A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Image enlargement software



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old October 23rd 14, 08:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Oregonian Haruspex
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default 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  
Old October 23rd 14, 09:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old October 23rd 14, 10:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Oregonian Haruspex
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default 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  
Old October 23rd 14, 11:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old October 24th 14, 05:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Oregonian Haruspex
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default 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  
Old October 24th 14, 05:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.