Blowing up Digital Image

[CentralSigns]

Just got job to build a 12 ft by 10 foot sign face. Guy wants a picture worked into the background of the sign. In the front as a 3-D thing we will be putting up, which is a guy made out of metal on a sled frame. He will have glowing eyes. Should look cool when done. My question is I have never blown up a picture to this size before. Any one have any ideas on the size of image in mega pixels I would need to enlarge to this size. Will I have a smooth picture or will be grains be present at that size. If anyone has any suggestions thank you

 

[gabagoo]

I think an acceptable image size is 150 dpi at full size or better.

 

[CentralSigns]

Does that mean build full size in corel, X3 export out of corel for VersaWorks at 150 dpi, then I should be ok in print. I was sort of after what size of pic in megs i would need to start with from the digital camera. Would I be better to down size out of corel and increase the size in versaworks using the rip there.

 

[noregrets]

Without any enlarging you will need about a 38 Megapixel image for 150dpi at that size. Obviously this is impossible/very expensive.

If you go for a good quality photo (not blury etc etc) from a good quality camera you should be pretty safe. For instance a Canon 5d can do 21 megapixels, so you will only have to double the size.

Also, it depends on how far people will be viewing it from, if it is quite far you will get away with some pixelation

 

[10sacer]

Genuine Fractals will do it without too much grain or loss. All depends on close view image quality requirements.

 

[CentralSigns]

Whats that 10sacer, I don't get it

 

[iSign]

forget 150 dpi... that ain't happening on that size image without a super computer...

72dpi is more then adequate for a 120" x 144" print...

...but, if you are tiling it, I would tile it manually in photoshop, instead of in your print output software... that way you get 2 or 3 files that are 2 or 3 times more managable...

 

[10sacer]

Genuine Fractals

http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-resize/

Software has been around for 15 or so years. You can download a demo copy that works to see if you like it. Keeps you from having to generate a huge digital photo.

I have used it since my early days in prepress.

 

[jmcnicoll]

I have not test G.F. in a while, but I have never seen it resize an image any better than what I can do with it in photoshop.

Jim

 

[10sacer]

Jim,

Its generally for folks that aren't Photoshop gurus and know all the proper steps to take to increase images in PS without artifacting or pixel loss.

Its not THE answer, but it is AN answer.

There are probably several ways to do what he is asking. I am just trying to provide an actual answer to a question and not open a debate.

 

[Gene@mpls]

forget 150 dpi... that ain't happening on that size image without a super computer...

72dpi is more then adequate for a 120" x 144" print...

...but, if you are tiling it, I would tile it manually in photoshop, instead of in your print output software... that way you get 2 or 3 files that are 2 or 3 times more managable...

For a background image I think 50 ppi would be fine- it will not be the
focal point. I usually crop out a piece that will print at 100% on my
desktop and you can see how the finished product will look. We are printing signs people.

 

[tbaker]

The primary question here should be viewing distance.

If it's something that people are able to get right up on, you're hosed. The file size needed to maintain image integrity will be ginormous.

If it's being hung like a billboard, then you've got some play room.

 

[signswi]

forget 150 dpi... that ain't happening on that size image without a super computer...

72dpi is more then adequate for a 120" x 144" print...

...but, if you are tiling it, I would tile it manually in photoshop, instead of in your print output software... that way you get 2 or 3 files that are 2 or 3 times more managable...

I once did a 150dpi (true res, no upscale) for a three-wall wrap of a restaurant/nightclub by contracting photographers to shoot hundreds of images, which I then carefully tiled.

A very good quality image upscaled in Genuine Fractals (Perfect Resize) should do the trick, though.

 

[CentralSigns]

Thanks for the responses so far. The image I am using is a 8 meg one and the viewing distance from road edge is 50 ft. Real close by billboard standards. Thanks Pat for the link I'll look for more answers there.

 

[phototec]

Perfect Resize

Software has been around for 15 or so years. You can download a demo copy that works to see if you like it. Keeps you from having to generate a huge digital photo.QUOTE]

I have used GF for many years, now known as Perfect Resize to enlarge photos to 1000% of their original size, to be used on 9' x 45' trailers. There is a little leaning curve to master it because of all the different settings, however with the grain feature, to enlarged images come out much better than done directly in Photoshop every time.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Photoshop and have used it ever since I beta tested for Adobe before it even had the name, but, GF (hard for me to call it the new name), uses patented, fractal-based interpolation algorithms made just for enlarging photographic images, nothing else, and does the best job for enlarging photographic images.

See the link for full detail info and to download a 30-day trial version.

http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-resize/

 

[jmcnicoll]

I downloaded and tested the latest version of Perfect Size. I used three images and resized them each in Perfect Size and Photoshop. I find no evidence that Perfect Size does any better job than what Photoshop can do.
With two of the images Photoshop actually did better without any extra filters applied. On the third image the Pefect size image was a little better, but could easily be matched in photoshop with the correct filtering.

I would love to see any hard evidence of Perfect Size doing a better job!

That said the only advantage perfect size may have is speed and ease, but in no way can I say the quality is better. Please show me.

Jim

 

[10sacer]

And once again...

This isn't a debate as to which method is better. It is about providing solutions to a real world issue. Nobody is saying one method is better than the other. We have now presented TWO possible answers to his problem.

There are tons of things that someone who knows what they are doing can do in Photoshop because its such a powerful program, but we can't make the assumption that EVERYONE knows even the basics of how to do this in PS.

It would be infinitely more helpful to provide the original poster with instructions on your methodology to blow up images and let him make his determination as to which works best for him. He might not even own PS.

As I said before - there are probably more ways to do what he is asking - we have presented two of the obvious ones.