Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Perfect Resize  (Read 2559 times)
marvpelkey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« on: June 19, 2013, 06:00:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I just completed upsizing, and comparing, a 3872 X 2592 pixel image to 9000 X 6025 using CS6 (Bicubic Automatic), Picture Window Pro (Lanczos 8 X Cool and Perfect Resize. I recently purchased CS6 and Perfect Resize and used to use Genuine Fractals, so wished to do a current comparison. If anyone is interested, and I had to zoom in real close (400%) to see it, PWP produced the sharpest and best result (the scene was of a forest with sun-rays breaking through the background). However, the purpose of this post has less to do with the results of the comparison than with a somewhat strange anomaly with the Perfect Resize version.

I used PWP to lay each image on top of the others, so I could see and compare the exact same area as I scrolled through the images. I noticed the PR image jumping a bit out of alignment with the other two, so zoomed in as noted above and was able to see the image in sections (only way I can describe it is as if a bunch of tiles were laid side by side), however, it is as if the sections were not exactly adjacent to each other and there is a couple pixels added between each section (both horizontally and vertically). Funny thing is, the images are all exactly 9000 X 6025, so I can't see how some pixels were actually added, but there is a noticeable jump along these section boundaries.

Tried this a few times to see if the first PR image was corrupt, but this same thing was observed each time.

Does anyone know enough about Perfect Resize to tell me what is going on and if the program does up-ressing by cutting the image into sections, enlarging, then "relaying" them (and perhaps the relaying is not done perfectly)?

Message to the website has yet to receive a response.

Thanks,

Marv
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3649


« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2013, 02:44:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone know enough about Perfect Resize to tell me what is going on and if the program does up-ressing by cutting the image into sections, enlarging, then "relaying" them (and perhaps the relaying is not done perfectly)?

Hi Marv,

Can't help you with the Perfect Resize issue because my trial installation of it crashes. However, the processing by tiles is a common approach when having to deal with huge file sizes. It allows for much faster processing, but of course care should be taken (Edit: by the application) when reassembling the individual tiles to prevent alignment errors or other visible discontinuities. Apparently there is something wrong.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 03:57:29 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
vjbelle
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 204


« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2013, 06:54:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I have always been a fan of Fractals and have had excellent results using that for up-sizing.  I have also been a big fan of Digital Light and Color's plug in 'Color Mechanic'.  Up-sizing is a critical step in the printing process and I'll give Picture Window Pro a go around.....

Victor
Logged
hokuahi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


Warrior, Photographer


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2013, 12:12:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone have anything on a comparison between Perfect Resize and the new resize algorithms in PSCC?
Logged

Two 2.26 Quad-Core Mac Pro
16 GB Ram
Mac OS X 10.8.4
Canon 5DIII
PS CC
LR 5
Epson 3800/3880
benchdog
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2013, 03:20:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Marv I'm curious about the setting you used in Perfect Resize. You have a choice between using Genuine Fractals or Perfect Resize algorithms and choices on image types then there are a couple slides to play with. I typical use the default slider settings but use the different image types.

Ed   
Logged

Fine Art Photographs that capture your emotions, provokes your thoughts, and embraces your interest that are collectible, affordable, investment quality Fine Art Prints
www.EWVisualArts.com
marvpelkey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2013, 03:35:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks everyone for the comments. To answer specific points:

Bart, regarding your comment about "care should be taken when reassembling..." not sure what that means as the program did its thing, I had no input in reassembling.

Victor, regarding PWP, I use this program for 90% of the stuff I do on images and PS about 10% (excluding RAW rendering as I use NX2 for that). Although some shy away from PWP due to the lack of layers (I don't find it hampers my needs), it has a host of things that make it appealing to me (mask generation is one of them). I think the quality is comparable between the two, but they are just very different approaches. If you get the trial version, try some of the other stuff besides up-ressing.

Ed, the only setting I altered was the size of the output image. Although I am sure there is some advantages to massaging the various settings, I don't see how using/not using them would cause the condition I spoke of in my initial post. I will tale another look, though.

Marv
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3649


« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2013, 03:48:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Bart, regarding your comment about "care should be taken when reassembling..." not sure what that means as the program did its thing, I had no input in reassembling.

Hi Marv,

The program should take care when reassembling.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
marvpelkey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2013, 08:50:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for clarifying, Bart.

Marv
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9100



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2013, 08:54:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone have anything on a comparison between Perfect Resize and the new resize algorithms in PSCC?

In the tests I did using CS6 (and Lightroom), for a Webinar and going out to print (you gotta print!), Photoshop did a better job and a lot faster! LR with proper capture sharpening was even a tad better.

If you're working with really tiny files, like stuff off the web, and need to go really big, these products can be useful. Otherwise, use Photoshop or better, LR. But whatever you do, do NOT try to evaluate the qualities of the upsizing by viewing on a display. Make a print, even an 8x10 of an area that requires close examination.
Logged

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

Posts: 736


« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2013, 09:46:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Jin Kasson did a series on Resampling for printing  http://blog.kasson.com/?p=500

He found Perfect Resize or Qimage better than Photoshop or LR for resampling.
Logged

John
vjbelle
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 204


« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2013, 07:21:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Jin Kasson did a series on Resampling for printing  http://blog.kasson.com/?p=500

He found Perfect Resize or Qimage better than Photoshop or LR for resampling.

I have also found PR to do a much better job than PS and certainly a lot better than LR which I would never use to print.  I usually print to either 36 or 40 inches so no matter what I shoot it has to be upsampled.  If I didn't have PR as a resource than Qimage would be my next choice.  No matter what, you do have to view a print for the final analysis..... this can easily be a crop printed to a much smaller size.

Victor
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 11:15:21 AM by vjbelle » Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2013, 10:41:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Jin Kasson did a series on Resampling for printing  http://blog.kasson.com/?p=500

He found Perfect Resize or Qimage better than Photoshop or LR for resampling.

Thanks for the ink, John. There have been some changes in Lr since that post, and for the better. Lr 3 did interpolation in linear RGB, and LR 4 does it in gamma-corrected RGB. That means that LR 4 results are virtually the same as Ps Bicubic Automatic, which I find good enough for prints not destined for exhibition or sale.

There are some details and example images here.

Jim
Logged

Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2013, 10:45:02 AM »
ReplyReply

No matter what you do [you] have to view a print for the final analysis..... this can easily be a crop printed to a much smaller size.

Victor

Right you are, Victor, and that goes double for output sharpening. After you crop, you have to remember to use the same viewing distance you'd use to view the full-sized print.

Jim
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 736


« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2013, 12:03:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the ink, John. There have been some changes in Lr since that post, and for the better. Lr 3 did interpolation in linear RGB, and LR 4 does it in gamma-corrected RGB. That means that LR 4 results are virtually the same as Ps Bicubic Automatic, which I find good enough for prints not destined for exhibition or sale.

There are some details and example images here.

Jim

The advantage of LR is that once you get the image looking the way you want on the screen, the interpolation/sharpening works automatically based on the size you decide to print at.

Qimage works in a similar manner.  However, the interpolation and sharpening routines are more sophisticated and give better results.  In addition...following up on Victor's comment that looking at the final print is needed...you can after a number of reviews of test prints, make adjustments to get consistent, even better results for a specific printer/paper.

I find the Qimage method superior to resize/resampling in PS, the trying to interpret on the screen if the right amount of oversharpening has been created so that it looks good on the paper....though a workflow can be created to give similar steps as done in LR and Qimage.

Totally agree that the final print is the final judge.  For me, I have found a method which gets me there easily and consistently.and easy enough to use for all prints.
Logged

John
hokuahi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


Warrior, Photographer


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2013, 01:23:01 PM »
ReplyReply

In the tests I did using CS6 (and Lightroom), for a Webinar and going out to print (you gotta print!), Photoshop did a better job and a lot faster! LR with proper capture sharpening was even a tad better.

If you're working with really tiny files, like stuff off the web, and need to go really big, these products can be useful. Otherwise, use Photoshop or better, LR. But whatever you do, do NOT try to evaluate the qualities of the upsizing by viewing on a display. Make a print, even an 8x10 of an area that requires close examination.

Thank you!
Logged

Two 2.26 Quad-Core Mac Pro
16 GB Ram
Mac OS X 10.8.4
Canon 5DIII
PS CC
LR 5
Epson 3800/3880
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad