Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: UP-RESING DIGITAL RAW  (Read 9048 times)
jacques_F
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« on: December 10, 2008, 11:16:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I need help evaluating different strategies for upping the resolution of an original file of 3504X2336 pixels
we need it to be printed very large ( 1meter by 3meters= 40x120 inches)
we have tried printing an 8 x 10 print and rephotographing this on 6x6 medium format film but this gives us a good print up to about one third of the needed size.

I know there are special tools with algorithms such as fractal etc... for this; also there is the step by step solution of slowly resizing it many times in photoshop bicubic; and there are also sharpening processes that may help, and finally printing processes may also increase apparent sharpness.

this photo is a new take of an old original photo taken on a high quality medium format film and we were very lucky to be allowed to make the photograph from exactly the same point of view in Paris. However there was miscomunication and the photographer was told that his digital SLR would be enough, which was wrong. There is no way to travel there again and get the same shot now, so we are looking for the absolute best we can do with  what we have.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Logged
Wolfman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2008, 01:15:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jacques_F
I need help evaluating different strategies for upping the resolution of an original file of 3504X2336 pixels
we need it to be printed very large ( 1meter by 3meters= 40x120 inches)
we have tried printing an 8 x 10 print and rephotographing this on 6x6 medium format film but this gives us a good print up to about one third of the needed size.

I know there are special tools with algorithms such as fractal etc... for this; also there is the step by step solution of slowly resizing it many times in photoshop bicubic; and there are also sharpening processes that may help, and finally printing processes may also increase apparent sharpness.

this photo is a new take of an old original photo taken on a high quality medium format film and we were very lucky to be allowed to make the photograph from exactly the same point of view in Paris. However there was miscomunication and the photographer was told that his digital SLR would be enough, which was wrong. There is no way to travel there again and get the same shot now, so we are looking for the absolute best we can do with  what we have.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.



Check this out.......... especially pg 4.... ....   .... all in Photoshop and Photokit Sharpener : http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/s...the-up-res.html
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2884



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2008, 04:58:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wolfman
Check this out.......... especially pg 4.... ....   .... all in Photoshop and Photokit Sharpener : http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/s...the-up-res.html

I agree, a good read for your needs.  

Right now you are sitting at around 30dpi so a 400% uprez will only get you to about 120dpi which might be OK. It takes a really good file to get a good 400% uprez.

Of course it depends on the viewing distance ...from 30 feet it may look just fine.


Logged

Wolfman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2008, 05:49:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jacques_F
I need help evaluating different strategies for upping the resolution of an original file of 3504X2336 pixels
we need it to be printed very large ( 1meter by 3meters= 40x120 inches)
we have tried printing an 8 x 10 print and rephotographing this on 6x6 medium format film but this gives us a good print up to about one third of the needed size.

I know there are special tools with algorithms such as fractal etc... for this; also there is the step by step solution of slowly resizing it many times in photoshop bicubic; and there are also sharpening processes that may help, and finally printing processes may also increase apparent sharpness.

this photo is a new take of an old original photo taken on a high quality medium format film and we were very lucky to be allowed to make the photograph from exactly the same point of view in Paris. However there was miscomunication and the photographer was told that his digital SLR would be enough, which was wrong. There is no way to travel there again and get the same shot now, so we are looking for the absolute best we can do with  what we have.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.


Interesting discussion about printing large: http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...read.php?t=7775
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3538



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2008, 07:11:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jacques_F
I need help evaluating different strategies for upping the resolution of an original file of 3504X2336 pixels
we need it to be printed very large ( 1meter by 3meters= 40x120 inches)
If you look at posters of a similar size on the street, you will find on getting close, that they are usually a very low resolution, 72dpi or even lower. Yet dspite that they look fine. Why? You tend to stand at a distance that is comfortable for viewing shot, which means it doesn't need to be as high a res as when looking at smaller images such as in magazines, which normally tend to fill one's field of view more than any other form of displaying images.
There were some shot in one of the local museums recently, which documented the rebuilding process and they were enormous. They looked great, despite the obvious low quality once you got a bit too close.

Quote
I know there are special tools with algorithms such as fractal etc... for this; also there is the step by step solution of slowly resizing it many times in photoshop bicubic; and there are also sharpening processes that may help, and finally printing processes may also increase apparent sharpness.
Try inceasing the size when opening file in ACR [if it's a RAW file], it's the best way I've found of increasing file size and I've tried the slowly resizing method and Genuine Fractals and ACR was by far the best.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2008, 07:46:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Check out this article by Ctein, http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...bigger-but.html
also, there were followup articles as well, http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...bigger-but.html
and
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...igger-bu-1.html
Logged

sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586


« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2008, 06:56:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Scot kelby recomends upresing by using the bicubic sharper (rather than the smoother) at 360dpi, it's claimed to give a better enlargment, although I haven't done any comparisons myself, I can't help wondering if there would be any advantage or disadvantage to the different options ??    Wayne
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3538



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2008, 08:50:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
Scot kelby recomends upresing by using the bicubic sharper (rather than the smoother) at 360dpi, it's claimed to give a better enlargment, although I haven't done any comparisons myself, I can't help wondering if there would be any advantage or disadvantage to the different options ??    Wayne
IIRC with various rezing types, one is better for upresing and one is better for downsizing. Jeff Schewe would be a useful person to gain some insight into this.
Personally I would upres the RAW file before getting into PS.

Here's an example using a similar sized original file upresed in ACR and it enlarges very nicely. I prefer the bigger file in fact.

« Last Edit: December 11, 2008, 08:50:50 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2008, 12:22:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
Scot kelby recomends upresing by using the bicubic sharper (rather than the smoother) at 360dpi, it's claimed to give a better enlargment...


Well, if you don't know how to do accurate sharpening after uprez, using Bicubic sharper is, uh, easier...but if you know what you are doing, you would NEVER use Bicubic sharper. Bicubic smoother was DESIGNED for upsampling...it produces a SMOOTHER result (hense the name) and requires proper sharpening after the upsample (perhaps that's the part that is eluding Scott).
Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586


« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2008, 12:51:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Well, if you don't know how to do accurate sharpening after uprez, using Bicubic sharper is, uh, easier...but if you know what you are doing, you would NEVER use Bicubic sharper. Bicubic smoother was DESIGNED for upsampling...it produces a SMOOTHER result (hense the name) and requires proper sharpening after the upsample (perhaps that's the part that is eluding Scott).
 LOL  you could be right Jeff.    
Logged
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2008, 02:31:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Well, if you don't know how to do accurate sharpening after uprez, using Bicubic sharper is, uh, easier...but if you know what you are doing, you would NEVER use Bicubic sharper. Bicubic smoother was DESIGNED for upsampling...it produces a SMOOTHER result (hense the name) and requires proper sharpening after the upsample (perhaps that's the part that is eluding Scott).

I could be wrong, but wasn't one of the Adobe engineers (I think his name was Chris Cox) quoted in another forum (could have been the Adobe User Forums) as saying that Bicubic Sharper was, in fact, better for enlargements than Smoother?

Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2008, 03:08:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tgphoto
I could be wrong, but wasn't one of the Adobe engineers (I think his name was Chris Cox) quoted in another forum (could have been the Adobe User Forums) as saying that Bicubic Sharper was, in fact, better for enlargements than Smoother?

No, you have that EXACTLY backwards...Chris said SMOOTHER was for uprez, SHARPER for down...

Believe me, I worked with Chris testing each and every iteration of the schemes he tried before settling on 3 flavors of Bicubic.
Logged
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2008, 03:21:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
No, you have that EXACTLY backwards...Chris said SMOOTHER was for uprez, SHARPER for down...

Believe me, I worked with Chris testing each and every iteration of the schemes he tried before settling on 3 flavors of Bicubic.

Doh, I figured as much!  Thanks for setting me straight, Jeff.  
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8075



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2008, 04:20:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
No, you have that EXACTLY backwards...Chris said SMOOTHER was for uprez, SHARPER for down...

Believe me, I worked with Chris testing each and every iteration of the schemes he tried before settling on 3 flavors of Bicubic.
In the CS3 dialog box for upressing it even says that explicitly: "Bicubic Smoother (best for enlargement)". It's nice having the reminder right there so I don't forget which is which.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3538



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2008, 06:12:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Told you Jeff would have some useful info on this subject.


Jeff - how do you rate using ACR for enlarging before going into PS, versus Bicubic smoother, or is it even the same engine in different places?
It's been a while since needing to do so and wondered what was currently the best method in your view?
Obviously there are serious overheads if enlarging in RAW when doing lots of post processing afterwards, which could be an important factor if time is an issue.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2008, 07:22:47 PM »
ReplyReply

A simple way to sharpen after uprezzing while still keep the file looking organic is to go up to 120% of target size via Bicubic Smoother, then Downsize to target using Bicubic Sharper.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2008, 08:37:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Well, if you don't know how to do accurate sharpening after uprez, using Bicubic sharper is, uh, easier...but if you know what you are doing, you would NEVER use Bicubic sharper. Bicubic smoother was DESIGNED for upsampling...it produces a SMOOTHER result (hense the name) and requires proper sharpening after the upsample (perhaps that's the part that is eluding Scott).

Jeff,

Any guidelines for sharpening after enlargement? I am on CS4 using your Photokit Sharpener.

Do you just Output sharpen at the resulting DPI, or do you do pass of creative sharpening before doing the output sharpening?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2008, 03:19:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Any guidelines for sharpening after enlargement? I am on CS4 using your Photokit Sharpener.


Read the article on DPP...I use Super Sharpener after a 200%or 400% upsample (the only to sizes I use if I need to upsample). As far as Camera Raw vs. Photoshop, as of ACR 5.2, I would say pretty much exactly equal (since Eric fixed the ringing issue and improved ACR upsampling). The only issue I still have with ACR now is that the usability sucks...you can't set image dimensions, just crude upsampling factors. So, it's really an issue of usability now–Photoshop still wins that battle.
Logged
jacques_F
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2008, 03:51:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wolfman
Check this out.......... especially pg 4.... ....   .... all in Photoshop and Photokit Sharpener : http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/s...the-up-res.html
thanks for pointing me to jeff´s great article
Logged
jacques_F
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2008, 04:00:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wolfman
Interesting discussion about printing large: http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...read.php?t=7775

 That´s a Great Thread you pointed me to! it contemplates part of my problem needing a 1 x 3 meters print. Thanks !
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad