Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: uprezzing - which plug-in  (Read 6719 times)
rgs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 385



WWW
« on: December 11, 2007, 09:49:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm comparing Genuine Fractals and Blow Up. I would like any comments or experiences anyone care to relate. Thanks.

RGS
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2007, 10:04:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm comparing Genuine Fractals and Blow Up. I would like any comments or experiences anyone care to relate.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Neither...Photoshop (since CS) actually has its own uprez which can be the best (if you know how). I would suggest reading this: [a href=\"http://www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/the-art-of-the-up-res.html]The Art of the Uprez[/url]
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2007, 02:54:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm comparing Genuine Fractals and Blow Up. I would like any comments or experiences anyone care to relate. Thanks.

RGS
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use Photoshop for small quick upsizing, if I need bigger, Sizefixer does an excellent job, on best resolution and going very big it can take hours, here is a link [a href=\"http://www.fixerlabs.com/EN/upsize/sizefixer.htm]http://www.fixerlabs.com/EN/upsize/sizefixer.htm[/url]

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2007, 03:23:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I use Photoshop for small quick upsizing, if I need bigger, Sizefixer does an excellent job, on best resolution and going very big it can take hours, here is a link http://www.fixerlabs.com/EN/upsize/sizefixer.htm

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is no software or technique that beats real resolution at capture, it can make passable enlarged prints. Reading stuff on the net you could think you only need 3 MP's and a magic bit of software to make any size prints. So how big can you go? as big as you want, it just depends on how much "quality" loss is acceptable. The big get out clause is viewing distance,  unless the print is positioned where you can't walk up to it, viewing distance is always as close as anyone can get, because that's what everyone does, but it's often used as an excuse for poor quality. Viewers walk right up to a print then step back a bit. If printing big for Fine Art  prints then it's best to take the picture on as big a format as is practical at the time.
I also hate the term up-rezzing, there is zero resolution being added, it's only adding size.
Not to say you can't upsize with success neither can you  print what isn't there.

Kevin.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 03:26:08 AM by KevinA » Logged

Kevin.
rgs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 385



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2007, 06:59:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm talking about film scans (many from 6x7 chrome) and files processed from the orginal RAW file from a DSLR. You seem to think I want to make large prints from tiny original files. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2007, 09:49:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm talking about film scans (many from 6x7 chrome) and files processed from the orginal RAW file from a DSLR. You seem to think I want to make large prints from tiny original files. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was just making a point in general not really aimed at an individual, me sounding off sorry.
If you don't already have the 6x7 scans there is another way. Fuji and I think Creo  have SOOM in their scanning software, that's Scan Once Output Many, in other words you scan in there RAW format at max resolution and save the raw as raw, then choose the size to output including their interpolation, I think Silverfast also do something of the like.
There was a Fuji finescan 2750 on ebay last week, I don't think it got a bid.
I would still give sizefixer a look as well.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2007, 10:36:14 AM »
ReplyReply

BlowUp works very well, keeping expectations reasonable. I would not have recommended GF until recently, since PS evolved better options. But there is a new version that looks promising.
Download the demos and test, on a variety of images.
Let us know.
Tyler
Logged
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2007, 11:06:48 AM »
ReplyReply

While trying GF version 4 I found that it introduces posterisation into enlarged images; Blow-up does not, but it can smudge very fine details (E.g. sharp corners)
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 11:08:37 AM by MichaelEzra » Logged

01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2007, 11:12:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm getting nice results from up-sizing with Photoshop's 'Image Size' function using the Bicubic Smoother resampling method. Applying some gentle Sharpening for Source (according to Bruce Fraser's book 'Real-World Image Sharpening') before doing the upscaling seems to help to get an even nicer result.

Just avoid the upscaling feature of Camera Raw! While it will basically yield the same results as Photoshop's 'Bicubic Smoother,' it will add some minuscule but nasty ringing artifacts around sharp, high-contrast edges.

I guess Jeff's advice of adding a bit of grain-like noise after upscaling is a good idea (see the link he provided above). Jeff, after you did such a great job on RWCR CS3 ... how about taking Bruce's RWIS book and turning it into something like 'Real-World Image Scaling, Sharpening, and Printing with Adobe Photoshop CS3'? I'd buy it in a second.

-- Olaf
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9008



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2007, 11:58:48 AM »
ReplyReply

EVERY time I test one of the third party up-rez products, compared to Photoshop out to print, I come to the conclusion that I'll stick with Photoshop. Its always faster and of course less expensive. To output, the differences are often image specific and very, very, very (that's three very's) subtle to the point that I don't think anyone would prefer one over the other at anything even remotely close to viewing distance.

Don't compare the products based on what you see on screen. You really need to print the comparisons out. If you want to put your nose up to each print, fine. From viewing distance, half viewing distance, you'll never see the difference.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
rgs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 385



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2007, 01:12:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to all. I appreciate your responses and the variety of opinions.

I am trying demos from both as well as Sizefixer that was mentioned by some of you. Their web site is extremely slow and has blank pages. I hope the software is better

It sounds like just using Photoshop by itself may be the best course.

I'm also going to try some much larger, more expensive film scans for some the film images. That will certainly help with the 6x7 but I'm not sure 35mm can be helped much by huge scan files.

Any other thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, again.

RGS
Logged

plugsnpixels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 323



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2007, 03:34:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I call the general practice of upsizing "Hamburger Helper" when I try to explain the concept to students ;-).

As for quickly comparing the various upsizing plug-ins (with screenshots and samples), go here and look under "Resampling/interpolation".
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 03:34:56 AM by plugsnpixels » Logged

FREE DIGITAL IMAGING EZINE
http://www.plugsandpixels.com
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2007, 04:02:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks to all. I appreciate your responses and the variety of opinions.

I am trying demos from both as well as Sizefixer that was mentioned by some of you. Their web site is extremely slow and has blank pages. I hope the software is better

It sounds like just using Photoshop by itself may be the best course.

I'm also going to try some much larger, more expensive film scans for some the film images. That will certainly help with the 6x7 but I'm not sure 35mm can be helped much by huge scan files.

Any other thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, again.

RGS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160156\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have never had a problem with the web site speed, what I will say is if you do need to phone the company, chances are you will talk with the guy that wrote the program. I've gone to 7ft with super resolution from a 1DsmkII file on a couple of occasions, just for fun. It looks much better than it has the right to look, but not as good as MF scanned really well. If you have the room and time you can buy Drum scanners off ebay for pennies, make shure it comes with all the software, drums and preferably a computer so you know there is nothing extra needed and a mounting station.
There's a Fuji Lanovia flat bed near me going for a song, I'm so tempted, my Wife would go mental, the drum scanner is the size and weight of a Piano, adding a large flatbed might be the last straw.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
ChrisJR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2007, 07:42:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I've found Blow Up to produce the nicest results of the three if you're making considerable enlargements. A couple weeks ago I printed off 2 24x50" panoramics of Pu Dong in Shanghai, 1 using Genuine Fractals, 1 with Blow Up and there seemed to be a touch more detail using Blow Up. Photoshop is perfectly fine if you're only enlarging by a smallish amount.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad