On 20/11/04 13:12, "Laurie Solomon" <Laurie@advancenet.net> wrote:
> I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the
> normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic
> methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may
> begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine.
>
> What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why are you
> saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which uses lossy
> compression and which most digital cameras will not let you save captures at
> resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to capturing at
> resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the
> captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi
> resolutions. Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for
> printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so
> that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming that they will
> only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4
> x 6 sizes at best).
Laurie,
Good question. Initially, I didn't *ever* use the digital camera (a sony
707) for anything that I would want to enlarge too much. But of course, it
happened that I took a shot here and there that I did want to use larger.
Initially, the memory available for the Sony was just 128 Mbytes (now it is
much better) and the number of TIFFs allowed per memory stick was quite
small as a result.
In any case, the upshot is that I now have a number of images that I like -
some shot as experiments (digital encourages that a lot) some shot as
records, some for other circumstances, and while I can squeeze some of them
a great deal, I would like to find a way that is consistent. I found that
for a time I did shoot more with the Sony - in situations where I probably
should have been using my Contax, but had been seduced by the instant
reinforcement of the Sony - even at just 5 Mpix, lossy captured at 1.5 Mpix.
As it happens, I can get a pretty good 8X10 from such a file, but then I go
to 12X18 (if I can live with no cropping), and - Oh Well.
I have experimented with the TIFF, and it does better (duh), but it still is
no match for even my six year old Polaroid SprintScan 4000 working on
negatives and transparencies from my Contax system. I don't care that the
Sony has a Zeiss lens too (it is the only zoom I own - the one on the Sony).
Of course I want a DSLR with preferably 24 Mpix, but I can't begin to
afford that right now.IseeoneoftheCanon's8Mpixasmynextcamera
and while that will be better, it is still the same problem, just somewhat
less. So, maybe it is time to take advantage of Genuine Fractals. Thus the
question.
( I also have a tendency to want to see how far I can push any given
technology - I do have one 12 X 18 portrait done originally with a 3.3 Mpix
Olympus and saved as a JPEG that is startlingly good.)
Oh, the TIFF on the Sony DSC 707 is amazingly slow at saving also - that
isn't really a reason for anything, but a comment.
Thanks for the positive comment about Genuine Fractals. I expect that I
will want to get the professional version as it seems to have more
capability.
Brad
>
> filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
>> Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My
>> scanner provides very high resolution compared to my (current)
>> digital camera, but
>> there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera
>> that I
>> would like to enlarge. I've had some success with Photoshop's
>> BiCubic - it depends on the image - but I've wondered about Genuine
>> Fractals.
>>
>> I know the theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me, but my
>> experience is
>> that there is often some distance between theory and implementation.
>>
>> So, has anyone used Genuine Fractals as a primary means of up
>> sampling to
>> allow much larger prints than logically should be done from an
>> original like
>> a 1.5 MegPixel jpeg (down from a 5 Megpixel digital photograph)?
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
>> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
>> filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
>> in the message title or body
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
>> Version: 6.0.798 / Virus Database: 542 - Release Date: 11/18/2004
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
> Version: 6.0.798 / Virus Database: 542 - Release Date: 11/18/2004
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
> body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
