I printed a 30 by 40 inch print from a 12MP RAW file from a more than 10 year old Olympus Micro Four Thirds camera. I used the Lightroom AI algorithm to "enhance details". The print looks fabulous and holds up to close viewing - not that anyone would step that close to a 30 by 40 anyway.
I agree. If you start with a well-made original file, it's amazing what you can get away with when your finished product is a print -- both because the printing process "homogenizes" fine details and because people are more likely to view a print from a sensible distance (and can't zoom in on the individual pixels.) Besides, having had the opportunity in the past to examine prints by a big-name analog photographer famous for his technical prowess (whose initials are "A.A.") more closely than the average gallery viewer is usually allowed to see them, I can confirm that a lot of what we perceive as "sharpness" is mostly an illusion anyway!
I'm a fine art printer and a keen amateur photographer, I was able to make a 60" x 40" print from my RD1 over 12 years ago, all I did was add grain with DXO filmpack and made the print via ColorGate Production Print Server, a high end Rasterized Image Processor (RIP for short). The output is simply superb and film-like, it still looks great by today's standards, RD-1 files are known for the film-like quality as I have personally met Eddy San (the engineer who developed the RD-1, RD is his initials) when the Epson team visited my print studio back in 2004. I still shoot with the RD1 now if I need that particular look and feel. No double Topaz has done a great job with GigaPixel, but one needs to know how much to apply or if used without care and attention, the output will look artificial.
@@trels203 A RIP is a professional grade printer driver which works from its own interface and uses the best algorithm for upscaling, they can cost as much as the printer itself but a necessary piece of software only to be appreciated by print professionals. All desktop printer drivers work on 8 bit colour files, while the best RIP can print directly from 16 bit files and has a lot of fine tuning plus absolutely best ICC colour management implementation possible.
Very interesting application of AI to allow us enjoy RD1. I have an EOS 1oD also with about 6 mp but has an amazing warmth I don’t see on later Canons.
Brad, may I ask where you bought it? I d love one. But a bit hasitant to buy over ebay (never bought on ebay)? If only ebay is an option, what do I need to be aware of and need to be careful? Thanks a lot Greetings from Switzerland Mitch
@@michel559 I purchased it from Trademe (New Zealand version of eBay). It was the first time I'd ever seen one on there. The Japanese sellers on eBay seem to be the only reliable way of getting one.
@@thewoodsphotography Brad thanks for your feedback! How you getting on with yours so far? Stay safe, how us NZ doing these days? We here in Switzerland got hit big time with that 2nd wave, lockdown again. Take care
Method II seems best to me, but it really feels like a preference thing rather than an objective choice. Interesting that there is so much more chromatic abberation/purple fringing visible in the Epson photos, better sensor coatings in the modern camera perhaps?
Thanks for your interest! I penalized Method II mostly because it seemed to distort the shapes of the letters more than the other methods; it might have worked better with more "organic" subject matter. It wouldn't surprise me if you're right about the role of sensor coatings. When I was using the R-D1 as my primary camera with this same 50/1.5 Nokton lens, halos around high-contrast edges were a frequent problem; eventually I theorized that what was happening was that light was reflecting from the sensor, bouncing off the fairly flat rear surface of the Nokton, and being re-reflected onto the sensor. It was less likely to happen with my 28mm and 35mm lenses, presumably because their rear-element shapes were different. I would say it's fair to conclude that the Nokton and the sensor would have to share the blame. Still, I wouldn't want to overlook the possibility that at least some of the color fringing is an artifact introduced by the upsampling process, or with how the upsampling interacts with my particular printer. I'll bet a dozen people could do the same evaluation with slightly different combinations of equipment and get a dozen different results!
Very smart to only a print a crop to simulate a large print. How did you calculate the correct crop for the large size? I'd love to do that for my own testing purposes.
Since I wanted to evaluate the test based on the way I actually print, I just set the image in Photoshop (with resampling off) to the large print's intended size, and then selected a smaller paper size in the print dialog box (with “scale to fit” off) and chose the area I wanted to include using the print preview. I did do one test first with an actual 19x13-in print to validate that the cropped prints were being printed to the same scale. If you wanted to be more exacting, you'd need to take the number of image pixels along one axis of your large print, divide that by small print dimension / large print dimension, then set your crop coordinates to show that number of pixels. But for a visual test I figured a visual method was just as good.
Somebody should start a vintage camera rental business, like the ones now offered for vintage cars! Then curious photographers could try out older cameras that interested them. I can't imagine myself buying, for example, a Nikon SP, but it would be fun to be able to rent one for a couple of weeks to see what it was like...
Наука
yes i will have to try this. The R-D1 is my favorite camera as well.
I printed a 30 by 40 inch print from a 12MP RAW file from a more than 10 year old Olympus Micro Four Thirds camera. I used the Lightroom AI algorithm to "enhance details". The print looks fabulous and holds up to close viewing - not that anyone would step that close to a 30 by 40 anyway.
I agree. If you start with a well-made original file, it's amazing what you can get away with when your finished product is a print -- both because the printing process "homogenizes" fine details and because people are more likely to view a print from a sensible distance (and can't zoom in on the individual pixels.)
Besides, having had the opportunity in the past to examine prints by a big-name analog photographer famous for his technical prowess (whose initials are "A.A.") more closely than the average gallery viewer is usually allowed to see them, I can confirm that a lot of what we perceive as "sharpness" is mostly an illusion anyway!
I'm a fine art printer and a keen amateur photographer, I was able to make a 60" x 40" print from my RD1 over 12 years ago, all I did was add grain with DXO filmpack and made the print via ColorGate Production Print Server, a high end Rasterized Image Processor (RIP for short). The output is simply superb and film-like, it still looks great by today's standards, RD-1 files are known for the film-like quality as I have personally met Eddy San (the engineer who developed the RD-1, RD is his initials) when the Epson team visited my print studio back in 2004. I still shoot with the RD1 now if I need that particular look and feel. No double Topaz has done a great job with GigaPixel, but one needs to know how much to apply or if used without care and attention, the output will look artificial.
Interesting! Im going to look into DXO today. Can you explain what a RIP is? A product or service?
@@trels203 A RIP is a professional grade printer driver which works from its own interface and uses the best algorithm for upscaling, they can cost as much as the printer itself but a necessary piece of software only to be appreciated by print professionals. All desktop printer drivers work on 8 bit colour files, while the best RIP can print directly from 16 bit files and has a lot of fine tuning plus absolutely best ICC colour management implementation possible.
Intelligent and interesting as always. Thank you.
both the video and camera are great!
Very interesting application of AI to allow us enjoy RD1. I have an EOS 1oD also with about 6 mp but has an amazing warmth I don’t see on later Canons.
you lucky guy owning an RD-1 :) same here, sometimes I use giga for the iPhones 12mpx sensor and it gives great results
I love my RD-1 i LOVE THIS VIDEO!
Would love to see a video on your thoughts about the R-D1. I just purchased a R-D1s and am patiently waiting for it to arrive!
Brad, may I ask where you bought it? I d love one. But a bit hasitant to buy over ebay (never bought on ebay)? If only ebay is an option, what do I need to be aware of and need to be careful?
Thanks a lot
Greetings from Switzerland
Mitch
@@michel559 I purchased it from Trademe (New Zealand version of eBay). It was the first time I'd ever seen one on there. The Japanese sellers on eBay seem to be the only reliable way of getting one.
@@thewoodsphotography Brad thanks for your feedback! How you getting on with yours so far?
Stay safe, how us NZ doing these days? We here in Switzerland got hit big time with that 2nd wave, lockdown again.
Take care
Method II seems best to me, but it really feels like a preference thing rather than an objective choice. Interesting that there is so much more chromatic abberation/purple fringing visible in the Epson photos, better sensor coatings in the modern camera perhaps?
Thanks for your interest! I penalized Method II mostly because it seemed to distort the shapes of the letters more than the other methods; it might have worked better with more "organic" subject matter.
It wouldn't surprise me if you're right about the role of sensor coatings. When I was using the R-D1 as my primary camera with this same 50/1.5 Nokton lens, halos around high-contrast edges were a frequent problem; eventually I theorized that what was happening was that light was reflecting from the sensor, bouncing off the fairly flat rear surface of the Nokton, and being re-reflected onto the sensor. It was less likely to happen with my 28mm and 35mm lenses, presumably because their rear-element shapes were different. I would say it's fair to conclude that the Nokton and the sensor would have to share the blame.
Still, I wouldn't want to overlook the possibility that at least some of the color fringing is an artifact introduced by the upsampling process, or with how the upsampling interacts with my particular printer. I'll bet a dozen people could do the same evaluation with slightly different combinations of equipment and get a dozen different results!
Very smart to only a print a crop to simulate a large print. How did you calculate the correct crop for the large size? I'd love to do that for my own testing purposes.
Since I wanted to evaluate the test based on the way I actually print, I just set the image in Photoshop (with resampling off) to the large print's intended size, and then selected a smaller paper size in the print dialog box (with “scale to fit” off) and chose the area I wanted to include using the print preview. I did do one test first with an actual 19x13-in print to validate that the cropped prints were being printed to the same scale. If you wanted to be more exacting, you'd need to take the number of image pixels along one axis of your large print, divide that by small print dimension / large print dimension, then set your crop coordinates to show that number of pixels. But for a visual test I figured a visual method was just as good.
Wish I can afford one 😂😂😂
Somebody should start a vintage camera rental business, like the ones now offered for vintage cars! Then curious photographers could try out older cameras that interested them. I can't imagine myself buying, for example, a Nikon SP, but it would be fun to be able to rent one for a couple of weeks to see what it was like...
This channel is Under-Rated.