter speed to avoid motion blur, lower apparent DOF etc...
There is nothing against that, if you want that of course, YMMV

Edited April 22, 2024 by dpitt

[elmars]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb 01af:

That's right.

.

That's wrong.

First of all, ink printers don't have, or create, pixels. They emit dots—and a dot is not the printed equivalent to a pixel. If pixels are atoms then dots are quarks. So please stop confusing ppi and dpi!

Second, this magic number 300 is just a daft myth. At a print size of 20 × 30 inches (50 × 75 cm), a 60 megapixel image is far, FAR from any limits. Even a 6 MP image will look just fine at that size. Compared to 35-mm negatives or transparencies, for printing you're better off with digital as soon as the pixel number exceeds, say, 10 or 12 MP. For more than a decade now, we have digital cameras which are way better than 35-mm film ever was.

In real life, you can always print as big as you want. Sure—at some point, the image's individual pixels or lack of finest detail may become perceptible when scrutinizing the print at reading distance. But then, the print will be so big you'd have to step back from it to see the picture. Then you won't see any pixels anymore.

Thank you! Is it imagination or reality that the tonal gradation on a print appears finer with a higher pixel count? From time to time I have the impression that printed 60 MP photos look like medium format to large format film compared to 24 MP photos. But it may just be the light.

I would be interested in your opinion. 

[01af]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb elmars:

Is it imagination or reality that the tonal gradation on a print appears finer with a higher pixel count?

Good question.

In my daily ... umm, or weekly business, I am rather occupied with churning out acceptable prints from very small (and low-quality) digital files at well below 100 ppi. There's some tricks you can apply, such as a sequence of scaling up, blurring, re-sharpening, and adding noise, to make a poor print look better.

.

vor 13 Minuten schrieb elmars:

From time to time I have the impression that printed 60 MP photos look like medium format to large format film compared to 24 MP photos. 

That's what I also heard elsewhere. Well, not 24 MP vs 60 MP specifically ... but, say, printing at 200 - 300 ppi vs 360 - 720 ppi. The higher pixel count won't add any perceptible detail but will—allegedly—improve image quality (colours, tones, micro-contrast, whatever) in a subtle, hard-to-describe way. So far I never bothered to investigate this topic any further (mostly due to cost of consumables) ... but maybe I should. Anyway, you're not the first person to bring up this question. By the way—what print sizes are we talking about?

[elmars]

vor einer Stunde schrieb 01af:

By the way—what print sizes are we talking about?

Not very big. Some month ago I printed some photos from the M11-M in about 30x30 cm and was very delighted by the tonal gradiation  (Tonwertabstufung).

vor einer Stunde schrieb 01af:

improve image quality (colours, tones, micro-contrast, whatever) in a subtle, hard-to-describe way.

Probably this is it. 

[dpitt]

@elmars Let's not hijack this topic too much. The OP asked a question about printing 60MP at 300 ppi. Question is... if you are new to a digital workflow and to printing, would you get results where these subtle differences would show?

IMO the OP has 3 domains to master before we can speak of subtle differences between 300ppi and 700ppi prints.

1. Switch from using film to a digital camera.
   Not that it is very hard. But it takes a while before you get the best out of digital in general. And then it takes a while to master a particular digital camera model to get the most out of it.
2. Then switch from a wet darkroom to PP on computer. If you want to get to a point where this topic matters, or even to a point where it makes sense to spend a lot of money on new Leica gear, IMO that involves a RAW work flow and 'developing' your shots in PP.
3. Printing and getting consistent results is an art in itself. I have a lot of experience in the first 2 domains, but I admit that I am just above beginner level on this point. I have an expert in the family who invested in his printer, inks and papers in a way that I will never be able to match. And most important, he is willing to spend a lot more time than I do to master his printer and the differences in the types of paper that he uses. My best keepers are safe in his hands if I want to get them printed.

@thebarnman I did not want to scare you. You sound like someone who is perfectionist enough to master these domains, but I think that you are focusing too much on the MP count now. My advice is to start with a good digital camera (which 60MP Leica one are you thinking about?) and see where it gets you. Then "project" your results on a good large 4K TV, or even better on a good PC monitor once you have processed them. That will be the easiest path to get similar results as with your projected slides. Then in a later stage, you can worry about getting the most out of prints.

Edited April 22, 2024 by dpitt

[marchyman]

6 hours ago, 01af said:

If pixels are atoms then dots are quarks.

Wonderful!  I must remember that analogy.  And also wonder what percentage of the population will understand it.

[pop]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb 01af:

First of all, ink printers don't have, or create, pixels. They emit dots—and a dot is not the printed equivalent to a pixel. If pixels are atoms then dots are quarks. So please stop confusing ppi and dpi!

Reasonably recent printers (Epson  EcoTank ET-8550) print at 5.760 x 1.440 dpi, e.g. It does not sound impossible to reach 300 dpi with such a device, which was the TO's benchmark.

[jaapv]

https://expertphotography.com/megapixel-image-resolution/

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

* Zitatrecht

[01af]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb pop:

Reasonably recent printers (Epson EcoTank ET-8550) print at 5,760 × 1,440 dpi, e. g. It does not sound impossible to reach 300 dpi with such a device, which was the TO's benchmark.

Actually we have no idea what the thread opener's 'benchmark' is, as he said 'lines per inch.' Apparently he has no idea what the differences between ppi, dpi, and lpi are. Neither have you, obviously. Nobody wants a photo printer that prints at measly 300 dpi. In fact, photo printers printing at such a low quality don't even exist, as far as I know. If you—or anyone—know otherwise then please give an example.

Apart from that—his original question simply doesn't make any sense, no matter whether he actually meant lpi, confused lpi with ppi, or confused lpi with dpi. Neither does your reply.

.

vor 20 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

[...]

Oh, puleeeze ...!

Edited April 22, 2024 by 01af

[jaapv]

Yeah . I know. Viewing distance etc. But I am sure that you are aware aware that it is perfectly possible to get an  excellent A3 print from an 8MP DMR file. 
This site, BTW, is one of the very few on the Internet that does not confuse DPI with PPI. 

[01af]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

BTW, is one of the very few on the Internet that does not confuse DPI with PPI.

Huh!? But it does!

EDIT: Upon closer examination, that web site is total bunkum. You shouldn't support this nonsense by quoting or referring to it.

Edited April 22, 2024 by 01af

[jaapv]

OK. My object was to debunk the megapixel myth. I may have needed to read rather than scan it. 
Don’t get me wrong-High MP cameras can be useful for users of low-ISO film, to avoid moiré, extreme crops, etc. But not for printing, unless A0 looked at close up. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pop]

vor einer Stunde schrieb 01af:

Nobody wants a photo printer that prints at measly 300 dpi

Oops - I mistyped.

 

vor 1 Stunde schrieb pop:

It does not sound impossible to reach 300 dpi with such a device

I had meant to write '300 ppi with such a device', obviously. Sorry for the confusion.