Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: down rezzing  (Read 7963 times)
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2896



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2008, 09:28:39 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted (sorry, wrote something about the original subject then saw all the other stuff and hated myself for reviving the thread, but couldn't delete the post and let it remain dead.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 09:35:54 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2008, 06:49:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BlasR
Bernard,

The Barraca Hussein, paying you for that?

BlasR

Michael, probably time to have a word with BlasR!
Logged
BlasR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2008, 08:55:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: woof75
Michael, probably time to have a word with BlasR!

 David,
I have a question?  

What in the hell i say?  

He have a flash promote a political figure, I as a question about if he get pay for that,

in now the world is mad about that?   (good)   As Jeremy say  ,Democracy in action  

BTW my second name is Antonio,   if you wish to call me Antonio,it will be your worst nightmare  

Nothing else to say about it.  

BlasR

A photo for you.

I give UP
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8245



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2008, 09:05:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
You might to ask this guy what technique he uses... the downsizing problem he is facing is much tougher...

http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/

This is actually pretty funny, I had completely forgotten about the Obama short flash section after the link, and was referring to the 17 GB pano images of Yosemite that lie behind... and that is very relevant from the point of view of downsizing.

Sorry folks, I had no intention whatsoever to start a political discussion in this thread. I would have a lot to say, but not here.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2008, 09:57:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BlasR
David,
I have a question?  

What in the hell i say?  

He have a flash promote a political figure, I as a question about if he get pay for that,

in now the world is mad about that?   (good)   As Jeremy say  ,Democracy in action  

BTW my second name is Antonio,   if you wish to call me Antonio,it will be your worst nightmare  

Nothing else to say about it.  

BlasR

A photo for you.

I give UP

Man, your mad about something, is business not going well?
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2896



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2008, 03:10:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
This is actually pretty funny, I had completely forgotten about the Obama short flash section after the link, and was referring to the 17 GB pano images of Yosemite that lie behind... and that is very relevant from the point of view of downsizing.

Sorry folks, I had no intention whatsoever to start a political discussion in this thread. I would have a lot to say, but not here.

Cheers,
Bernard
the 17gig pano downrezzing was what I was commenting on, but felt bad about reviving a thread that somehow got so far off topic ... I wish I knew how he did that ... much better results that I get.
Logged

MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2008, 07:06:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I have always used imagemagick with the lanczos filter to downsample after being unimpressed with photoshop's results.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2008, 08:20:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkL
I have always used imagemagick with the lanczos filter to downsample after being unimpressed with photoshop's results.

My point in all of this is that if there is quality loss when down-sampling why are companies developing backs that have to be dow-rezzed 99 percent of the time for most users. Why aren't they perfecting a 20-30mpx back for less money?
Logged
jmvdigital
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2008, 08:26:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Aside from the clearly poor situations, is anyone willing to post samples of the "good" and "bad" down-rezzing?

In my experience, if the colors and tonality are intact, all that's left is a level of sharpening and detail. I have yet to find a down-sampled image that just plain looked horrible from Photoshop, LR, etc.  It would seem a lot of this thread is just splitting hairs on comparing a 39mp original to a 0.5mp web image and clamoring for more detail. It's the web. And if you post an image on the web, more than half the folks that see it won't even be on a color corrected monitor or anything... a little variation in detail will be a moot point, only important to you and no one else. It doesn't seem nearly worth the effort of using special programs to clutter up the workflow.

That said, I am not pleased at all with C1 Pro's JPEG output at small resolutions, they aren't anti-aliased or something, very strange with pixel mosaic patterns kind of. But if you use the special "web contact sheet" output option, the JPEGs are great. I've talked with Doug at CI, no real explanation or answer, other than definitely to use the web contact sheet option to output for web.
Logged

--
Justin VanAlstyne
jmvdigital, inc.
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2008, 09:03:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jmvdigital
Aside from the clearly poor situations, is anyone willing to post samples of the "good" and "bad" down-rezzing?

In my experience, if the colors and tonality are intact, all that's left is a level of sharpening and detail. I have yet to find a down-sampled image that just plain looked horrible from Photoshop, LR, etc.  It would seem a lot of this thread is just splitting hairs on comparing a 39mp original to a 0.5mp web image and clamoring for more detail. It's the web. And if you post an image on the web, more than half the folks that see it won't even be on a color corrected monitor or anything... a little variation in detail will be a moot point, only important to you and no one else. It doesn't seem nearly worth the effort of using special programs to clutter up the workflow.

That said, I am not pleased at all with C1 Pro's JPEG output at small resolutions, they aren't anti-aliased or something, very strange with pixel mosaic patterns kind of. But if you use the special "web contact sheet" output option, the JPEGs are great. I've talked with Doug at CI, no real explanation or answer, other than definitely to use the web contact sheet option to output for web.

I don't mean down ressing for web use, a 60mpx file is about 3 times bigger than a magazine page so you have to down res 300 %  just for editorial.
Logged
jmvdigital
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2008, 09:13:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I still say my response stands. Without a an obviously terrible processing job, no one will notice or ever know the difference except you. Care to post good and bad examples?
Logged

--
Justin VanAlstyne
jmvdigital, inc.
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2008, 10:42:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jmvdigital
I still say my response stands. Without a an obviously terrible processing job, no one will notice or ever know the difference except you. Care to post good and bad examples?

really reaching for the high ground, unless you do an obviously terrible job no one will notice the difference. I can imagine that being the tagline for a new 40K camera back, "Unless you do a terrible processing job no one will notice the difference except you!!"
It's more of a theoretical position that no-one seems to have thought of, is too much resolution actually a drawback?
Logged
jmvdigital
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 11, 2008, 11:26:11 AM »
ReplyReply

My point is that most down-rezzed images don't look "bad" at all. The balance between hard-edged details and a nice smooth image is one of aesthetics and one that only you will be able to directly compare to your original image. As far as "too much res"... everything you photograph has way more detail than you can capture any day. So even with 100mp, you're still down sizing what you see. It's just a compromise on what aesthetics choices and the "look" you're going for.
Logged

--
Justin VanAlstyne
jmvdigital, inc.
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2008, 12:36:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jmvdigital
My point is that most down-rezzed images don't look "bad" at all. The balance between hard-edged details and a nice smooth image is one of aesthetics and one that only you will be able to directly compare to your original image. As far as "too much res"... everything you photograph has way more detail than you can capture any day. So even with 100mp, you're still down sizing what you see. It's just a compromise on what aesthetics choices and the "look" you're going for.

I'm not saying down rezzed images look bad but if they don't look quite as good then why develop high res' chips?
Logged
JessicaLuchesi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2008, 01:03:27 PM »
ReplyReply

It all depends on the use you have for the image. For simple web presentation, or online portfolio, I have been using Lightroom's export with a redefined size and profile. Then, I open on CS3 just to add copyright data. This far, I haven't noticed loss of image quality. But a web browser isn't the best viewer for any image, on my book.

Never had to "shrink" an image to send to a client tho, so, I'm really finding this debate very interesting
« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 01:05:00 PM by JessicaLuchesi » Logged
jmvdigital
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2008, 02:05:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: woof75
I'm not saying down rezzed images look bad but if they don't look quite as good then why develop high res' chips?

Perhaps then for magazine use, you don't actually need anything more than say 12mp. In that respect, a 60mp back for your type of work is totally meaningless and pointless. Of course, many folks will say it gives you "cropping room." Aside from that, you're simply wasting your money. Now, most folks buy big backs to make big prints. If one only does newspaper or editorial work, it makes little sense to shoot at those high resolutions. This is a more of a discussion about practical equipment needs, not about the ability to down size an image.

Logged

--
Justin VanAlstyne
jmvdigital, inc.
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #36 on: November 11, 2008, 03:49:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jmvdigital
Perhaps then for magazine use, you don't actually need anything more than say 12mp. In that respect, a 60mp back for your type of work is totally meaningless and pointless. Of course, many folks will say it gives you "cropping room." Aside from that, you're simply wasting your money. Now, most folks buy big backs to make big prints. If one only does newspaper or editorial work, it makes little sense to shoot at those high resolutions. This is a more of a discussion about practical equipment needs, not about the ability to down size an image.

Surely 95 percent of what photographers do appears in magazines though, I'd love to know who these backs are aimed at.
Logged
jmvdigital
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 11, 2008, 04:02:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: woof75
Surely 95 percent of what photographers do appears in magazines though, I'd love to know who these backs are aimed at.

Well, I for one, don't shoot anything specifically for magazines. I shoot for personal fine art work, and like I said, to print big. I can't speak for what users of the 60mp+ backs use it for, but I imagine it's for fashion, studio, and fine art work where large, finely detailed prints are at least one of the destined applications for a photo. Fashion and studio shooters may see their work used for a multitude of things, including newspaper, magazine, and billboards. Again, this thread isn't about why or what people shoot with high megapixel backs. Even so, you'll read many threads around where many shooters just want higher quality 25-39 megapixels that we already have, not XXX more megapixels, so who really knows where the 60+ mp back shooters are coming from.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 04:02:53 PM by jmvdigital » Logged

--
Justin VanAlstyne
jmvdigital, inc.
klane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785

I live in a c-stand fort.


« Reply #38 on: November 11, 2008, 04:37:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I think one of the best solutions is to own 2 backs 1 lower rez and 1 higher rez.   With the lower rez backs coming down somewhat in price (16 17 18mp)  It makes sense.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #39 on: November 12, 2008, 06:29:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: klane
I think one of the best solutions is to own 2 backs 1 lower rez and 1 higher rez.   With the lower rez backs coming down somewhat in price (16 17 18mp)  It makes sense.

Personally everything I shoot goes into a magazine so I own a P21, if someone needs something for an in store big something that a P21 file couldn't be uprezzed for I guess I'll just rent.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad