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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Martindale wrote:
It sounds like ACDSee uses nearest-neighbour resampling for quickly resizing too-large images. I still use ACDSee Classic, and it certainly does just that. While this might have been a good choice when the typical computer had a 100 or 200 MHz CPU clock, it produces a number of nasty artifacts, and is a poor choice today. With today's CPUs, it makes sense to use a resampling algorithm that filters the image properly while resizing it. Irfanview gives you the choice of either method, and that's why my default image-opening application is Irfanview, not ACDSee. Although it takes a little longer for Irfanview to calculate a properly-resized image, the result is often much better looking and worth the wait - even on my ancient PIII-700. On the other hand, when browsing through a directory full of images, I still use ACDSee because its one-image read-ahead helps a lot, and when I'm looking at lots of images the quality of each one isn't so important. Another interesting case is Photoshop. Years ago, Photoshop used only nearest-neighbour resampling for screen display, but it tried to display at sizes that used integer downsampling ratios (25%, 33%, 50%) to minimize effects like discontinuities in diagonals. Then at some version Adobe introduced the "image cache", which is really a image pyramid, several copies of the same image resampled to several smaller sizes. Photoshop uses this for displaying reduced-size versions of the image when it can, giving cleaner-looking results that are more representative of how the image would look if you really reduced the image to that size. Dave I would invite you to send your thoughts and ideas to and/or visit the forums at http://forums.acdsystems.com and put a post up. I will forward your posting to the appropriate people in ACD Systems. Thanks for your comments, -- James Addison http://www.pjsoft.ca |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
HandyAndy wrote:
Second, any seasoned photographer and graphics editor knows to turn off any display resampling so they can see the true resolution and detail of their photos from the actual pixels. Image display resampling methods alters this when you zoom in to view the photo. It smoothes them out, makes them look much nicer than they actually are. In effect, you're looking at your photos through rose-colored glasses. When I view my digital camera images, I view them full screen, fit to screen, without any borders/windows to distract me. Unless you have very large monitors that runs 3000x2000 resolution, you have to shrink the image. When you shrink the image, resampling takes place. Different program uses different methods to shrink the image. Using a better algorithm does NOT mean you are looking at your photos through a rose-colored glass, it actually gives you a much better approximation of how the image is supposed to look when properly scaled down to your screen resolution. With a properly calibrated monitor, one should be able to see differences in resampling algorithm, especially on some photos. I'll even say that, using a bad resampling (fast) algorithm, you are making your image worst than what it really is. Unless you're using the software for a slide-show ONLY, there's absolutely no reason you should turn on any resampling algorithms for viewing your images. Turn off all resampling for image displays, or you'll never see all the errors and faults in your photography that everyone else will see when you send your digital photos to them. They're not going to put on the same rose-colored glasses that you are so fond of just to make your images look better. Resampling methods should ONLY be used for upsizing and downsizing images for final output, never at any other time. Well, to me, when I view the image, I want it to look its best. I DO want the "final output". I think what you are basically saying is, if you edit the image, then you better check the image at 100% view instead of relying on whatever resampling algorithm the program uses... Raymond |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
HandyAndy wrote:
Second, any seasoned photographer and graphics editor knows to turn off any display resampling so they can see the true resolution and detail of their photos from the actual pixels. Image display resampling methods alters this when you zoom in to view the photo. It smoothes them out, makes them look much nicer than they actually are. In effect, you're looking at your photos through rose-colored glasses. When I view my digital camera images, I view them full screen, fit to screen, without any borders/windows to distract me. Unless you have very large monitors that runs 3000x2000 resolution, you have to shrink the image. When you shrink the image, resampling takes place. Different program uses different methods to shrink the image. Using a better algorithm does NOT mean you are looking at your photos through a rose-colored glass, it actually gives you a much better approximation of how the image is supposed to look when properly scaled down to your screen resolution. With a properly calibrated monitor, one should be able to see differences in resampling algorithm, especially on some photos. I'll even say that, using a bad resampling (fast) algorithm, you are making your image worst than what it really is. Unless you're using the software for a slide-show ONLY, there's absolutely no reason you should turn on any resampling algorithms for viewing your images. Turn off all resampling for image displays, or you'll never see all the errors and faults in your photography that everyone else will see when you send your digital photos to them. They're not going to put on the same rose-colored glasses that you are so fond of just to make your images look better. Resampling methods should ONLY be used for upsizing and downsizing images for final output, never at any other time. Well, to me, when I view the image, I want it to look its best. I DO want the "final output". I think what you are basically saying is, if you edit the image, then you better check the image at 100% view instead of relying on whatever resampling algorithm the program uses... Raymond |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Possible to Repair Canon S45 Display Screen? | Steve Goulding | Digital Photography | 1 | September 8th 04 01:07 AM |
full frame 35mm display | k | In The Darkroom | 17 | April 3rd 04 04:23 AM |