> 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),
Well, I did a commercial job using as an experiemnt a point and shoot 4.3Mp
Nikon Coolpix camera captured at maximium resolution of 240ppi into a TIFF
format just to see what the camera could do. I had it enlarged to 16 x 20
and printed via a Chromira LED printer on traditional Fuji color
photographic paper via the wet photographic process. The sharpness and
color blew me away; I was very impressed having expected much less. In
fact it was better than some of the stuff I shot of the same subject with
the traditional film camera. In fact, the client bought the 16x20 test print
over those images shot on film for use as a display at trade showes
promoting his products and services. Since then, I went out and bought a
Kodak DCS 14/n which is a full frame 35mm 14MP digital camera, which I have
used on a number of commercial jobs.
Thus, I fail to see why you cannot get a 12x18 or larger high 1quality print
out of the camera you are using as long as you can capture it to a TIFF file
format with somewhere around a 200-300 ppi resilution.
> I expect that I will want to get the professional version as it seems to
have more
> capability.
The only difference is if you are sending the images to a press for
publication as a CYMK color space image or sending them spearations. The
only significant difference between the standard version and the Pro version
is that the standard version only works with RGB files which is what most
digital files are and what most inkjet,laser, and hybrid photographic
printers use, while the Pro version works with RGB and CYMK files.
filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ---
> 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
