Wall Sized Prints

[ByJohnson]

Hi, I was just offered a job doing a print to be blown up and put on a 9' x 30' wall. I was asked if I could do it in a digital format. From my understanding there are many digital cameras that can shoot in a quality for that size. I would like to know 1. If I use a Medium format film camera, which type might suit the job. 2. Is there a digital camera that can produce that kind of quality? Thanks.

[Ads]

[Sideburns]

sure. you could use a medium format digital camera...but they're as expensive as a car. A NICE car...

Medium format film will be fine...

[shorty6049]

oh man... i could only DREAM of seeing one of my photos that big someday... congrats on that, and yeah, medium or large format film would probably be best.. whats the photo of?

[jstuedle]

A good scan of medium format 6X6 will net you 81 M.P. Shoot a panorama with 3-4 frames over-laped about 20% and you could wind up with a 200 M.P. (not megabyte) file to work with. The file size would be closer to a 800 M.B.TIFF. Do your part with the camera, and get a good scan, you will have more than enough digital data to work with. OTOH, you could rent a Blad H3 w/39MP back and start from there.

[ByJohnson]

Thanks for the help, it's a landscape shot, so the panorama may be the best way to go. I'm also going to look into the medium format film and digital ans see which will work best.

[RacePhoto]

Thanks for the help, it's a landscape shot, so the panorama may be the best way to go. I'm also going to look into the medium format film and digital ans see which will work best.

Here's what you need.

EOS-1Ds Mark III, medium-format threatening resolution; 5616 x 3744 (21.1 million) pixels, for just Under $7000.

Or a used EOS-1Ds Mark II in at 16.7 million pixels. Probably under $5000

Difference is that both of these are full size 36 x 24 mm CMOS sensors. So you have much larger pixels, and can make the picture much larger.

As someone else suggested, you might be better off, expense wise, with a medium format camera, super fine grain film and then pay for a professional, very high resolution scan?

If the people who want this photo are willing to pay for a camera rental, that would make life much easier.

[Alex_B]

Hey guys, remember, for wall sized prints you do not need 300 DPI, not even 100

You can blow up any 10 to 20 MP image to a wall sized print by using upscale methods e.g. in photoshop.

Of course the image you start with has to have a reasonable resolution (not talking of pixels here, but of real resolution: get a good lens, use a tripod and low ISO, this is far more important than hunting for those 10 more megapixels)

[Garbz]

Nah what these guys are saying is a load of crap. You can't take a photo like that without spending at least $1 million US on a camera.

Good now that I was temporarily on the band wagon I don't understand the first few responses. Looking at it in context you are asked to take one big photo or is this an ongoing thing? Will the company pay for your camera? If not disregard everything that was said above as it's a financially stupid suggestion for a once off.

To the point take into account what Alex B and jstuedle said. Specifically the lack of requirement for stupidly large resolutions, and the ability to make panoramas. Now take a 350D, use the excuse that you need to make a large landscape to buy yourself a $200 panoramic tripod head. Set it up to rotate around the lens nodal point, and get to work. I have a 450mpx image here taken with my D200, cost me about $30000 less than it would to buy a medium format camera and do it. The results are spectacular regardless.

Mind you if you need to take photos of something moving then you're stuffed.

Difference is that both of these are full size 36 x 24 mm CMOS sensors. So you have much larger pixels, and can make the picture much larger.

Sorry but this has nothing to do with the final size of the image, and only has to do with the pixel luminance quality and signal to noise ratio. A 10mpx camera is a 10mpx camera if the correct lens projects a sharp picture onto the sensor.

[PatriK-b]

9' x 30' means 3m x 10m, right?

It depends on how far form the wall you are supposed to look at the result, I think this is not supposed to be seen from 10" distance... so if pixel is 1" width, it's ok.

In that case, it would be more effective to speak about angular resolution. (sorry, not sure about exact terms in english, please correct me)

So, as said by Garbz & Alex, assembling 10mpx pictures will do the job.

[chris]

Here's what you need.

EOS-1Ds Mark III, medium-format threatening resolution; 5616 x 3744 (21.1 million) pixels, for just Under $7000.

Sorry, but 21.1 million pixels is nowhere near to threatening a half decent medium format 6x6, 6x7 or 9x9 frame that is correctly exposed, with the camera on a rock solid support and taken on fine grain slide film.

Either borrow or hire a medium format (or maybe large format camera) for teh shot and get the slide professionally scanned or take Garbz' advice.

[usayit]

The only camera that can work for yah is this:

http://www.gigapxl.org/

good luck... (I'm joking).

Garbz and Alex are on the money...

[PatriK-b]

This will also fit your needs.

A pretty good camera for panoramic shots.

[Big Mike]

It depends on how far form the wall you are supposed to look at the result,

This in an important factor. You can print at 60 PPI, and it will look great from the right distance.

[Alpha]

Viewing distance is critical. Is someone is going to be ANYWHERE near the wall, you cannot get away with using a normal dSLR. In that case you'd need to shoot medium format or large format film, have the negs drum-scanned, and then stitch together. Alternatively, you could shoot with a Hasselblad H3 and stitch together, though I've heard much more praise for the Leaf Aptus backs than the 39MP PhaseOne back. If people are viewing the wall from any closer than you'd ordinarily view a billboard, then do not...i repeat...do not....use a regular dSLR. It's easy to swayed by self-righteous dSLR owners who insist that their cameras can do anything and everything; they're quite convincing at times. In the case of an image this big being viewed from a short distance, they couldn't be more wrong.

[Big Mike]

You might also want to consider the expectations of the client and/or viewer. While many photographers may be critical of an image that isn't what they would consider sufficiently sharp...I'd guess that the majority of non-photographers wouldn't be so critical.