Very large images

[Yaron Lenard]

I have had an interesting experience, and wanted to share it, and I guess even recommend it.

I like very large prints, and I like viewing them from a relatively close distance. Seeing a print that is 200x200cm (6ft x 6ft) in a room (not as a billboard far away) is a unique experience. There is something that happens to an image when it becomes very large that changes the viewer's relationship to it. It becomes difficult to keep the whole composition in mind, and the elements within the frame begin having their own dynamics. Also, there are details that begin to matter that previously were irrelevant, simply because they were effectively invisible in an 8x10 inch print.

However, it is extremely cost-prohibitive to print very large, so it is reserved for special work.

I have a very large TV (some 55 inch HDTV monster), to which I have attached a PlayStation 3. So what's the big deal? Well, the PS3 has an HDTV converter built in, which has allowed me to view JPGs in a very high resolution on a very large monitor. There are other HDTV converters that are cheaper than a PS3, of course.

So, if you are interested in seeing your own work on a large display, but do not want to pay for large prints, consider viewing them on your big screen TV. It definitely changed the way I relate to my work, and enables another step in the creative decision-making process before going to print.

By the way, the experience benefits from sharp detailed images... unless you're after a different effect Props to the M8 sensor and 35mm Summilux at this point.

 

[Sean Reid]

That's a good suggestion.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Yaron,

Good suggestion. I have a 52" Full HD LCD TV and a PS3 attached to it. Exactly as you've described, I have been making use of it to see my pictures in big format. There is an issue to be reckoned with though! Firstly, the TV set needs to be "calibrated" to show some realistic colors. Usually, they are preset to terrible colours. This does not have to be an automated calibration process using hardware calibrators and software but even a half decent result can be achieved by using a test target and adjusting the color balance controls of the set manually. Secondly, many image enhancement features such as "dynamic contrast adjustment" are detrimental to the IQ when it comes to photographs and should be switched off. And lastly, this procedure is more suitable for "landscape" images, not the "portrait" ones ;-).

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

What is the pixel resolution of a big screen HDTV TV set, anyway? I think we may be confusing size with resolution. It's got to be better than the 640 by 480 of a conventional TV, but I thought HDTV (which we don't have yet) maxed out at something like 1080 pixels in width.

scott

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

What is the pixel resolution of a big screen HDTV TV set, anyway? I think we may be confusing size with resolution. It's got to be better than the 640 by 480 of a conventional TV, but I thought HDTV (which we don't have yet) maxed out at something like 1080 pixels in width.

scott

Hi Scott,

This is not an issue of pixel resolution but of size. Nevertheless, the pixel resolution is a very respectable 1920 x 1080 on a full HD TV.

The point Yaron was making, if I understood him correctly, is that such a TV can act as a replacement for a print of let's say approx. 120x70 cm. So sitting right in front of the monitor, one can get the feeling of how a big print will actually look like without having to have a print made. Of course, the actual print will contain much more pixels and a much higher dpi but one will nevertheless get the idea whether a big print is worth doing or not.

 

[Anil Mungal]

Back in the day of CRT's, an electron gun would fire electrons in horizontal lines from the top of the screen to the bottom of the screen, then repeat. The number 1080 represents the number of horizontal scanlines (analogous to number of vertical pixels). HDTV video mode usually assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels. So it seems that HDTV resolution is 1920×1080.

 

[Yaron Lenard]

The point Yaron was making, if I understood him correctly, is that such a TV can act as a replacement for a print of let's say approx. 120x70 cm. So sitting right in front of the monitor, one can get the feeling of how a big print will actually look like without having to have a print made. Of course, the actual print will contain much more pixels and a much higher dpi but one will nevertheless get the idea whether a big print is worth doing or not.

Right. It's nice to see the various elements at a large size. I'm sure the color accuracy, and certainly the pixel count, will never come close to a good print... but like I said, it's a nice tool in the creative process.

Having said that, I was quite surprised by the sharpness. It did NOT look pixelated.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Right. It's nice to see the various elements at a large size. I'm sure the color accuracy, and certainly the pixel count, will never come close to a good print... but like I said, it's a nice tool in the creative process.

Having said that, I was quite surprised by the sharpness. It did NOT look pixelated.

Hi Yaron,

What are the pixel dimensions of the image being sent by the PS3 to the TV?

If the image is larger than 1920x1080, there will be no "pixelization" as such since the image is not being up-rezzed. On the contrary, some softness will be introduced due to down-rezzing.

One might see the individual pixels of the TV itself, since a 52" Full HDTV has a native resolution of about 40 ppi. So if you sit at about 1-1.5 m from the TV, the perceived resolution will be similar to that of a normal PC monitor. But that is not the same as the "pixelization" which can be introduced due to extensive uprezzing.

HTH.

 

[Yaron Lenard]

I dunno honestly, but pretty big. The files I'm viewing come directly from the RAW files, slightly adjusted to my liking (dodge + burn, contrast, etc.) and then saved as a full-quality (Level 12) jpeg file.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

I dunno honestly, but pretty big. The files I'm viewing come directly from the RAW files, slightly adjusted to my liking (dodge + burn, contrast, etc.) and then saved as a full-quality (Level 12) jpeg file.

In that case, the PS3 is definitely downsizing the picture before sending it to the TV. Upscaling does not come into play at all. That is the reason why there is no "pixelization" or "jaggies" to be seen.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

OPF is a dangerous place to be. LOL

You guys have me dreaming here.... particulary as you can get calibration units for projectors or larger HDTV setups, and HDMI will be standard on more serious DSLR cameras beyond doubts in the near future, the D3 is already equipped I think . - YUMMY! -

 

[Asher Kelman]

So if one does not have Playstation (I thought PS3 was some version of Photoshop!!!) then what would one use?

As it is I cam plug in my 17" MacBook Pro in by large screen TV but I guess it's S-video.

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

So if one does not have Playstation (I thought PS3 was some version of Photoshop!!!) then what would one use?

As it is I cam plug in my 17" MacBook Pro in by large screen TV but I guess it's S-video.

Asher

1) If the TV has an HDMI input, the best option is to use a DVI-to-HDMI adapter/cable. As far as your PC/Mac is concerned, the TV becomes just another external (LCD) monitor.

2) If the TV does not have an HDMI input but a VGA (Analog) one, obviously use that one.

3) If the TV doesn't have an HDMI input but a component input (Y Pb Pr), use that. You then need a video card on your PC/Mac which supports this output mode. S-Video does not use this!

4) If there is a Scart input with RGB capability, use that. Use a VGA to Scart converter.

5) If all fails, use the S-Video as you do right now.

6) Worst case scenario is to use composite video, but this is not recommended.

HTH.