Genuine Fractals

Mr THX

Mr THX

Suspended / Banned
Messages
849
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone experience of this software..... :thinking:

My main question is when using the software do you go straight to the image size you want or is it better to incrementally get there in (say) two or three steps.

I talking for best image quality of course and not speed of use.

TIA :thumbs:
 
I use Genuine Fractals Pro. Tbh I struggle to see any difference between it's results and those done by bicubic resampling in Paint Shop Pro.

Alamy recommends Genuine Fractals for upsizing images although it doesn't insist on it, and say that each submission will be considered on it's technical merits regardless of the interpolation software. They also concede that perfectly acceptable results can be achieved with other software, including CS2s own interpolation filters.

Alamy specifically say that they don't recommend incremental increasing of image sizes, so the short answer to your question is just output the file to the size you want. :)
 
I've tried using GF, with some success, but have recently got a bit lazy and done the resizing in Photoshop - I suppose GF would be better for big enlargements but for my needs (at present) PS is just as good.
 
GF is supposed to be able of producing very good results but as CT pointed out, if people like Alamy are saying use GF or PS (CS or higher) then there can't be all that much in it.

IIRC, you can download a trial version of GF that allows you 10 re-sizes to evaluate. Would be great if you tried it and then let us all know if it's worth the ££'s. ;)
 
I always find that the Lanczos filter on Irfan view does a Sterling job.

This is a crop of an image enlarged 300% from 2006x 1619 to 6000x4842, and it looks pretty damn good!!

bigtitzv8.jpg


Here is the original shown at 800 wide:

tit2lw1.jpg
 
You will find no diffrence between GF and CS2.

If going larger - use bicubic smoother settings in one upsize step.

if going smaller - use bicubic sharper settings and use multiple steps if a large decrease in size.

the theory is one step for upsizing, as if you use multiple steps you will be creating new pixels out of already generated pixels and it can all start looking bad very quickley. As for going down in size as you are removing pixels your image will look soft so you have to use sharper creation doing it in steps stops it looking very bad.

hope this helps
 
Marks sense to me Mark based on what comparison tests I've done. :)
 
Now youve got me confused! :thinking:
I read you are supposed to enlarge in photoshop in 10% increments in bicubic sharper! :shrug:
 
I've used both and there isn't much difference expect that GF can take a lot longer. Alamy, for example, do not recommend incremental upsizing:

Interpolate (upsize) the file to at least 48MB using a specialist, professional software package. We recommend Genuine Fractals™ although other software is equally acceptable, including Abobe Photoshop versions 7 and CS/CS2 (if the bicubic option is used). We do not recommend "step" or incremental interpolation. Check your software's default settings to ensure that sharpening is turned off. All results are assessed on their merits, regardless of the method used.
Click to expand...
 
Well i wont be doing that again then!! LOL :D
 
There was an article is EOS magazine, comparing 4 products (i think a year ago.. CT, can you help out in this one?)

GF scored fairly highly, but from memory didn't hugely outscore PS. The winners name eludes me and being at work i cant check.

The programmes work by comparing 4 pixles and then calculates how they should be split / combined for smooth increase. Therefore, as mho01 says, do it in one step for a cleaner edge.

If someone has EOS magazines handy can they remind me of the winning software please - from memory it was end of 2005, early 2006.....
 
Janice said:
Now youve got me confused! :thinking:
I read you are supposed to enlarge in photoshop in 10% increments in bicubic sharper! :shrug:
Click to expand...
You have be wary of where you get the info from Janice, a lot of duff info is propogated with the best of intentions. Most image libraries these days insist on a minimum 48-50mb image, so if you're shooting with anything less than a 1DS MK2 you're looking at some serious upsizing and it gets a lot tougher if any substantial degree of cropping is involved n the original image. Alamy for example, say you shouldn't upsize an image cropped to less than about 17mb to meet their criteria!

The other killer is that they don't allow any sharpening of your images at all, their argument being that that's best left to the client to decide, depending on it's intended size and use, so incremental upsizing involving step sharpening doesn't sound like a good idea on that basis.

To be fair upsizing an image and incrementally sharpening for your own purposes may well be OK where you're the judge of image quality as you go along and you know the size you want to output it, but it's generally accepted that sharpening should be the last thing you do to an image so if a client wanted to resize an already sharpened image it's likely quality would suffer.
 
Jonnyreb said:
There was an article is EOS magazine, comparing 4 products (i think a year ago.. CT, can you help out in this one?)

GF scored fairly highly, but from memory didn't hugely outscore PS. The winners name eludes me and being at work i cant check.

The programmes work by comparing 4 pixles and then calculates how they should be split / combined for smooth increase. Therefore, as mho01 says, do it in one step for a cleaner edge.

If someone has EOS magazines handy can they remind me of the winning software please - from memory it was end of 2005, early 2006.....
Click to expand...
Can't help Johnny I'm afraid mate, all I can tell you is I've used GF, PSP and CS2 and I struggle to see any difference with any of them. It seems to me it's all down to the quality of the original image. :shrug:
 
Advanced Photoshop (magazine) is recommending Blow Up by AlienSkin http://www.alienskin.com/blowup/index.html

This is a Photoshop plugin. Extract from website:

Blow Up offers the highest quality image resizing available, better than bicubic interpolation and any other third party solution. Blow Up makes advanced image scaling easy, preserves smooth, crisp edges and lines, and creates four times (1600% area) enlargements from any image without jagged artifacts or halos. In some cases, Blow Up can enlarge up to six times (3600% area) without obvious artifacts.

Blow Up includes advanced features such as photo grain controls, enlargement-specific sharpening, and support for most image modes, including CMYK. Blow Up also supports 16- and 32-bit images and is optimized for multi-core and multi-processor systems. These features make Blow Up perfect for a professional photographer creating gallery prints from digital photos, as well as an amateur photographer creating a poster from a favorite snapshot. Graphic designers can now easily scale Web graphics up to print resolution or rescale everyday images for large format printing and outdoor advertising.

As others have said if you are working with good original images you may not notice the difference. But if you have a small crop of the original to enlarge or want to be able to blow up a web image to something printable then these packages may help.

Ray

Edit to say it's $199 but there is a 30 day free trial.
 
Oh yes.... downloaded a trial of that.......have to dig it out.
 
The big problem with sizing is that if you are upscaling to submit to a photo agency the quality of the upscale has to be very near perfect.

As an example to reach alamy's target of 50MB, your looking at roughly the following upsizing.

1Dsmk2 - 103% of a full frame (not cropped)
1dmk2n - 145% of a full frame (not cropped)

You can soon see that if you start cropping anything other than large megapixel files the upscale will soon start to look pixelated / artifact ridden.

the best time to upscale is straight after the raw conversion before anything is done to the image.
I have worked on and submitted in excess of 25,000 files in the last 12 months from various cameras (Canon / Phase One Backs) to Alamy and other agencys and have had 33 rejected (Actual number i have checked). So it does work, it pays to frame a shot if you can to avoid cropping.

If you are going to print (photos / posters) you can get way with a much courser upscale as the "grain" (upscaled artifacts) will enhance the print slightly and will not let the image look so flat on paper. Also 98% of printers have a native resolution of 360, so any print with a dpi outside a multiple of 360, ie anything that is not 180, 720, 1440, 2880 etc. Will be rescaled by the printer software / driver.

Its best to work out what you need in your workflow find the best way of getting there and writing photoshop actions for each stage, and ones which have slightly differing routines so you can choose which is the one to use for a particular task.

Hope this helps a little, just a bit of what i use everyday.
 
OK - located the right EOS mag - December 2005. BenVista PhotoZoom Pro came out on top, set against PS CS2, GF 4.0, FixerLabs SizeFixer SLR. Its also the cheapest at $129 (unless you already have CS2 of course!!!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top