If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Image enlargement software
On 2014-10-23 12:59:04 +0000, Mayayana said:
| I bet you could do better than that, and spend less money on ink too. | You seem to be the only person interested in finding printers that prep images better than one can do in an editor, so why don't you run these tests yourself rather than repeatedly asking other people to do it? I don't currently own a printer. However, you'll notice that I never asked anybody to do anything - not once! - I just pointed out that supposition and guessing and extrapolation and ultimately ignorance is what you have if you don't actually try and experiment for yourself. If we are to believe in the scientific method as a way to discover the truth of things, is this not true? |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Image enlargement software
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:58:43 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex
wrote: On 2014-10-23 08:30:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:59:42 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-22 03:58:55 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:13:26 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-17 03:01:34 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:13:34 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-16 00:12:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:23:11 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-15 20:54:54 +0000, Eric Stevens said: So you are saying that currently the best way to enlarge an image with interpolation is getting someone else to do it. Now, say that 'someone else' approached you and asked you what is currently the best way to enlarge an image with interpolation, what would your answer be? Listen, before the ink shoots out of the nozzles the printer is going to be doing its own transforms in both the geometric and color domains anyway, and it's just possible that the fellas who designed its mechanism and firmware knew what they were doing, no? I mean it's also possible (but not likely) that things might not turn out that great, but you can't just take it as a given that in-printer interpolation is worse than doing it yourself, because doing enlargement yourself in software is no guarantee that this combined with the printer's own transforms that it ALWAYS applies as a natural part of the printing process won't make things worse in the end. Each printer has its own character and you have to figure out the best workflow afresh if you change printers. Hopefully, if you have set things up correctly yourself, the printer has to do the minimum of adjustment and if your color management is correct you should end up with what you saw on the screen. Well it's not like the printer has to do a minimum or maximum of adjustment, or even that you know what's going on. My only points are that 1) doing enlargement yourself is not always going to be better and 2) the only way to discover this for any given printer is experimentation. There is some very good software out there for rescanning images and I expect you would have to have a very (very) good printer to do better than the better available software. You "would expect" but who knows? Why not try it and find out? After all, if you are looking to know for sure this is the only way. I have a *stack* of A2 prints with which I have been experimenting to answer this question. I gave up leaving it to the printer years ago. In any case, the question has been answered by others. I don't know of any book dealing with the production of high quality prints which recommends just leaving it to the printer. What sort of methodology have you been using in your experiments? It'd be interesting to hear about your test setup and what your metrics are that would lead you to conclude that one print is better than another. A long series of comparitive prints with their realtive merits assessed by eye. I bet you could do better than that, and spend less money on ink too. You might be astonished at the number of variables to be dealt with between the image on the screen and the print. And in the end, the eye is the final arbiter. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Image enlargement software
On 2014-10-23 20:15:56 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:58:43 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-23 08:30:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:59:42 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-22 03:58:55 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:13:26 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-17 03:01:34 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:13:34 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-16 00:12:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:23:11 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-15 20:54:54 +0000, Eric Stevens said: So you are saying that currently the best way to enlarge an image with interpolation is getting someone else to do it. Now, say that 'someone else' approached you and asked you what is currently the best way to enlarge an image with interpolation, what would your answer be? Listen, before the ink shoots out of the nozzles the printer is going to be doing its own transforms in both the geometric and color domains anyway, and it's just possible that the fellas who designed its mechanism and firmware knew what they were doing, no? I mean it's also possible (but not likely) that things might not turn out that great, but you can't just take it as a given that in-printer interpolation is worse than doing it yourself, because doing enlargement yourself in software is no guarantee that this combined with the printer's own transforms that it ALWAYS applies as a natural part of the printing process won't make things worse in the end. Each printer has its own character and you have to figure out the best workflow afresh if you change printers. Hopefully, if you have set things up correctly yourself, the printer has to do the minimum of adjustment and if your color management is correct you should end up with what you saw on the screen. Well it's not like the printer has to do a minimum or maximum of adjustment, or even that you know what's going on. My only points are that 1) doing enlargement yourself is not always going to be better and 2) the only way to discover this for any given printer is experimentation. There is some very good software out there for rescanning images and I expect you would have to have a very (very) good printer to do better than the better available software. You "would expect" but who knows? Why not try it and find out? After all, if you are looking to know for sure this is the only way. I have a *stack* of A2 prints with which I have been experimenting to answer this question. I gave up leaving it to the printer years ago. In any case, the question has been answered by others. I don't know of any book dealing with the production of high quality prints which recommends just leaving it to the printer. What sort of methodology have you been using in your experiments? It'd be interesting to hear about your test setup and what your metrics are that would lead you to conclude that one print is better than another. A long series of comparitive prints with their realtive merits assessed by eye. I bet you could do better than that, and spend less money on ink too. You might be astonished at the number of variables to be dealt with between the image on the screen and the print. And in the end, the eye is the final arbiter. I might indeed be astonished, but you are intent on keeping me guessing aren't you? |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Image enlargement software
On 2014-10-23 21:54:34 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex
said: On 2014-10-23 20:15:56 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:58:43 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-23 08:30:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:59:42 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-22 03:58:55 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:13:26 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-17 03:01:34 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:13:34 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-16 00:12:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:23:11 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-15 20:54:54 +0000, Eric Stevens said: So you are saying that currently the best way to enlarge an image with interpolation is getting someone else to do it. Now, say that 'someone else' approached you and asked you what is currently the best way to enlarge an image with interpolation, what would your answer be? Listen, before the ink shoots out of the nozzles the printer is going to be doing its own transforms in both the geometric and color domains anyway, and it's just possible that the fellas who designed its mechanism and firmware knew what they were doing, no? I mean it's also possible (but not likely) that things might not turn out that great, but you can't just take it as a given that in-printer interpolation is worse than doing it yourself, because doing enlargement yourself in software is no guarantee that this combined with the printer's own transforms that it ALWAYS applies as a natural part of the printing process won't make things worse in the end. Each printer has its own character and you have to figure out the best workflow afresh if you change printers. Hopefully, if you have set things up correctly yourself, the printer has to do the minimum of adjustment and if your color management is correct you should end up with what you saw on the screen. Well it's not like the printer has to do a minimum or maximum of adjustment, or even that you know what's going on. My only points are that 1) doing enlargement yourself is not always going to be better and 2) the only way to discover this for any given printer is experimentation. There is some very good software out there for rescanning images and I expect you would have to have a very (very) good printer to do better than the better available software. You "would expect" but who knows? Why not try it and find out? After all, if you are looking to know for sure this is the only way. I have a *stack* of A2 prints with which I have been experimenting to answer this question. I gave up leaving it to the printer years ago. In any case, the question has been answered by others. I don't know of any book dealing with the production of high quality prints which recommends just leaving it to the printer. What sort of methodology have you been using in your experiments? It'd be interesting to hear about your test setup and what your metrics are that would lead you to conclude that one print is better than another. A long series of comparitive prints with their realtive merits assessed by eye. I bet you could do better than that, and spend less money on ink too. You might be astonished at the number of variables to be dealt with between the image on the screen and the print. And in the end, the eye is the final arbiter. I might indeed be astonished, but you are intent on keeping me guessing aren't you? For now your position is somewhat silly as you say all that you have said, including challenging some posters in this group to prove their assertions. Yet you have told us that you don’t even have a printer. Ultimately this comparison could only be done by comparing print against print. What are we supposed to do, mail prints of various sizes to you? Quite simply, if I need to enlarge an unusual amount, or if I need to take a small cropped edit to a produce a large print I use OnOne Software’s *Perfect Resize* (formerly Genuine Fractals). I have already posted this sequence in this thread, but here it is again: The 4759 x 3389 @ 360 ppi finished image shown at 25%: https://db.tt/uyC7SM2z Taken into *Perfect Resize* and sized to 10800 x 7691 @ 360 ppi: https://db.tt/iT5YoX13 …and the enlarged extrapolation at 25%: https://db.tt/QhKdqOYy There are good tools available which will give you the ability to resample & extrapolate to larger print sizes, all without the BS and mind ****ing you seem intent to engage in. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Image enlargement software
On 2014-10-23 22:31:43 +0000, Savageduck said:
On 2014-10-23 21:54:34 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said: On 2014-10-23 20:15:56 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:58:43 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-23 08:30:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:59:42 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-22 03:58:55 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:13:26 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-17 03:01:34 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:13:34 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-16 00:12:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:23:11 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-15 20:54:54 +0000, Eric Stevens said: So you are saying that currently the best way to enlarge an image with interpolation is getting someone else to do it. Now, say that 'someone else' approached you and asked you what is currently the best way to enlarge an image with interpolation, what would your answer be? Listen, before the ink shoots out of the nozzles the printer is going to be doing its own transforms in both the geometric and color domains anyway, and it's just possible that the fellas who designed its mechanism and firmware knew what they were doing, no? I mean it's also possible (but not likely) that things might not turn out that great, but you can't just take it as a given that in-printer interpolation is worse than doing it yourself, because doing enlargement yourself in software is no guarantee that this combined with the printer's own transforms that it ALWAYS applies as a natural part of the printing process won't make things worse in the end. Each printer has its own character and you have to figure out the best workflow afresh if you change printers. Hopefully, if you have set things up correctly yourself, the printer has to do the minimum of adjustment and if your color management is correct you should end up with what you saw on the screen. Well it's not like the printer has to do a minimum or maximum of adjustment, or even that you know what's going on. My only points are that 1) doing enlargement yourself is not always going to be better and 2) the only way to discover this for any given printer is experimentation. There is some very good software out there for rescanning images and I expect you would have to have a very (very) good printer to do better than the better available software. You "would expect" but who knows? Why not try it and find out? After all, if you are looking to know for sure this is the only way. I have a *stack* of A2 prints with which I have been experimenting to answer this question. I gave up leaving it to the printer years ago. In any case, the question has been answered by others. I don't know of any book dealing with the production of high quality prints which recommends just leaving it to the printer. What sort of methodology have you been using in your experiments? It'd be interesting to hear about your test setup and what your metrics are that would lead you to conclude that one print is better than another. A long series of comparitive prints with their realtive merits assessed by eye. I bet you could do better than that, and spend less money on ink too. You might be astonished at the number of variables to be dealt with between the image on the screen and the print. And in the end, the eye is the final arbiter. I might indeed be astonished, but you are intent on keeping me guessing aren't you? For now your position is somewhat silly as you say all that you have said, including challenging some posters in this group to prove their assertions. Yet you have told us that you don’t even have a printer. Ultimately this comparison could only be done by comparing print against print. What are we supposed to do, mail prints of various sizes to you? I'm not sure that I care what people want out of their printer. I do know that one can't be sure unless they come up with *some* methodology that can be tested and measured. Quite simply, if I need to enlarge an unusual amount, or if I need to take a small cropped edit to a produce a large print I use OnOne Software’s *Perfect Resize* (formerly Genuine Fractals). I bet that feels great. I have already posted this sequence in this thread, but here it is again: The 4759 x 3389 @ 360 ppi finished image shown at 25%: https://db.tt/uyC7SM2z Why at 25% Taken into *Perfect Resize* and sized to 10800 x 7691 @ 360 ppi: https://db.tt/iT5YoX13 …and the enlarged extrapolation at 25%: https://db.tt/QhKdqOYy There are good tools available which will give you the ability to resample & extrapolate to larger print sizes, all without the BS and mind ****ing you seem intent to engage in. What kind of BS and mind ****ing is that? All I'm suggesting is that in order to avoid ****ing one's self in their own mind, a person needs to come up with a methodology and perform some tests. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Image enlargement software
On 2014-10-24 04:19:14 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex
said: On 2014-10-23 22:31:43 +0000, Savageduck said: On 2014-10-23 21:54:34 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said: On 2014-10-23 20:15:56 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:58:43 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-23 08:30:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:59:42 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-22 03:58:55 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:13:26 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-17 03:01:34 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:13:34 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-16 00:12:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:23:11 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: On 2014-10-15 20:54:54 +0000, Eric Stevens said: So you are saying that currently the best way to enlarge an image with interpolation is getting someone else to do it. Now, say that 'someone else' approached you and asked you what is currently the best way to enlarge an image with interpolation, what would your answer be? Listen, before the ink shoots out of the nozzles the printer is going to be doing its own transforms in both the geometric and color domains anyway, and it's just possible that the fellas who designed its mechanism and firmware knew what they were doing, no? I mean it's also possible (but not likely) that things might not turn out that great, but you can't just take it as a given that in-printer interpolation is worse than doing it yourself, because doing enlargement yourself in software is no guarantee that this combined with the printer's own transforms that it ALWAYS applies as a natural part of the printing process won't make things worse in the end. Each printer has its own character and you have to figure out the best workflow afresh if you change printers. Hopefully, if you have set things up correctly yourself, the printer has to do the minimum of adjustment and if your color management is correct you should end up with what you saw on the screen. Well it's not like the printer has to do a minimum or maximum of adjustment, or even that you know what's going on. My only points are that 1) doing enlargement yourself is not always going to be better and 2) the only way to discover this for any given printer is experimentation. There is some very good software out there for rescanning images and I expect you would have to have a very (very) good printer to do better than the better available software. You "would expect" but who knows? Why not try it and find out? After all, if you are looking to know for sure this is the only way. I have a *stack* of A2 prints with which I have been experimenting to answer this question. I gave up leaving it to the printer years ago. In any case, the question has been answered by others. I don't know of any book dealing with the production of high quality prints which recommends just leaving it to the printer. What sort of methodology have you been using in your experiments? It'd be interesting to hear about your test setup and what your metrics are that would lead you to conclude that one print is better than another. A long series of comparitive prints with their realtive merits assessed by eye. I bet you could do better than that, and spend less money on ink too. You might be astonished at the number of variables to be dealt with between the image on the screen and the print. And in the end, the eye is the final arbiter. I might indeed be astonished, but you are intent on keeping me guessing aren't you? For now your position is somewhat silly as you say all that you have said, including challenging some posters in this group to prove their assertions. Yet you have told us that you don’t even have a printer. Ultimately this comparison could only be done by comparing print against print. What are we supposed to do, mail prints of various sizes to you? I'm not sure that I care what people want out of their printer. I do know that one can't be sure unless they come up with *some* methodology that can be tested and measured. Quite simply, if I need to enlarge an unusual amount, or if I need to take a small cropped edit to a produce a large print I use OnOne Software’s *Perfect Resize* (formerly Genuine Fractals). I bet that feels great. I have already posted this sequence in this thread, but here it is again: The 4759 x 3389 @ 360 ppi finished image shown at 25%: https://db.tt/uyC7SM2z Why at 25% So that you could easily see the relative sizes with both versions in the primary window. With both at 100% what you were seeing would be beyond any valuable comparison. I was hoping you would at least understand that much. You have taken this thread to a new level of denseness, and seem pretty demanding for somebody who doesn't print a thing. I only hope you understand what distance very large prints should be viewed at. ....but just for you here are the 100% screenshots: Before https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_986.jpg After https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_987.jpg Taken into *Perfect Resize* and sized to 10800 x 7691 @ 360 ppi: https://db.tt/iT5YoX13 …and the enlarged extrapolation at 25%: https://db.tt/QhKdqOYy There are good tools available which will give you the ability to resample & extrapolate to larger print sizes, all without the BS and mind ****ing you seem intent to engage in. What kind of BS and mind ****ing is that? All I'm suggesting is that in order to avoid ****ing one's self in their own mind, a person needs to come up with a methodology and perform some tests. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Image software | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 22 | February 23rd 08 07:47 AM |
Best software for image enhancement? | SS | Digital Photography | 2 | June 9th 07 12:55 AM |
Image enlargement software | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 9 | November 22nd 06 05:49 AM |
Different image processing software | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 24 | June 11th 05 02:33 AM |
New Photo Enlargement Software Gives Cell Phone Photos Better PrintResults | Donald Henderson | Digital Photography | 5 | April 21st 05 05:05 PM |