wparsonsgisnet Posted April 9, 2007 Author Share #21 Posted April 9, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Guy, dng is waiting for you at yousendit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Hi wparsonsgisnet, Take a look here Upsizing Comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mtomalty Posted April 9, 2007 Share #22 Posted April 9, 2007 Based on the posted results,it appears to me that the CS2 version is the 'best' but I would also say that it is tough to make such a determination given that the posted file doesn't have any critically sharp hair,especially eyebrows or eyelashes. For me,this is where weaker upsizing solutions normally reveal stairstepping. What camera was used to capture the image? Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Campbell Posted April 9, 2007 Share #23 Posted April 9, 2007 I took an image with a lot of detail in it and tried 4 different uprez methods. Here's the basic image: 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! Tri-elmar @ 50mm and f8 - Iso 320. Raw file processed in C1 with JFI Ilford Delta 400 profile and soft look default sharpening. The file's native size at 300 dpi is 8.75x13 inches. I uprezed the file roughly 70% to 14.8x22 to fit A2 paper and made prints on Inova F paper on my Canon iPF 5000. I've included center crops below: This one was not uprezed - in otherwords I changed the dimensions in PS without resampling or making any other manipulation: This one was uprezed using bicubic smoother in PS: This one was uprezed using the GF PrintPro filter: Finally this one was uprezed using bicubic smoother in PS, and then adding output sharpening (using the PhotoKit action): As you will see there is very little to choose among these four methods - which is borne out examining the prints. The GS PrintPro version shows a bit more apparent detail that the previous two, especially in the white rivets - but this isn't evident in the prints. My personal favorite is the fourth (bicubic smoother + output sharpening) - it's the only one that I can identify in a blind viewing - the detail has a bit more snap without looking digital. It looks slightly oversharpened as a 100% crop on the screen but looks fine on paper. Interestingly, in the full sized original file the thin white vertical lines on the building on the right exhibit very obvious aliasing - this is one of the few cases of an image that I've seen (in 6000 or so) that has been impacted by the absence of an AA filter. (The aliasing on the full image above looks much worse than the original and is probably an artifact of downrezing and storing as a jpeg for the web.) You can see the aliasing in the two vertical lines on the right side of the crops. There is less obvious aliasing in the horizontal lines. I'll fuss around with the file to see if I can improve on this. Any advice on how to handle the aliasing would be most welcome Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Tri-elmar @ 50mm and f8 - Iso 320. Raw file processed in C1 with JFI Ilford Delta 400 profile and soft look default sharpening. The file's native size at 300 dpi is 8.75x13 inches. I uprezed the file roughly 70% to 14.8x22 to fit A2 paper and made prints on Inova F paper on my Canon iPF 5000. I've included center crops below: This one was not uprezed - in otherwords I changed the dimensions in PS without resampling or making any other manipulation: This one was uprezed using bicubic smoother in PS: This one was uprezed using the GF PrintPro filter: Finally this one was uprezed using bicubic smoother in PS, and then adding output sharpening (using the PhotoKit action): As you will see there is very little to choose among these four methods - which is borne out examining the prints. The GS PrintPro version shows a bit more apparent detail that the previous two, especially in the white rivets - but this isn't evident in the prints. My personal favorite is the fourth (bicubic smoother + output sharpening) - it's the only one that I can identify in a blind viewing - the detail has a bit more snap without looking digital. It looks slightly oversharpened as a 100% crop on the screen but looks fine on paper. Interestingly, in the full sized original file the thin white vertical lines on the building on the right exhibit very obvious aliasing - this is one of the few cases of an image that I've seen (in 6000 or so) that has been impacted by the absence of an AA filter. (The aliasing on the full image above looks much worse than the original and is probably an artifact of downrezing and storing as a jpeg for the web.) You can see the aliasing in the two vertical lines on the right side of the crops. There is less obvious aliasing in the horizontal lines. I'll fuss around with the file to see if I can improve on this. Any advice on how to handle the aliasing would be most welcome ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/20970-upsizing-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=223619'>More sharing options...
xrogers Posted April 9, 2007 Share #24 Posted April 9, 2007 Okay, here are %100 crops of the samples. The enlargement was from 3920x2638 to about 7200x4800. The first photo is bicubic (I don't recall if one step or stepwise, they looked the same), the second is blowup. 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! The stairstepping is quite visible in a print from about two feet away---not glaring, but visible. As the strange look of the artifact drew you in closer, the stairstepping quickly became uglobvious (ugly and obvious...). In the blowup version, it doesn't catch your eye at all in the print. Even close in, it looks good. The blowup print looks better overall---more detailed, and no visible artifacts. And I'm not trying to say it is (or isn't) more detailed---it just looks more detailed. I can't recommend evaluating these methods using %100 views (not even mine). I know many folks already are, but those who aren't need to make prints (even just partial prints), and evaluate them. Until later, Clyde Rogers Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The stairstepping is quite visible in a print from about two feet away---not glaring, but visible. As the strange look of the artifact drew you in closer, the stairstepping quickly became uglobvious (ugly and obvious...). In the blowup version, it doesn't catch your eye at all in the print. Even close in, it looks good. The blowup print looks better overall---more detailed, and no visible artifacts. And I'm not trying to say it is (or isn't) more detailed---it just looks more detailed. I can't recommend evaluating these methods using %100 views (not even mine). I know many folks already are, but those who aren't need to make prints (even just partial prints), and evaluate them. Until later, Clyde Rogers ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/20970-upsizing-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=223641'>More sharing options...
guywalder Posted April 9, 2007 Share #25 Posted April 9, 2007 Clyde, interesting that your comparison shows quite a bit of difference, not just in the stairstepping but also in the rendering of the out of focus areas of dark background. I dont see anything like the same differences in the other comparison examples posted here. Are there some setting options that you have changed to get these results? (I am not familiar with blowup's user interface) Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted April 9, 2007 Share #26 Posted April 9, 2007 fyi, a friend who uses GF to make very large prints says that it is the best method for cases where there is a very large amount of uprezzing, not for small to medium amounts... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 9, 2007 Share #27 Posted April 9, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Taking Bill's file here in C1 normal image which is 13 inches wide 100 percent when processed for the first one. The second one was processed at 250 percent the max for c1 now this yeilded a 32 in wide file so from 13 to32 inches is the difference between the two 1st F F image 2nd 100 percent 3rd 250 percent all in C1 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/20970-upsizing-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=223656'>More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 9, 2007 Share #28 Posted April 9, 2007 Let's try this again Number 1 FF shot C1 processed 100 percent 13 inches long C1 processed 250 percent 32 inches long Took the 100 percent to 32 inches in PS bicubic smoother 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/20970-upsizing-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=223660'>More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 9, 2007 Share #29 Posted April 9, 2007 Those are pretty damn good results. they all have very little sharpening in C1 to start and nothing added BTW 100 percent 16 bit is 59 megs 250 percent 16 bit is 329 megs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 9, 2007 Share #30 Posted April 9, 2007 Okay here is the weird part the 250 percent looks better than the 100 percent, now explain that one. The only thing i can think off is more sharpening is automatically being applied in C1. This is something i would have not guessed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted April 9, 2007 Share #31 Posted April 9, 2007 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. I think that comes with Pro. It's part of the module that lets you make up to three different size and quality output versions from a single orginal raw file with levels set. Here are screen shots of the "profile" tab when set up for 250% output, and 300% which it does not recommend (haven't tried it), and finally a 100% crop from a 250% output: I don't think it is doing as well as the three examples posted above, but this was shot with the CV15/4.5 and the boy's face is behind the plane of focus. scott edit (Guy works faster than I do)... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/20970-upsizing-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=223708'>More sharing options...
Woody Campbell Posted April 9, 2007 Share #32 Posted April 9, 2007 Let's try this again Number 1 FF shot C1 processed 100 percent 13 inches long C1 processed 250 percent 32 inches long Took the 100 percent to 32 inches in PS bicubic smoother Guy - showing the crops at the same size (as opposed to 100%) doesn't give a sense of how the perception of detail changes, putting your nose against the print, as the print gets larger. There may be more scope for uprezing more in color - in grayscale I think that my A2s are pushed a bit too far - there just aren't enough pixels in the original to go to this size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted April 9, 2007 Share #33 Posted April 9, 2007 Let's try this again Number 1 FF shot C1 processed 100 percent 13 inches long C1 processed 250 percent 32 inches long Took the 100 percent to 32 inches in PS bicubic smoother Guy could you send me a crop of the C1 processed 100 percent tiff to process through PhotoZoom Pro 2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted April 9, 2007 Share #34 Posted April 9, 2007 Clyde,interesting that your comparison shows quite a bit of difference, not just in the stairstepping but also in the rendering of the out of focus areas of dark background. I dont see anything like the same differences in the other comparison examples posted here. Are there some setting options that you have changed to get these results? (I am not familiar with blowup's user interface) Guy Guy and group, Blowup is an automation plugin for Photoshop. The interface gives a small navigation view of the entire image, and a %100 view of some subsection of the image for evaluation. It has fields for entering output pixels or document size and resolution. It has two sliders---one to control sharpening, and the other to control grain. When using blowup, you must add sharpening and grain for the best results. The sharpening makes the enlarged edges more distinct, and the grain provides the illusion of detail. The balance of sharpening and grain makes a real difference, but in fact, I couldn't force blowup to create those stairstepped edges. While I believe that in (some/many) cases bicubic may produce (equivelent/better) results, I think that in (some/many) cases it looks better at %100 because of benign artifacts, like enlarged noise creating the perception of detail. A little smooth noise (like film grain, or blowup's grain) really does make things look more detailed. Perhaps this is why those dark OOF areas looked better with blowup---I think bicubic's enlarged shadow noise is becoming unpleasant. Also, much of the quality of your printed results depends on how and when you sharpen. An image enlarged with blowup seems to accept more print-time sharpening than bicubic, letting you convincingly fake greater sharpness in prints. I'm sorry this got so vague, but I don't really understand it, I'm just looking at my results. I don't often need to significantly uprez a photo (I've done several since getting the M8). I tested bicubic and blowup on two, and preferred blowup prints for both (in the photo above, bicubic was unable to produce an acceptable result at all). For the third, I didn't bother with any more testing and just used blowup. Until later, Clyde Rogers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmSummicron Posted April 9, 2007 Share #35 Posted April 9, 2007 Okay here is the weird part the 250 percent looks better than the 100 percent, now explain that one. The only thing i can think off is more sharpening is automatically being applied in C1. This is something i would have not guessed guy, C1 Pro does sharpening even if you try to disable it. this has been that way for sometime now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 9, 2007 Share #36 Posted April 9, 2007 True and i do keep it on a very low setting as a matter of course also. It just seemed to apply more to the big file for some reason. Anyway here is the link to the normal 16 bit tiff at 59 mgs if someone wants to try it with GF or Blowup http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=batch_download&batch_id=QlVqK0dzQ1A1aVkwTVE9PQ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted April 9, 2007 Author Share #37 Posted April 9, 2007 So, this feature is in PRO and not in LE. Guy, I like the 250 better than the 100, as well. I will think about the PRO version. It looks very good in the upsizing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 9, 2007 Share #38 Posted April 9, 2007 Not that you should not buy the Pro version but Version 4 is coming out in a couple months and ther maybe some incentive program for M8 users and LE users to upgrade to the Pro version. From what I hear LE is first to market than Pro will come out later. From the very short preview i saw at PMA it looks very promising and a lot more controls have been added. It is a free upgrade from Le to LE but there maybe a nice purchase price to upgrade to PRO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted April 9, 2007 Author Share #39 Posted April 9, 2007 Guy, I think it was you that mentioned this previously. I will certainly wait for the upgrade, and will then calculate the best strategy. There are only so many free upgrades with either the LE or the PRO package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted April 9, 2007 Share #40 Posted April 9, 2007 Here is a comparison between PhotoZoom Pro2 and CS2 Bicubic. On the face shot (from Guy) doesn't make a really dramatic difference. Although in print I think the difference would be a bit more apparent. On the dollar bill the difference is quite stunning. Sharpening the CS2 file doesn't produce results as clean as the PhotoZoom Pro 2 result. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/20970-upsizing-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=223965'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.