OK, I agree with all of that. And I've always been amazed at some of
the nice stuff you pull out of the shadows. I think what I was
subconsciously objecting to was spending money on Fred Miranda's stuff
(no matter how low cost) for no demonstrated benefit to myself. I also
don't print larger than 8x10 at home. Larger than that (up to 24" high)
is printed by a friend with two very large Epsons or by a lab. In those
cases I don't attempt to mess with resizing the image at all other than
cropping to the correct proportions. The printers do the rest.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>>I see what appears to me to be improved sharpness and contrast but I
>>wouldn't call it detail.
>
> OK, on one thing I think we can agree to agree. There is no more actual
> detail in the up-sampled image than in the original. Despite what they
> do on TV forensics shows, data that isn't there can't be "extracted" or
> "enhanced".
>
> Then we may be able to agree on another thing. Data can be in the image,
> but not apparent to the human visual system. Reorganization of tonal
> data can make things visible that weren't visible in the original. I
> hope you have seen enough blue sky & clouds appearing out of
> undifferentiated white and detail rising out of shadows in examples I've
> posted to believe that. Like the many details that are invisible or only
> hinted at in the original here and clear in the adjusted version
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/pages/DSCF1140a.htm>.
>
> I then propose that the FM plug-ins, and especially the Resize Pro, make
> detail that was in the image, but unseen, visible and/or more clearly
> visible than do the bicubic versions.
>
>>And I'm not at all sure that 200% pixel peeping bears any relationship to
>>prints.
>>
>
> Careful now, this is 100% pixel peeping at up-sampled images. A
> significant difference.
>
>>Why haven't you compared them on paper at largish print sizes?
>>
>
> 1, Lazy.
> 2. I haven't printed anything bigger than 8x11 in ages, and haven't
> needed to uprez.
> 3. Most of my images are viewed on screen, not on paper.
> 4. Did I mention lazy?
>
> And - after I did this test, I read Harald Johnson's book on digital
> printing, where he convinced me that the printer drivers are going to do
> a better job of matching the available image pixels to the actual
> hardware than any up-sampling to match my imagined version of the best
> dpi for my printer. He claims his conclusion is the result of extensive
> experience and testing. I choose to believe him for a few reasons:
>
> 1. I'm happy with the printed results I'm getting.
> 2. The other things that he wrote that I tried turned out to work.
> 3. Did I mention a personal aversion to work that doesn't accomplish
> anything?
>
> Remember, I wasn't trying to sell anything in this thread, only to show
> how my test results with a full color image of a natural subject differ
> from those using a B&W bar chart in the link posted to a web page on
> Paul Butzi's site claiming that stair interpolation is worse than
> simple, one step bicubic smoother.
>
> I am not advocating that anyone buy anything. In fact, I would suggest
> first simply leaving the image at the pixel size it is, setting the
> printed output size in the printer driver and letting the calculated dpi
> fall where it may.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|