I always use Bicubic Smoother to upsample. That's Adobe's
recommendation.
The size we're talking here is borderline in regard to the need for
more advanced upsampling, but I think a Fractals job here will be
noticeably better than a simple interpolation.
Paul
On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:55 PM, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote:
2a) This'll be the second gig in a row since getting the
*istD where I'll be shooting film. Huh. (Client
wants a poster-sized print and wallets -- please do
correct me if I'm wrong, but my thinking is that for a
20"x30" print, I probably want to be using a fine-grained
film instead of the *istD ... right? I know 300 dpi is a
good rule of thumb for most prints, but assuming most
folks don't stand that close to a print that large,
what's a good minimum resolution to aim for in a poster
sized portrait?)
For prints from properly exposed and processed digital capture, 200
ppi can print very nicely indeed at that size. For a 6Mpixel DSLR,
upsample by a factor of two using Bicubic Sharper and it will look
great.
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
