Paul,
> If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each dimension, it starts to look
artificial
I think if you overuse any tool, it starts to look artificial; but that
being said, I think that your 4x guideline needs to be qualified by the
proviso that it depends on the type and content of the image. As you note,
it works best with images that have sharp edges; thus, they along with some
other images with other properties might be enlarged to a greater extent
than 4x. I personally, have found that I was able to enlarge images up to
20x without them looking artificial. Moreover, even if some would find some
artifical looking aspects to them, I would venture to say that the
artificiality is no greater than that produced by Photoshop's bicubic used
for the same degree of enlargement. However, it has also been my experience
that the greater the degree of enlargment the better Gf has done as compared
to Bicubic ( at least the bicubic method used in pre-CS versions of
Photoshop. I have even seen comparisions of sections of 35mm images blown
up to billboard size by GF and Photoshop where GF has come out ahead in
terms of lower numbers of artifacts and averaging errors.
-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:44 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
> From: Brad Davis
>
> 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)?
I think it works pretty well, if the image has some sharp edges in it,
because it is somewhat able to recognize edges, and artificially preserve
them when blowing the image up. If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each
dimension, it starts to look artificial.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
