[filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done since.  I am
not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic
formulation as much as they made its implementation more sophisticated by
furnishing two subtle variations on the basic formulation.  As in the past,
it is debatable if there is or is not a need to employ 3rd party solutions
like GF.  In the end, it all boils down to standards and tastes ultimately
if Bicubic methods cut it ot not and if the 3rd party solutions are
improvements over the Bicubic methods.  I only mentioned the cited example
as evidence that the GF limits do not stop at upsamplings of lower than 4 or
5 X.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Verkaik" <verkaik@sympatico.ca>
To: <laurie@advancenet.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:15 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????


From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <laurie@advancenet.net>
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.
>>

Just to clarify, though... this refers to pre-CS versions of PS right?  I
understood that PSCS had significant improvements doing down- and upsizing
and
effectively removed the need for a 3rd party solution like GF.

Ed Verkaik


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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