Best software for increasing resolution?
I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent'
software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there anything even better on the market now. Thanks |
Best software for increasing resolution?
SS wrote:
I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent' software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there anything even better on the market now. Thanks Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...e-restoration1 Roger |
Best software for increasing resolution?
On Oct 22, 6:49 pm, "SS" wrote:
I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent' software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there anything even better on the market now. Thanks The best that any of these can do is a kind of "fake" resolution that really shows no more true detail than your original shot. What you hope for is that you don't lose any and that the final enlargement doesn't look like crap. There is NO way to increase resolution beyond what the original file had. |
Best software for increasing resolution?
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:49:42 GMT, "SS" wrote:
I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent' software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there anything even better on the market now. Thanks Any of the methods that are using PhotoShop's native bicubic interpolation and its 16-bit math foundation (like Miranda's stair interpolation or that Richardson-Lucy iteration) will be abysmal compared to other more evolved interpolation methods. PhotoShop is still only using 16-bit math (think Windows 3.1), it has to throw away so much data required for the detail. If you are using 16-bit images you're already at the limit of PhotoShop's math-bandwidth. Trying to do anything complex with 16-bit data in a 16-bit math environment is pushing it beyond what it was designed for and inherently limited to. No different than trying to add 5+7 and getting 2 or 9 as a result in a single-digit math universe. The 10's unit of measure would have to be thrown away in that environment because it doesn't and can't exist within that constraint. The same as getting ERR- displayed on your hand calculator when trying to multiply values beyond what it can calculate. I happen to use the old S-Spline 2.2 first to see if that will do the job. When just trying to find a page for that I see now that it's long since been updated into PhotoZoom. It's worked so well all these years, I guess it's time to try an update. CleanerZoomer is also a pretty interesting utility to keep on hand. It's a multi-purpose tool that includes a Lanczos upsampling. Its noise removal method I also sometimes like better than others I've used. http://www.stratopoint.com/czoomer.htm There used to be a site online that compared all the various upsampling utilities. I have long since lost that bookmark. Maybe you or someone else can find and share it again. It's where I was lead to these other programs. So much will depend on the kind of detail in your image and which kinds of detail that you want to enlarge. Some of them work better if there is a lot of sharp angular details in your image. For example if your image is of a graphics-arts event, it would upsample all those bold edges, signs with text, and color detail very well. Other interpolation programs work worse on those but do better on softer or more curved and random details. This is why that comparison page was so handy. It clearly showed when one utility and method was better than another. There's no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to upsampling. |
Best software for increasing resolution?
Rich wrote:
On Oct 22, 6:49 pm, "SS" wrote: I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent' software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there anything even better on the market now. Thanks The best that any of these can do is a kind of "fake" resolution that really shows no more true detail than your original shot. What you hope for is that you don't lose any and that the final enlargement doesn't look like crap. There is NO way to increase resolution beyond what the original file had. Rich, This is not correct. While most "sharpen" tools in photo editors actually do not sharpen, they enhance edge contrast, or accutance. But there are algorithms that use a blur estimate and reconstruct a true sharper image. One such algorithm is Richardson-Lucy, as illustrated in my other post. The cost of such algorithms is 1) longer compute times, and 2) there is no free lunch: you trade sharpening with noise. Also, if the blur model does not represent the true blur, you get artifacts, often appearing as ringing. One advantage is is you can even reduce motion blur (blur in one direction different than another direction). Roger |
Best software for increasing resolution?
IggyZiggy wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:49:42 GMT, "SS" wrote: I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent' software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there anything even better on the market now. Thanks Any of the methods that are using PhotoShop's native bicubic interpolation and its 16-bit math foundation (like Miranda's stair interpolation or that Richardson-Lucy iteration) will be abysmal compared to other more evolved interpolation methods. The long rant has little to do with reality. Not that I'm defending photoshop's math, which is actually 15-bit, not 16-bit. Digital camera images have a signal to noise ratio limited by photon noise. Camera's with larger pixels have a maximum S/N of about 250 and less. Cameras with smaller pixels have maximum S/N of much less, and 15-bit math is plenty for all. What programs like photoshop and other photo editors lack is true sharpening algorithms. Obviously you do not understand what Richardson-Lucy is (it is not a resampling algorithm in the sense of the rest of the rant). Roger |
Best software for increasing resolution?
Unless you are taking a 1MP image up to billboard size you don't need
anything beyond Photoshop. These programs are in general (except for very large blow-ups and not the kind you would need for a desktop printer even a 13x19) a big waste of money. The Spider |
Best software for increasing resolution?
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:37:57 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote: IggyZiggy wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:49:42 GMT, "SS" wrote: I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent' software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there anything even better on the market now. Thanks Any of the methods that are using PhotoShop's native bicubic interpolation and its 16-bit math foundation (like Miranda's stair interpolation or that Richardson-Lucy iteration) will be abysmal compared to other more evolved interpolation methods. The long rant has little to do with reality. Not that I'm defending photoshop's math, which is actually 15-bit, not 16-bit. Digital camera images have a signal to noise ratio limited by photon noise. Camera's with larger pixels have a maximum S/N of about 250 and less. Cameras with smaller pixels have maximum S/N of much less, and 15-bit math is plenty for all. What programs like photoshop and other photo editors lack is true sharpening algorithms. Obviously you do not understand what Richardson-Lucy is (it is not a resampling algorithm in the sense of the rest of the rant). Roger You should have the word "Obfuscate" tattooed to your forehead. You seem to live, breathe, eat, and worship that God. Look it up. Keep digging and supporting the construction of those deep ditches, the ones in which you have permanently buried your crippled mind and any morsel of talent and creativity. |
Best software for increasing resolution?
The Spider Formally Seated Next To Little Miss Muffet wrote:
Unless you are taking a 1MP image up to billboard size That would be the CSI filter ;-) you don't need anything beyond Photoshop. These programs are in general (except for very large blow-ups and not the kind you would need for a desktop printer even a 13x19) a big waste of money. Hmmm. A sharp print standard is 300 ppi. At 13x19, that is 13 * 300 * 19 * 300 = 22.2 megapixels. Unless you have a 1Ds Mark III 22 megapixel camera, increasing sharpness can really help. Of course, then there is the "knock you socks off" 600 ppi print, which needs 89 megapixels to cover 13x19. Roger |
Best software for increasing resolution?
IggyZiggy wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:37:57 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote: IggyZiggy wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:49:42 GMT, "SS" wrote: I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent' software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there anything even better on the market now. Thanks Any of the methods that are using PhotoShop's native bicubic interpolation and its 16-bit math foundation (like Miranda's stair interpolation or that Richardson-Lucy iteration) will be abysmal compared to other more evolved interpolation methods. The long rant has little to do with reality. Not that I'm defending photoshop's math, which is actually 15-bit, not 16-bit. Digital camera images have a signal to noise ratio limited by photon noise. Camera's with larger pixels have a maximum S/N of about 250 and less. Cameras with smaller pixels have maximum S/N of much less, and 15-bit math is plenty for all. What programs like photoshop and other photo editors lack is true sharpening algorithms. Obviously you do not understand what Richardson-Lucy is (it is not a resampling algorithm in the sense of the rest of the rant). Roger You should have the word "Obfuscate" tattooed to your forehead. You seem to live, breathe, eat, and worship that God. Look it up. Keep digging and supporting the construction of those deep ditches, the ones in which you have permanently buried your crippled mind and any morsel of talent and creativity. What I said is correct. I'm sorry it went wooshing over your head. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com