Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Printers > Wide Carriage Inkjet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 10, 2004, 5:58 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 114
Default 2200 or bigger?

I'm about to make the jump to the Epson 2200. From what I've seen and read this printer will give me pretty much what I'm looking for. With my Oly C5050 I know I'm safe with respect to 5MP offering enough for quality resolution at the 13" wide format. My question is, with 5MP is it reasonable to expect to get a high quality resolution picture at anything larger such as the 17" Epson 4000? I'd appreciate any thoughts anyone can offer here. THanks.
aliasd2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 10, 2004, 8:37 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Hi,
you have asked a question which I think quite a few people are interested in. (MeToo)

35mm slides scanned at 4000dpi(nikon) and 5400dpi(minolta 5400) seem to make nice 17*24 prints on the epson 4000. At least the sample prints the rep showed looked very nice. But I am leary of putting my faith(and cash) completely into the hands of what a rep shows without actually seeing it done for myself

As for 5mp and 6mp images, it may be pushing the envelope more than a little, you are now covering 408 square inches of paper, which with 13*19 you were coverings 247. Big jump in real estate.

But again I have not seen any output atempted from them so I know not what I speak. It may or may not work, or may with somehting like Genuine Fractals assistance.

I anxiously await the posting of someone who takes point and gets one of the new 4000 printers.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2004, 9:15 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 114
Default

Thanks Peter for your reply. Your observation is well taken in that it is a substantial jump in real estate. Obviously, with the larger real estate comes a different perspective too in that the viewer will tend to be a bit farther from the picture. I just don't want to see the pixels upon semi-close or close inspection. Looking forward to hearing what others have to say.
aliasd2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2004, 10:29 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default Re: 2200 or bigger?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aliasd2
with 5MP is it reasonable to expect to get a high quality resolution picture at anything larger such as the 17" Epson 4000?
Why not print an A4 piece cropped from the big picture at the appropriate (large) degree of magnification, and see how acceptable you find it at different viewing distances?

After all, some of us have been printing big pictures as mosaics of A4 sheets for a long time. If you're careful it's difficult to see the joins unless you know they're there and you go close. I've now acquired an Epson 890 and a paper roll, but I'm still intending to put long thin strips next to each other to make big prints, because I'll be restricted to 8" wide strips (little money, and less space).

"If in doubt, try it out!"
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2004, 11:38 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Good idea!
I'll have to give that a try just to see how it looks.

How are you joining them, overlapping edges or sheets side by side?
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2004, 12:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterP
How are you joining them, overlapping edges or sheets side by side?
I've tried both, but found it easier to get correct alignment with a tiny overlap. This is with quite lightweight (120g/m2) paper. To print the separate sheets, I use Ulead Photo Express, which I acquired free with a bit of kit and otherwise hate. It has a nice 'poster' printing facility, in which you can choose how many sheets you can afford to risk! It puts neat dotted lines on to tell you where to cut.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2004, 12:42 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Thanks, I remember getting a disk with Ulead photoimpact on it with something I bought. Will have to load it and see if it has this capability as well.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2004, 12:55 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

The best crop you can get from a 13 X 19 from a 5Mp camera is 135 PPI. For a 17 X 24 you are looking at 101 PPI. That is if you frame perfectly and there are no pixels you have to discard to frame better.

I see improvements up to about 180 PPI on my Canon S9000, which is similar in quality to the 2200. Someone with a 2200 on another board says he has also found the point of diminishing returns at around 180PPI.

So you arenít getting the very best quality on a 13 X 19 from a 5Mp image. Someone on the board said he had a 2Mp printed at 16 X 20 and it looks just like a photograph to him. So I guess it has to do a lot with your standards. The larger the photo the greater the viewing distance, so you might be happy with a 17 X 24 from 5Mp. But 101 PPI certainly isnít the best it can do.

I donít find a 4000 PPI scan of a 35mm negative to be that superior to a 5Mp shot as far as resolution. Maybe it would with Provia film, but not most 100 ASA. The PPI is there but there isnít more detail. I think you would do as well with an upsample from a 5Mp shot even though the dynamic range of a 5Mp prosumer isnít as good as film and a very good film scanner.

This is from a discussion on a completely different subject Ė whether the guy should spring for an Oly card so he can take panos. But the technique I use to get wider shots also gives me about 8.5Mp and I can see the difference in a 13 X 19 print. It gives about 180 PPI. You can zoom and use it at any focal length if you arenít looking for wide shots. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=7618116

This gave me about a 16Mp shot. I really donít see much difference between this and the 8.5Mp shot at 13 X 19, but you would likely see improvements at 17 X 24. You can see by the left side of the banister I need a little more practice. Iíve done better handheld but these happen to be up on pbase already from a discussion about a year ago. This isnít nearly as quick to take or stitch as the above. I can grab the two shots with the camera held vertically almost as fast as a normal shot, but this takes some thinking and probably a tripod.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 PM.