How large can you go and still have a sharp photo?

[brett8883]

The M2Z Super Resolution mode is just a simple panorama, and the results are quite poor unfortunately, mostly due to the sensor limitations. You can do the exact same thing with any other drone very easily, even though it may not have a specific mode for it.

Well that’s disappointing

 

[Kilrah]

The printing service my friend uses (he makes movie poster style stuff) prints at 100dpi for photo quality at such formats as the OP wants. They print on plexi as well, and he's made huge plexi prints of some of his work to hang on his walls, as well as a monstrous wall at the theatre with all of the season's shows. Comes out great even close.

Not even expensive, the OP's size comes out at about $80 for a paper print and $130 or so for plexi.

M2Z "super res" output comes out great as long as you set it to save the RAW images and stitch / process the pictures yourself with a decent tool and skills. Built-in auto stuff is never great, but the function is handy to automate taking the 9 shots.

 

[sar104]

I usually call that super resolution and it does work. I think the Mavic 2 zoom actually has that as one of its photo modes

I've tested super-resolution imaging with the M2P, and it works just fine - as you would expect. The necessary sub-pixel shifting happens appropriately randomly due to slight gimbal movements. Obviously the more images in the stack the lower the noise and the better the ultimate resolution attainable.

 

[Prmath]

Just wondering if you can go to something like 5 feet by 7 feet on a photo you take with a mavic 2 pro with a sharp picture? If not, what about a phantom? I guess the next step up would be a inspire?

Well, a 20MG raw will blowup better than a 2mg jpeg..........

 

[Coskier]

This discussion has been very interesting to me. I bought a 47 megapixel Nikon D850 because I greatly enjoy large prints. The Mavic 1 photos were fine but only marginal for me. However, the Mavic 2 pro has been a joy. I have hanging in my dining room a metal print from a Mavic 2 pro single dng file. It is 24 x 36 inches and the details of this canyon/cliffs/roadway are so sharp that people often walk up to it and remark on the detail with their face only a few inches from the print.

Metal prints are awesome by themselves, can't wait to print one from a M2P shot. Who do you use for the prints?

As for the uprezzing conversation, I have done this with dSLR photos with great success. Good programs have existed for some time to achieve this.

 

[CanadaDrone]

Prints on raw metal are actually very dull, and they have their place but generally aren't what people are expecting when they hear about people printing on metal. What you probably want is coated metal (sometimes marketed as a "HD" metal print), which is the same sheet of aluminium but first very precisely coated with a glossy white substrate (matte also available). Just be aware of the different types. They make for the best looking prints out there, IMHO, but they are very reflective so you need to be careful where you display them so you aren't always having to look at a reflection of the nearest light bulb.

In the USA I know Bay Photo does them.

 

[noosaguy]

Just wondering if you can go to something like 5 feet by 7 feet on a photo you take with a mavic 2 pro with a sharp picture? If not, what about a phantom? I guess the next step up would be a inspire?

IMHO if I wanted a very large, quality image from my M2P, I'd shoot multiple overlapped images and stitch them together as a pano. Doing that you could easily end up with 100MP or more.

 

[Deleted member 85071]

I think one like this could be blown up pretty big and not look too bad. pano shot.

 

[noosaguy]

I think one like this could be blown up pretty big and not look too bad. pano shot.

This is a tad rude of me making alteration without seeking your approval, but I think this in an improvement. Would be even better on the original RAW image. The thing is, there's a lot of noise so a very large print would be a real problem.

 

[sar104]

This is a tad rude of me making alteration without seeking your approval, but I think this in an improvement. Would be even better on the original RAW image. The thing is, there's a lot of noise so a very large print would be a real problem.

View attachment 65561

You can do better than that with the noise.

 

[noosaguy]

You can do better than that with the noise.

View attachment 65563

Don't know what you mean?

 

[sar104]

Don't know what you mean?

You can reduce it quite a lot more without too many artifacts.

 

[noosaguy]

You can reduce it quite a lot more without too many artifacts.

I agree but there is no chance of taking that image to 5-7 feet unless you were viewing it from 20-30 foot away. It's impossible to drag out shadow detail from a 1" sensor without introducing lots of noise. This is a classic example where the 5 shot (in RAW) exposure bracket would have made a huge difference. Plus... I posted the alteration to show E-Zap what is possible, it wasn't an attempt to produce a Salon print. And I was using the posters' JPEG image not the original RAW image (assuming he shot in RAW). There were other aspects i would have changed too if it was mine but it wasn't.

 

[sar104]

I agree but there is no chance of taking that image to 5-7 feet unless you were viewing it from 20-30 foot away. It's impossible to drag out shadow detail from a 1" sensor without introducing lots of noise. This is a classic example where the 5 shot (in RAW) exposure bracket would have made a huge difference. Plus... I posted the alteration to show E-Zap what is possible, it wasn't an attempt to produce a Salon print. And I was using the posters' JPEG image not the original RAW image (assuming he shot in RAW). There were other aspects i would have changed too if it was mine but it wasn't.

Sure - that would be really pushing it for a 7 MB jpeg. I was just demonstrating that you could get the noise down quite a bit more in that particular image. A raw version would have had a lot more potential.

 

[noosaguy]

Agreed! Cheers.

 

[Deleted member 85071]

I agree but there is no chance of taking that image to 5-7 feet unless you were viewing it from 20-30 foot away. It's impossible to drag out shadow detail from a 1" sensor without introducing lots of noise. This is a classic example where the 5 shot (in RAW) exposure bracket would have made a huge difference. Plus... I posted the alteration to show E-Zap what is possible, it wasn't an attempt to produce a Salon print. And I was using the posters' JPEG image not the original RAW image (assuming he shot in RAW). There were other aspects i would have changed too if it was mine but it wasn't.

Appreciated. I'm still really new at photography with the drone and any input helps.

 

[noosaguy]

Appreciated. I'm still really new at photography with the drone and any input helps.

That was my intention E-Zap. I wasn't trying to be a smart a*s.

 

[Deleted member 85071]

That was my intention E-Zap. I wasn't trying to be a smart a*s.

No really, the details you dragged out of my initial upload surprised and amazed me. I have a lot to learn.

 

[hasideas]

I am a graphic designer and i have several professional printers including ink jet as well as real photographic prints developed in chemicals. The photograpgic paper comes on a roll that is 60" wide. So you can print 60" wide by any length. Ink jets i can print much wider on a variety of different materials.

 

[noosaguy]

I am a graphic designer and i have several professional printers including ink jet as well as real photographic prints developed in chemicals. The photograpgic paper comes on a roll that is 60" wide. So you can print 60" wide by any length. Ink jets i can print much wider on a variety of different materials.

I think somehow you missed the context of this thread