Upsizing Comparison

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been interested in Upsizing images in order to make bigger prints. I did this originally in PSCS2, doing the 110 percent multiple upsizing as recommended in one of my CS books.

 

A poster here indicated that in CS2 I could choose the target percentage directly without going thru multiple 10-percenters, and that worked just fine.

 

I wanted to see how the CS2 upsizing compared with both Genuine Fractals and Alien Skin Blow Up. Here is that comparison.

 

I have blown up the same image using each of the 3 methods, then run them all thru Neat Image, and then selected a 3x6 area that is supposed to be in the same portion of the image.

 

First the cropped portion from the original file, with Neat Image applied, then, in order, the 300% upsizing results from

1. CS2

2, GF

3. BU

 

Let me get them uploaded so I can see how they look here.

 

There was an offer to use another product and I'll incorporate that shortly.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[wparsonsgisnet]

Here they are again without the noise reduction applied:

1. Orig in PS

2. PS Up 300

3. GF Up 300

4. BU Up 300

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wparsonsgisnet]

The sharpest seems to be the Genuine Fractals version.

The Blow Up is slightly warmer with the GF the warmest.

 

They look this way on my screen.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

GF maybe is the sharper but it looks kind of strange to me . Looks choppy (maybe bad choice of words). Actually impressed by PS. Bill did you use uprez sharper or uprez smoother

[philipotto]

Bill,

Thanks for putting this together.

 

My first impression was that GF looked the best, but after I read Guy's comment I looked again, and saw what he was saying. Compare the right edge of the nose, the GF is starting to look like a watercolour brush, a touch blotchy,

 

Like Guy I am impressed with CS2, particuarly given that GF and BU are PS plug-ins dedicated to enlargement.

 

 

Cheers,

Philip

[grdglass]

CS2 looks the best to me and quite a bit better than the other two. GF is the worst because the left eye and brow look watercolor painted. The left eye and lashes have artifacts in GF. BU is okay but not great.

 

Did you use Bicubic Smoother in CS2? That would be your best choice in CS2 upsizing.

 

Helene

[DaveEP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agreed that the CS is probably the better. GF looks too posterised in several places.

 

Unfortunately, I have made it a hobby lately to view almost all 'blown up' shots I see in shops more closely (as I follow my wife around shopping - I have to find 'something' interesting to do ), and I am appalled at how badly some of the so called professional agency shots have been done. Shame on them.

[wparsonsgisnet]

GF maybe is the sharper but it looks kind of strange to me . Looks choppy (maybe bad choice of words). Actually impressed by PS. Bill did you use uprez sharper or uprez smoother

 

I used bicubic smoother in PSCS2. I'm going to look in PS again, because the GF was appealing on my screen. It may be the warner character to it. The PS version is, of course, the correct color.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Well I am not surprised by PS so much they have been boasting about there uprezing in recent years that it is actually quite good, i just thought GF and Blowup would really be a difference . Bill what would be interesting to see is try the same image in C1 again and uprez in the raw program alone compared to PS and the rest. Sometimes i will do ths just as a matter of course is to bump it up to say 150 percent. Maybe worth seeing what that does compared to the rest.

[wparsonsgisnet]

I have looked at them again on my screen and also prefer the PS Upsize version. It is the correct color and seems to have the least artifacts.

 

I still think the GF has a sharp look to it, and don't really like the BU at all. The BU looks unsharp and lacks excitement to me.

 

This speaks very well of PS. I used a 300% Upsize with bicubic smoother. It's fast, too. All the upsized files are about the same size.

 

I did some 16x20 prints (of cropped sections) of another shoot, upsized to 500% and they were indistinguishable for the original on my screen.

 

Kudos to Adobe. Also, thanks for not having to go 10% at a time. The mental strain of counting to 16 is brutal.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Well I am not surprised by PS so much they have been boasting about there uprezing in recent years that it is actually quite good, i just thought GF and Blowup would really be a difference . Bill what would be interesting to see is try the same image in C1 again and uprez in the raw program alone compared to PS and the rest. Sometimes i will do ths just as a matter of course is to bump it up to say 150 percent. Maybe worth seeing what that does compared to the rest.

 

Guy, do I need Pro to do this? I don't see uprez in LE.

 

Tnx,

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Not sure but it would say 100 percent , see if you can change it

[wparsonsgisnet]

Guy, I've looked at all the options on the LE page and can't seem to SAVE a file with 300% of the original rez.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Bill may have to go by size

[wparsonsgisnet]

Bill you want to use YouSendIt - File Sharing Transfer Delivery - PC FTP Replacement just send the raw to yourself and give me a link and i will try it.

 

How 'bout giving me an email to point the yousendit to?

[Guest sirvine]

Bill,

 

Did you apply any noise reduction to the image prior to uprez'ing? If so, that might be the source of the watercolor/facet effect on her left eye.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Bill how big is the image total by height let's say.

 

guymancuso at cox.net

[wparsonsgisnet]

Sol, I did the upsizing first. Then the first set has Neat Image applied, but the second set is the upsized file, straight.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Bill how big is the image total by height let's say.

 

guymancuso at cox.net

 

Guy, sending you the dng. It needs 10 minutes, yet.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[xrogers]

I evaluated Blowup and Photoshop upsize in November with some M8 photos. I found that PS bicubic upsize was excellent, but that sometimes in detailed images with sharp lines, the upsized photos showed stairstep edges that were visible in prints. Doing stepwise bicubic didn't seem to make a difference (doing the upsize in steps of about %30 enlargement). These artifacts were unacceptable and clearly visible in prints.

 

Blowup did the upsize without the artifacts---the resulting prints are clearly better. I'll see if I can find sample files to post later, but I may have tossed them.

 

Blowup also has integrated grain and sharpening. It is important (and expected) to add some sharpening during upsize to better define the edges, and some grain to provide texture to the inevitable flat areas. I like most upsized photos far better with some grain (it provides the illusion of detail).

 

I'm not arguing with your results (and I haven't greatly upsized any portraits, that may be the difference). I also agree that bicubic upsize is very good. Sometimes, however, other tools have worked better for me.

 

Until later,

 

--clyde