Curious about interpolation

[ScotDoc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone who has a Q actually tried interpolating the file at the 35mm and 50mm crops? Just wondering if this could provide a usable '3 lens' camera?

[SonomaBear]

Anyone who has a Q actually tried interpolating the file at the 35mm and 50mm crops? Just wondering if this could provide a usable '3 lens' camera?

 

Not sure what you mean since nothing is inserted (which in brief is the function of interpolating)...

But I use the Q as a three lens camera often with two super benefits:

Like a rangefinder, I can see outside the "frame lines" which is very handy for the "decisive moment" compositions

If you shoot DNG, you still have the full frame -- and can "re-crop" in Lightroom etc.  I shoot most portraits with 50mm frame lines.

In real life, the Q is magnificent at all three perspectives.  Even at 50mm, there is plenty of great content for 8x10, maybe higher.

In Photoshop, you could up-size the image with Image Size's three bicubic algorithms.

I never use it. I've always found 24 meg sufficient even when the 50mm perspective yields only 10 meg.

[Advertisement]

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

[HighlandK]

I am no expert on Photoship though I do all PP with it. I have always fought shy of making images larger through interpolation on the simple basis that Photoshop is creating those extra pixels. As good as the algorithm might be it cannot produce as sharp an image as the excellent lens on the Q. I have so far never had a problem printing a heavy crop to at least A4. It would be interesting to know if anyone has had the experience of printing a 50mm crop to A3 and what the results were.

[ScotDoc]

Thanks guys. Very sensible advice. I have a Q, and wanted to know what other folks are doing. I tried comparing a 50mm crop tonight, both interpolated to 1.5 times the original length and also to a non-interpolated crop at 50mm (same image). I did not print it but compared them both on my 5k iMac screen. The interpolated version was very slightly better overall, but the differences were extremely marginal between the two images.

 

I have also found only very slight quality differences between 28mm and 50mm. 35mm is really great.

 

In conclusion, like you, I don't think I'll need to play with the cropped images at 50mm in the majority of cases. A testament to the quality of Leica glass, paired with a great sensor. It's a 3 lens camera for me now - amazing for 600 grams. As they say, the best camera is the one that you have with you. No excuse at that weight and with one lens....

[jaapv]

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/resizing-image.html

[beez]

Along with being a pro photographer, I'm also a creative director, specializing in high-end coffee table photography books. I've been using Photoshop since 1.0 and have tried lots of different software over the years for up-sizing digital pictures.

 

When I have to up-size files more than about 110%, which do in PS, I use an application (it's a plug-in for PS actually) called BlowUp from Alien Skin. I have no affiliation, just a satisfied customer.

 

The current version is BlowUp 3. This app is so much better than anything I've used, and is much better than PS for this purpose. I've used it to blow files up to as much as 200%, and with a picture that's excellent quality and in focus to begin with, the results are astounding.

 

I'm designing a book right now of a photographer's Sonoma County, CA vineyard landscapes shot over the last 20 years, and it's a large format - the pages are 11" tall x 14" wide. That means a full-bleed picture across two pages is 28.25" wide... that's 8,475 pixels at 300/ppi. Most of the files I'm working with are 6,000 pixels wide, and that's about a 150% enlargement. I've sent several pages to China for on-press tests, and they're as good as the originals at 100%.

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been interested in this same question, so today I ran a small test. I took several photos with my Q using the 50mm crop lines. After editing in Photo Ninja and On1, I printed the images using ImagePrint, which is my standard printing program. I made prints at 10x15 inches and 13x19.5 inches using IP's own resizing algorithms. The resulting prints are excellent--full of detail and very sharp. I think that the lesson here is that current resizing (interpolating) software is extremely good, and we don't have to be overly concerned about cropping image files from the Q. Now, had I shot the same pics using a 50mm lens on an M10, the prints almost certainly would have looked even better, but that is not the issue at hand. We want to know about the quality of cropped output from the Q, and it is quite good.

 

Rob

Edited June 7, 2017 by robgo2

[dadohead]

A printer RIP isn't going to do a very good job of upsampling, or interpolating, but if you're happy with the results good on ya. Photoshop has several different methods, of which Bicubic is the best general method. You can get away with 300% increase until you need to add some noise to disguise the artifacts. Of course, JPGs always make the artifacting much, much worse. Blow Up is an interesting product, but if you go too far with it, you introduce some disagreeable artifacts, due to the fact that Blow Up uses a vector method. Try using Blow Up to increase something by 400% and you'll see what I mean. Somebody did a shoot out years ago when there were a number of products in this niche and PS and Blow Up basically tied.

 

More important to the discussion is how low can you push the PPI down for a print. Common wisdom says 300 ppi at 100%. I feel confident going much, much lower than that, as low as 190-200 ppi. With some content, you could go as low as 160 ppi and that's your 50mm upsample right there, with no software intervention. Try it; I think you'll be surprised. Don't go by what you see on the screen; go by what you see on the print. Even at 2400 dpi you can get away with murder.

Edited June 7, 2017 by dadohead

[Leica Guy]

Along with being a pro photographer, I'm also a creative director, specializing in high-end coffee table photography books. I've been using Photoshop since 1.0 and have tried lots of different software over the years for up-sizing digital pictures.

 

When I have to up-size files more than about 110%, which do in PS, I use an application (it's a plug-in for PS actually) called BlowUp from Alien Skin. I have no affiliation, just a satisfied customer.

 

The current version is BlowUp 3. This app is so much better than anything I've used, and is much better than PS for this purpose. I've used it to blow files up to as much as 200%, and with a picture that's excellent quality and in focus to begin with, the results are astounding.

 

I'm designing a book right now of a photographer's Sonoma County, CA vineyard landscapes shot over the last 20 years, and it's a large format - the pages are 11" tall x 14" wide. That means a full-bleed picture across two pages is 28.25" wide... that's 8,475 pixels at 300/ppi. Most of the files I'm working with are 6,000 pixels wide, and that's about a 150% enlargement. I've sent several pages to China for on-press tests, and they're as good as the originals at 100%.

Thanks. That's a great recommendation.

[robgo2]

A printer RIP isn't going to do a very good job of upsampling, or interpolating, but if you're happy with the results good on ya. Photoshop has several different methods, of which Bicubic is the best general method. You can get away with 300% increase until you need to add some noise to disguise the artifacts. Of course, JPGs always make the artifacting much, much worse. Blow Up is an interesting product, but if you go too far with it, you introduce some disagreeable artifacts, due to the fact that Blow Up uses a vector method. Try using Blow Up to increase something by 400% and you'll see what I mean. Somebody did a shoot out years ago when there were a number of products in this niche and PS and Blow Up basically tied.

 

More important to the discussion is how low can you push the PPI down for a print. Common wisdom says 300 ppi at 100%. I feel confident going much, much lower than that, as low as 190-200 ppi. With some content, you could go as low as 160 ppi and that's your 50mm upsample right there, with no software intervention. Try it; I think you'll be surprised. Don't go by what you see on the screen; go by what you see on the print. Even at 2400 dpi you can get away with murder.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but when I spoke with the tech support people at ImagePrint, they were quite definitive in stating that their upsizing algorithm is superior to Photoshop and other resizing programs. From my own experience with IP, I can only say that it does at least as well as Genuine Fractals/Perfect Resize/ON1. Also, its output sharpening is superb.

 

Rob

[wda]

Members with long memories may recall a similar thread related to the then new Leica M8. On forum recommendation, based on superb professional wall art photography by an American photographer whose name escapes me, I tried Alien Skin Blow-up. It worked very well on M8 10mp files. I still use it occasionally when revisiting my older low-res files. I updated the plug in to version 2 which still meets my current needs. So it continues to have my recommendation.

[HighlandK]

Perhaps the answer is a combination: Blow Up or one of the others mentioned and experiment with lower dpi. While I have had 300dpi as a working yardstick in my mind I have often been perfectly happy with something like 240dpi or 200dpi when needed to get the print size. I will give Blow Up a go but keep in mind not to push it too far.

 

Thanks for all the suggestions and comments. I continue to find this forum enlightening, valuable and, above all, civilised! It also confirms what a wise choice my recent purchase of a Q was (Sorry Fuji  ) 

[jaapv]

Upsizing in Photoshop should not be done in one big leap. Doing so in 10% incremental steps gives a better result. We should keep in mind, however, that even if we maintain sharpness etc., it can never add detail that is not there through lack of resolution.

[beez]

Members with long memories may recall a similar thread related to the then new Leica M8. On forum recommendation, based on superb professional wall art photography by an American photographer whose name escapes me, I tried Alien Skin Blow-up. It worked very well on M8 10mp files. I still use it occasionally when revisiting my older low-res files. I updated the plug in to version 2 which still meets my current needs. So it continues to have my recommendation.

 

I began using BlowUp for use in large format photography books back when 10MP was the norm, and it worked very well. When I got my M8, I used it as you did, to make the 10MP files into larger file sizes when necessary - the results were great, and one of the reasons was the M8's CCD sensor. I have some great 16x20 prints from the M8, and you'd never guess they started as such small files.

 

I would not use BlowUp for enlarging file sizes more than 200%. It depends on the picture - but most really start to fall apart at 220%.  Atv150% and above, I always throw in a small touch of unsharp masking.

 

FYI, there's a good bit of difference between v2 and v3.

 

Perhaps the answer is a combination: Blow Up or one of the others mentioned and experiment with lower dpi. While I have had 300dpi as a working yardstick in my mind I have often been perfectly happy with something like 240dpi or 200dpi when needed to get the print size. I will give Blow Up a go but keep in mind not to push it too far.

 

Thanks for all the suggestions and comments. I continue to find this forum enlightening, valuable and, above all, civilised! It also confirms what a wise choice my recent purchase of a Q was (Sorry Fuji  ) 

 

If your intended destination is inkjet printing, then 240ppi is a good number up to about 13x19. While inkjet output can be very forgiving, if you're going bigger than that, you want to be at 300ppi, imho. For CMYK printing on a printing press, 300ppi is a must especially if using screens of 200 lpi or above.

 

Sorry to be a stickler for nomenclature, but digital picture file resolution is expressed in pixels per inch (ppi), not dpi... dpi is an output spec for scanners and printers. lpi is an output spec for line screen/dot screen printing on paper.

 

Upsizing in Photoshop should not be done in one big leap. Doing so in 10% incremental steps gives a better result. We should keep in mind, however, that even if we maintain sharpness etc., it can never add detail that is not there through lack of resolution.

 

This is not true anymore, beginning with the CS6 release, and continuing on onto the CC versions. You will get better results doing it all at once now.

Edited June 8, 2017 by beez

[wda]

I began using BlowUp for use in large format photography books back when 10MP was the norm, and it worked very well. When I got my M8, I used it as you did, to make the 10MP files into larger file sizes when necessary - the results were great, and one of the reasons was the M8's CCD sensor. I have some great 16x20 prints from the M8, and you'd never guess they started as such small files.

 

I would not use BlowUp for enlarging file sizes more than 200%. It depends on the picture - but most really start to fall apart at 220%.  Atv150% and above, I always throw in a small touch of unsharp masking.

 

FYI, there's a good bit of difference between v2 and v3.

The only reason I have not upgraded to V3 is that I use the plug-in so seldom nowadays.

[jaapv]

I began using BlowUp for use in large format photography books back when 10MP was the norm, and it worked very well. When I got my M8, I used it as you did, to make the 10MP files into larger file sizes when necessary - the results were great, and one of the reasons was the M8's CCD sensor. I have some great 16x20 prints from the M8, and you'd never guess they started as such small files.

 

I would not use BlowUp for enlarging file sizes more than 200%. It depends on the picture - but most really start to fall apart at 220%.  Atv150% and above, I always throw in a small touch of unsharp masking.

 

FYI, there's a good bit of difference between v2 and v3.

 

 

If your intended destination is inkjet printing, then 240ppi is a good number up to about 13x19. While inkjet output can be very forgiving, if you're going bigger than that, you want to be at 300ppi, imho. For CMYK printing on a printing press, 300ppi is a must especially if using screens of 200 lpi or above.

 

Sorry to be a stickler for nomenclature, but digital picture file resolution is expressed in pixels per inch (ppi), not dpi... dpi is an output spec for scanners and printers. lpi is an output spec for line screen/dot screen printing on paper.

 

 

This is not true anymore, beginning with the CS6 release, and continuing on onto the CC versions. You will get better results doing it all at once now.

Hey! Shows me up as an old fogy, I suppose  Thanks!

[CamUser]

I recall software called VFZOOM by Celartem(Japan) some 10 or so years ago. This company was taken over by Lizardtech which is now ON1.

VFZOOM was marketed as able to blow up to 1200%. It used Vector format technology and not bicubical,