Best workflow for increasing image size (interlopation)

[f8]

Can anyone suggest the best combination of software etc for upping the size of a file, looking at geniune fractals at moment :?:

[chris.bailey]

I have been using pxl Smartscale at work and have blown 10D images up to A0 poster sizes with good results

[ecobo]

I use Photoshop.

[mwinog2777]

try this one for enlarging:

http://www.thelightsright.com/DigitalDarkroom/PhotoshopTools.htm

[rcrobert]

try this one for enlarging:

http://www.thelightsright.com/DigitalDarkroom/PhotoshopTools.htm

This is a good action. The trick in PS is to increase the size in small increments -- less than 10% increase each time. You can do this yourself in PS by using "percent" in the Image Size dialog box. Or this action automates it for you.

[meow]

I just found this. Makes you think. I can't see any difference between those sample pics.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/smartscale.shtml

[BigRed450]

seems there are different opinions about this.
See this thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29876&highlight=interpolate

I did do some of my own comparisons and found that PS Bicubic in fact does a better job with 10D images in one step upsizing opposed to 10% multiple steps..

[Jesper]

I just found this. Makes you think. I can't see any difference between those sample pics.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/smartscale.shtml
Well, there is a difference that you can see easily if you know what to look for. The article says:

What I see above, and borne out in several tests with other files at other magnifications, is that both SmartScale and Genuine Fractals do a slightly better job of ressing-up an image than does the built-in bicubic interpolation function in Photoshop. This can best be seen by looking at the rim of the hat where it contrasts with the man's face. With both SmartScale and Genuine Fractals the edge is less ragged. Bicubic, and Bicubic with 10% increments look essentially identical, and both are not far behind the commercial products in image quality. Naturally, prints display pretty much similar results as seen with the web reproductions above. There's no free lunch — not even when it's expensive.

The Photoshop bicubic interpolation images clearly show a jagged (pixelated) edge around the rim of the hat, that you don't see in the SmartScale and Genuine Fractals images. Still, I think the difference is not that much and I wouldn't pay $ 159 or $ 199 for it.

[Scottes]

Here's a test of downsizing:

From 3072x 2048 directly down to 400x266 in one step, done plain bicubic
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/resize_test_1_step.jpg

Done in 20 steps (10% per step), plain bicubic
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/resize_test_20_steps.jpg

Fred Miranda Web Presenter Pro Plugin:
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/resize_test_fm.jpg

For downsizing at least, I think that either multi-step or the Fred Miranda plugin (which is also multi-step) do a better job than single-step.

Multi-step downsizing is free if you don't mind creating the action and going through a couple of more (minor) steps per resize. That is, an action will expect an image to be 3072 (or whatever) to start. If you crop the original to 1500 wide, then you'll have to disable a few of the action steps.

But given the ease of use, the FM plugin is worth the $20 if you have the money to spare.

[HKMonkey]

Scottes, I set up an action to upsize an image by 10%. Does that mean that this action will not work with any other file if it is not the same size as the image I set up the action for? I thought it would just upsize 10% no matter what size. :?

[Scottes]

Scottes, I set up an action to upsize an image by 10%. Does that mean that this action will not work with any other file if it is not the same size as the image I set up the action for? I thought it would just upsize 10% no matter what size. :?

The action will resize to a particular width or height (with constrain proportions enabled). You can't go by percentage.

So if your original is 3072x2048 then your actions would be:
Resize Image to 2700x? (constrained enabled)
Resize Image to 2450x? (constrained enabled)
Resize Image to 2000x? (constrained enabled)
Resize Image to 1800x? (constrained enabled)
and so on down the line.

Now if you cropped your image to 1500x? then the action would first resize to 2700x?, then to 2450x?... So the first thing it would do is upsize the image in reality, then start downsizing.

It's a little bit of a pain, but you can go in an disable the first few steps, then run the action.

[HKMonkey]

Hmmm, well, that's not good news. I'll go in and mess around with it a little and see what I can do. Thanks for the info, though. I would have been very frustrated if I went in to use the action and it didn't do what I expected. I know my wife will be happy you saved me from getting in a bad mood. :wink:

[BigRed450]

Actually Scottes, in the PS resize window, change the document size units from inches to percent then resize the picture width by 110% (to upsize) or 90% (to reduce). This can be done multiple times in an Action (I repeat 10X in my action) and does not matter what size of image you start with because it looks only to increase/decrease by 10%.

PS Restrain Enabled thats why I only have to change the width, the length will automatically change as required....

[Scottes]

Actually Scottes, in the PS resize window, change the document size units from inches to percent then resize the picture width by 110% (to upsize) or 90% (to reduce). This can be done multiple times in an Action (I repeat 10X in my action) and does not matter what size of image you start with because it looks only to increase/decrease by 10%.

PS Restrain Enabled thats why I only have to change the width, the length will automatically change as required....

OK, that's good to know.

But how do you know when to stop? If you always work from full-size it's great, but if you work from a crop then you'll end up with an image that's too small. 3072 wide * 90% done 10 times is far different from 2000 wide * 90% done 10 times....

[BigRed450]

That Scottes is trial and error. I made an action for 10X, then if I need less I just turn a few off (check mark in the leftmost column in actions). I don't deal with the Pixel size at this point just the physical size at the native dpi.
Personally though, for downsizing for the web I wouldn't bother going through all the trouble. Only images destined for print are worthy of this much work and even then I just change the DPI to reduce the physical size to what I want with resample turned off.

[donhdefl]

I've had great luck with a product called imagener. Check http://www.imagener.com.

[Agaric]

The place I take my digital images to uses Genuine Fractals and I must say that he has prints on his wall that are at least 40 inches wide and you can count the hairs on the models arm. You can try out Genuine fractals for free, I think for up to 20Xs goto www.lizardtech.com and give it a try.

[drisley]

By far the easiest way to do this is use Qimage.
It will automatically interpolate to the proper size based on your print size.
You just worry about the print size, and Qimage does all the work.
Plus, it uses the most advanced interpolation methods available (you choose which you want to use), like Vector, Lanczos, Pyramid, Bicubic, and more.

[Hellashot]

I've also heard that genuine fractals is the best thing out there for making images bigger without losing any quality. I'd never use software not designed to make things bigger without losing quality to enlarge images.

[drisley]

Actually, it's very subjective.
Ive read quite a few reviews that show vector, pyramid and sometimes lanczos will produce better results than genuine fractals.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

In PSCS, bicubic sharper (downsizing) and bicubic smoother (upsizing) have superceded plain old bicubic and bicubic using stair interpolation.

I have an old version of GF. I was never really convinced by it. It works OK, but is dreadfully slow and not cheap.

I too have started to use Qimage and leave upsizing (and output sharpening) to print time.

Regards,

[drisley]

I too have started to use Qimage and leave upsizing (and output sharpening) to print time.

That is what I love about Qimage.
There are no calculations. It does all the work.
And the quality is just WOW! :shock:

[Bodog]

I've also bought Qimage and agree it does a good job. The interface is a little quirky IMO. The final prints do look (to me) sharper than Photoshop. I haven't done any extreme resizing though. The idea of choosing the interpolation algorithm appeals to me since different methods may produce a better result on different images. You might also check out "Photozoom" at shortcutpublishing.com. It also lets you choose the interpolation method. Both Qimage and Photozoom have a 30 day free trial. The purchase price is reasonable on either.
JimE

[donhdefl]

I have used a product with great success called Imagener. You can find it here: http://www.imagener.com. Photoshop is inferior for enlarging digital images. I truly believe that imagener is superior. See this: http://photoenlargement.imagener.com. Hope this helps! -dh

Can anyone suggest the best combination of software etc for upping the size of a file, looking at geniune fractals at moment :?:

[nosquare2003]

I've had great luck with a product called imagener. Check http://www.imagener.com.

ALL of your posts are related to this imagener only!

I'd say it's a SPAM.