Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: UPsize in LR or other software?  (Read 3631 times)
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« on: February 28, 2013, 09:30:05 PM »
ReplyReply

A while ago there was a long thread about printing resolution with the outcome basically saying to uprez anything under 360ppi (for Epson) up to 360, and then up to 720ppi if above 360 but below 720.  That seems to be working quite well and I've successfully printed images with native resolutions from about 180 and up.

My question is, if you have an image that is quite a bit less than 180ppi, what is the best method to bring it up to 360?  Do you let LR do it all, or upsize it in PS or with something like Perfect Resize first?
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 746


« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2013, 10:13:32 PM »
ReplyReply

A while ago there was a long thread about printing resolution with the outcome basically saying to uprez anything under 360ppi (for Epson) up to 360, and then up to 720ppi if above 360 but below 720.  That seems to be working quite well and I've successfully printed images with native resolutions from about 180 and up.

My question is, if you have an image that is quite a bit less than 180ppi, what is the best method to bring it up to 360?  Do you let LR do it all, or upsize it in PS or with something like Perfect Resize first?

Mike, one of the nice things about LR is that it will automatically add sharpening (PixelGenius PhotoKit based) as you uprez.

With PS, the interpolation routines are the same, but ou will need to add final sharpening.

I have not used Perfect Resize, but I understand that it's interpolation routines are similar to Qimage.  Which is better depends on specific image.

I use Qimage.  Did in the past because its interpolation routines were better than PS or LR.  Plus, it automatically added superior smart sharpening to match the ice. Of the print and amount of interpolation.  Recently, it added new sharpening routines which allow increased sharpening, if desired, without any haloing.

My normal approach is to leave the image without any resizing....sharpened until it looks correct on the screen.  I will then export a TIFF (8bit, but 16bit if you choose).  I can then print at any size I want, as interpolation and sharpening will automatically adjust.  I almost always print at finest detail (720ppi), no matter what original.....file must be awfully small and print size, relatively, large to notice any problems.

John
Logged

John
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 931


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2013, 10:26:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Mike, I usually let LR do the upsizing for proofs, and pretty much anything that I don't sell or exhibit. It's not bad. Perfect Resize and QImage are better, and the difference between the two of them and LR grows as the upsizing ratio increases. But don't take my word for it. Look here. If you want to see the results of a greater upsizing ratio, they're here.

And finally, if you want to see what the upsizing algorithms do to the image before it hits the printer, look here.

Jim

Logged

BarbaraArmstrong
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 288


« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2013, 11:21:19 PM »
ReplyReply

When I upsized an image in Perfect Resize recently, it appeared to me that some sharpening had been applied in the upsizing process, even though I had turned OFF sharpening.  Does anyone know if my perception is correct, or not?  This is important to me, because I very much like to apply my own sharpening, "to taste," which is often less, I think, than a program is likely to apply. --Barbara
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2142


« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2013, 11:59:06 PM »
ReplyReply

...Mike, I usually let LR do the upsizing for proofs, and pretty much anything that I don't sell or exhibit. It's not bad. Perfect Resize and QImage are better, and the difference between the two of them and LR grows as the upsizing ratio increases...

They must be pretty good if they do a better job than Lightroom - I have got what I consider pretty spectacular results.
Maybe I should bite the bullet and buy the Suite including Perfect Resize.

Tony Jay
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3771


« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2013, 02:00:36 AM »
ReplyReply

They must be pretty good if they do a better job than Lightroom - I have got what I consider pretty spectacular results.
Maybe I should bite the bullet and buy the Suite including Perfect Resize.

Hi Tony,

Give the trial version a go first. I did, and Perfect resize crashes on my computer. I use Benvista's Photozoom for upsampling, it's rock solid and produces superior results.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2142


« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2013, 03:30:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Give the trial version a go first. I did, and Perfect resize crashes on my computer. I use Benvista's Photozoom for upsampling, it's rock solid and produces superior results.

I will certainly have a look.
Thank you Bart.

Tony Jay
Logged
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2013, 06:28:58 AM »
ReplyReply

thanks guys - and Jim for those links to your blog - great info!  I have Perfect Resize but haven't really used it much other than for creating mirror edges for gallery wraps.  I would then bring the file back into LR and print from there.  I just like the way LR Print Module works.

I do have a 12MP image that I wanted to print about 22x32 but after some cropping the res was only 129ppi. I'll give PR a try.
Logged

Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 931


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2013, 11:02:48 AM »
ReplyReply

 I just like the way LR Print Module works.

Mike, if you're not after the very ultimate quality, sometimes workflow trumps exotic resampling. I, too, am a fan of the LR print module. In the LR 3 days, when LR's resampling was distinctly sub-par, I used to feel terribly conflicted -- suffer the quality loss and gain the convenience, or bite the bullet and take the image to Photoshop/PR? LR is now good enough for many purposes.

John is a QImage fan. He uses it like I use the LR print module. Since he likes the Qimage workflow, he can have the best of both worlds: convenience and quality. QImage also offers a wide choice of resampling algorithms, if you want to take the time to see which one works best for each image; as far as I'm concerned, life's too short for that.

Some day, we may see third-party Lightroom plugins/helper apps that replace the LR resampling algorithm.

Jim
Logged

Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 931


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2013, 11:15:19 AM »
ReplyReply

A while ago there was a long thread about printing resolution with the outcome basically saying to uprez anything under 360ppi (for Epson) up to 360, and then up to 720ppi if above 360 but below 720. 

Mike, there's an important piece of information that often gets dropped. If you're going to send the Epson print driver a 720 ppi image, make sure the "Finest Detail" box is checked. If it's not, the printer driver will resample the image to 360 ppi using the "nearest neighbor" algorithm. I used to think that the trip from some resolution between 360 and 720 to 720 and back to 360 in the driver would damage the image over just taking the image to 360 and sending it ot the driver, but several experiments have convinced me that the two approaches produce virtually identical images. That's probably because the printer driver, seeing a 720 ppi image with the "Finest Detail" box unchecked, takes every other pixel in each direction, and those are the same pixels produced by a direct resizing to 360 ppi.

If you want proof that the Epson printer driver resamples an image to 360 ppi if the "Finest Detail" box is unchecked (and I would), it's here. Warning: you need to know a lttle about sampling theory to understand the details of the post.

Jim
Logged

Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2013, 11:29:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I did know that Jim.  I always make sure "Finest Detail" is checked if I'm going to 720.  Not that my old eyes can see the difference, but I'm not the only one looking so I'd rather be safe.

What setting do you use if the native resolution is larger than 720?  Happens mostly to smaller prints, but I'm never sure what to use.
Logged

Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 931


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2013, 11:48:11 AM »
ReplyReply

What setting do you use if the native resolution is larger than 720?  Happens mostly to smaller prints, but I'm never sure what to use.

I'd res it down to 720. Otherwise, the driver will, using nearest neighbor. By the way, I, too, can't see a difference between printing at 720 ppi and 360 ppi, except on special test images.

Jim
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2013, 12:23:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd res it down to 720. Otherwise, the driver will, using nearest neighbor. By the way, I, too, can't see a difference between printing at 720 ppi and 360 ppi, except on special test images.

Actually, there's a hidden feature in the Epson pro print drivers that can actually report a 1440 DPI rez to the OS pipeline, but it's not easy to do...first, you need to set the print rez to 2880, then check Finest Detail and then in the media settings, select one of the Proofing Paper media settings. I've tried it on Proofing Paper Commercial but I think it works with any of the proofing paper media settings...

As I understand it, this is done so 3rd party rips can send halftone screens to the printer to get a reasonably accurate CMYK proof based on halftone dots formed by the rip. But it's a very specific case...see the screenshot below: (note the High Speed is turned off)



BTW, I can see the differences and benefits of using 720 when printing high rez images with high frequency texture not problem. But I tried to see and benefit to printing 1440 rez and could not (even though I was looking really hard :~).
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 12:25:25 PM by Schewe » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2013, 12:59:31 PM »
ReplyReply

My question is, if you have an image that is quite a bit less than 180ppi, what is the best method to bring it up to 360?  Do you let LR do it all, or upsize it in PS or with something like Perfect Resize first?

I did a Webinar last year on sizing up and tested PR along with Photoshop and LR. The "winner" when viewed on a print was LR thanks to proper capture sharpening. Photoshop came in 2nd with PR dead last (along with the slowest processing by a mile). Everything was rendered out of LR of course. So considering LR can do this within it's own system if you will, and do it faster, I'd resize in the Print Module and be done. The upsize was 400% of native 5DMII.
Logged

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

Posts: 288


« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2013, 01:20:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe I should have posted my question in another forum, but as sharpening coincident with upsizing was being discussed here as a factor in choosing an upsizing program, I thought someone might be able to help me.  The question was whether PerfectResize  automatically adds some sharpening as it upsizes, even if sharpening is turned off.  Anyone? --Barbara
Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 931


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2013, 01:34:53 PM »
ReplyReply

The question was whether PerfectResize  automatically adds some sharpening as it upsizes, even if sharpening is turned off.  Anyone? --Barbara

Barbara, even though the question seems simple, I'm not sure there's a definitive answer. You can view the work of a resampling program as taking place in two steps: first, from the input samples, create a model for an unsampled (continuous) image; second, sample that image. If the modeling emphasizes (or creates, it's hard to say which) high-spatial-frequency content in the modeled continuous image, some of that content will appear in the resampled image, especially if the resampling frequency is higher than the input sampling frequency, as is the case with upsizing. Thus, the image could look sharper even though there's no explicit sharpening step.

The situation is even murkier with PR, since it resizes in an iterative process, at least some of the time.

Jim
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2013, 01:38:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Barbara, even though the question seems simple, I'm not sure there's a definitive answer.

I agree. Unless the manufacturer tells us, I don't know how we'd know. I didn't find the default sharpening to be very good either. And where is it applied? Before, after resizing or both (IOW, a capture sharpening prior to or after the sizing)? Using LR or Photoshop, pretty clear what's going on. When ink hit the paper, it was pretty clear which was doing a better job IMHO.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Sal Baker
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2013, 01:53:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I did a Webinar last year on sizing up and tested PR along with Photoshop and LR. The "winner" when viewed on a print was LR thanks to proper capture sharpening. Photoshop came in 2nd with PR dead last (along with the slowest processing by a mile). Everything was rendered out of LR of course. So considering LR can do this within it's own system if you will, and do it faster, I'd resize in the Print Module and be done. The upsize was 400% of native 5DMII.
Andrew, was the image capture sharpening performed in LR?  If so, can you offer tips on doing it "properly"?  Thanks.

Sal
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2013, 01:57:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew, was the image capture sharpening performed in LR?  If so, can you offer tips on doing it "properly"?  Thanks.

Yes and to keep things simple, I think I just used defaults.
Logged

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

Posts: 269


« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2013, 02:41:14 PM »
ReplyReply

As I generally print my better images in two paper sizes - 13x19 and 17x22-25 - I have followed Schewe's past advice of upsampling first in ACR (don't use LR), taking it to the max. of ~28mp/16-bit PPrgb for my 16mp files, and de-convolution capture sharpening. I output the 300ppi TIF's to PS6 perfectly sized for my ~15.5x20.5 uncropped images, finishing with customized Smart Sharpen, often first with small radius, then wide radius-low level for local contrast enhancement.

Lately I've been in the habit of simply resizing without downsampling for my 13x19 (12x16) output, ending up printing these at around 380ppi. Heresy, I know, but I'll be hanged if I can see any IQ difference from my iPF5100 output with the suggested 300ppi downsampling. Printing in highest accuracy 600dpi mode, through the excellent 16-bit Canon plug-in. I've compared at my very myopic 6" focal point without glasses, but not loupe, and haven't compared upsampling to 600ppi for the 13x19's.

Anyone else with experience using this "one file fits all sizes" approach, particularly with newer printers?

Pete

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad