One of the best & dedicated & really professional upscaling tool is: "Photozoom Pro 4"

*LINK REMOVED*

mirtos said:
Although we dont plan to do it, from a software perspective (as a computer guy) this sort of thing really interests me. Basically with upscaling, you're creating pixels from nowhere. Which software do you find does the best job for this?

Like I said, wasnt planning to do it, but im always interest in seeing software that does this sort of thing.

Ill have to check it out.... if it isnt too pricey.

adamz said:
@mirtos - having the same background (IT/apps) I had some experience with Perfect Resize from on1software, they use nice algorithms to upscale the image. however, if You wanna do it with PS there's one golden rule: never approach Your desired size in one step, split it into couple smaller ones.

Exactly, but with on1 I have good results doing it 20% at a time whereas photoshop it is only about 8...

@mirtos - having the same background (IT/apps) I had some experience with Perfect Resize from on1software, they use nice algorithms to upscale the image. however, if You wanna do it with PS there's one golden rule: never approach Your desired size in one step, split it into couple smaller ones.

I have had fine results printing 20x30 from my 10mpx D80 as with my D90, D7000, and D200 all at 20x30 or more. At 13x19 you don't really need to upsample as you wont see anything. If I see a problem in the test print I use Photoshop CS5 and on1's Genuine fractal plug-in.

Ive printed 60x40inches off my D90 from it with no noticeable pixels even under a magnifying glass. It is better to go to somebody with a glicee printer as the ink is sprayed on instead of dotted on (the pixels are more obvious on a non glicee). You'll be fine as no 35mm Dslr (even the D3x/a900) really has enough Mpx to print too large without some second guessing...

Hi,

Up sampling is a bit tricky, doubling without any consequences isn't something I would promise, but then it might not be noticeable if one isn't picky.

Sampling is best done in the highest bit order - 14-bit if you captured that (and you should have), and before conversion to JPEG.

I use Photoshop CS5 and highly recommend it. There is a resizing tool that uses 'bicubic smoother' within it as an option for enlarging or re-sampling up an image that would work in this case. Use it and the desired size for the final output and you should be fine.

Also, you can do an Action to automate the process into a folder, or even do multiple resolutions to see if some work better than others - just to provide yourself with options.

That said, with my D90 and D7000 without any boost in resolution, I regularly make 20"x30" prints that look terrific (not commenting on the photography, just the prints ;-)).

So, I would make a few samples and print them locally to see what looks good. My local prints are a few cents, less than I can print them from my color printer. :-)

My best,

Mike

adamz said:
You can always use dedicated software to upscale the resolution. With a little bit of practice You should be able to double it w/o significant loss of details.

Although we dont plan to do it, from a software perspective (as a computer guy) this sort of thing really interests me. Basically with upscaling, you're creating pixels from nowhere. Which software do you find does the best job for this?

jonnyapple - Truer words have never been spoken. :)

This is when you're glad you didn't charge them for the wedding, right, Mirtos? And they never have to know...

Finding a used d700 for $1700-2000 is not really that challenging of a task right now on e-bay or craigslist. And thats a screaming deal, believe me.

You can always use dedicated software to upscale the resolution. With a little bit of practice You should be able to double it w/o significant loss of details.

Thanks for all the help. It was user error. As a software guy, I should have guessed that. :) (I wont take the blame, though, because my wife was using the d300, and I was using the d2h - at least thats my story, and I'm sticking with it). The image size got reset down to 3.1 MP, so the software was likely right, so it looks like if i want 300ppi (but as you all said, and ive been doing some further research, that might not be neccesarry). at 200dpi (which a lot of people seem to think is more than good enough, but im going to do some tests) i can get (according to what ive read) 7x10, and and 250 ppi i will be able to get 5x8, and since i really want to do more than one picture per page, i will probably do that anyway.

Actually, in retrospect, this may have been a good thing. we had 11Gb in cards for the wedding, and it enabled us to take a lot of pictures. I am a little bummed that they werent in higher resolution, but i think the massive set of pictures we have to go through will ensure we have the best pictures.

This whole experience made me realize just how damn good Nikon's are. (I always knew it) but the D2h performed ADMIRABLY in the well lit church. And its fps was a godsend during certain aspects of the ceremony.

When i realized that it was our fault on the MP size, this made me change my whole view on the need for a higher MP). I still want to play around with FX and going to try some stuff, but im thinking im going to get a d700 and not the d800 when it comes out. I _AM_ hopeful that either the d700 goes down in price or someone feels the need to sell their used body on ebay. :)

thanks again.

I wish I had the chance to rent bodies before going FX, not that I didn't know what it was like from shooting film. Hope it goes well for you.

Going FX wouldn't not have helped with print size anyway, since only the D3x has a higher resolution sensor than the D300.

thanks for the advice everyone. i must admit, Ive been thoroughly happy with my d300 (aside from my concerns which you alleviated about the printing). I dont know if i NEED to get into FX. (for me its more about being fun). Glad I found this forum.

Why not, idf you've got time left, just Rent a fullframe Nikon Body ( and maybe 1 or 2 nice lenses) , and play around a day or two... This way you're more able to decide what it is what you want, expect, need without making such a big investment... ?

mirtos said:
2: If I do decide to play around with FX, I realize i will have to give up all my DX glass - well not give up, but get new glass, but what about my old lenses, the ones I had collected for film (35MM)? I'm still unsure if old pre-digital lenses are full frame or not.

Yes they are all full frame (FX)
Only a few specialist lens, will not fit a D700 or D3s

Remember, you may have got used to "auto everything", which some older lenses will not support

With regard to image quality, the solution is, as you suggest, hire a D700 or D3s and compare the results with the D300 for yourself. Do the comparison in the real world and different light situations

The biggest difference, will be at High ISO values and tricky or poor light conditions

The smallest difference, will be on on nice sunny day, with the sun over your left shoulder

Needless to say, if you dont already, shoot RAW and use something like Lightroom 3 or Aperture to get the best out of your files

mirtos said:
the thing is im not using a store to print a book.. im using one of those services.... havent decided which one.

Same thing. If they also offer prints you might use the same service. As the process for printing a book might be a different one the results might be different as well, but it will give you some idea...

the thing is im not using a store to print a book.. im using one of those services.... havent decided which one. But your test is still very valid... sometimes i over think.

Thanks

ok, maybe the software was just being conservative. ill find out when i print the book.

good to know about my old glass. VERY good to know. I actually only will lose about 4 or 5 lenses in the transition.

one thng is im in NYC, so I can go to B&H and rent some cameras to try them out.

Im leaning towards getting a d700 (part of me wants to wait for the d800 in hopes that the d700 goes down in price, the other part of me, the child part, doesnt want to wait we'll see who wins)

Welcome to the forum.

I also think that 300 dpi is very conservative. There is an easy test you can do: select one or two images (e.g. one portrait and one landscape with finer details like a far away tree) and scale them to the same physical size with different resolutions (e.g. 10"x13" @ 100 dpi, 150 dpi, 200 dpi... 300 dpi). Have these series printed from whatever store you use and compare the results. And don't use a magnifying glass to compare :)

As for the older lenses: I use a D700 and I only got my old manual focus Nikkor lenses and they work fine. I know that many people say that the newer lenses are better in many ways. But all the test I have seen so far are about test charts and magnifying glasses. I always wondered at what size you need to print an image to make the difference visible (without magnifying glasses!). But this is a different subject and should be discussed in a different thread... :)

Well, you can probably ignore the warnings from the software. 300 dpi is a very conservative number. I've printed files from the D300 at 20"x30" and they look great from reasonable viewing distances (>3ft or so). At 10x13 I doubt most people will see pixellation without a magnifying glass.

FX is the same size as 35mm film, so those lenses will work. Since you're used to Nikon, don't buy a Canon until you have thoroughly tested the UI. I personally can't stand it after using Nikon, but I guess Canon users love it...

Welcome to the forum, Mirtos. I think you'll like it here.

So im an amateur hobbyist that has loved this art for over 25 years, and likes to play around. Im always learning. I am a professional programmer, so I understand software, pixels, and a lot of technical things, so please dont hesitate to be technical.

I currently have 2 bodies, a d2h, and a d300. (i actually have some older film ones, but they are buried somewhere that i dont know where, more consumer, i think an n6006). I really like the d300, and i have a some (not a lot, but not a little either) older glass and DX glass. But lately, ive been given thought into playing around with FX. I like to do portraits and scenery. I do the occasional sports shot, but not a lot.

Recently, as a wedding present, I offered to do a friends wedding. obviously it wouldnt be as good as a pro, but it would be free, and thats important to them. We used both cameras (my wife and I). Obviously the d300 performed better, but both performed well, and it gave us really nice cross visuals to have multiple angles. Anyway, im mentioning all this because as im putting the book together ive realized that at 12.1 MP, we cant quite do full page prints... (or at least the software is letting me know it wont be 300dpi). I guess thats ok, i can figure a nice artistic way around that. The book size is 13x 10, not sure the image picture size (havent figured out the scale).

So question 1: I know a lot of people on this forum like that Nikon goes with 12.1, for multiple reasons (speed, size, resources of the camera), etc... But havent you run into situations like this, or do people tend to not print this size?

2: If I do decide to play around with FX, I realize i will have to give up all my DX glass - well not give up, but get new glass, but what about my old lenses, the ones I had collected for film (35MM)? Im still unsure if old pre-digital lenses are full frame or not. As an aside, I realize that picking up FX would be a significant change, and im wondering to myself if this is a time when i should really start exploring the arena. Ive always been a nikon person, and never even considered Canon, but to be honest, im kindof curious about them and if im not saying i want to switch, but i am curious.

to be honest, I dont have a REASON to play around with FX, other than I want to. (I dont make money from this, its jut what i like to do)