Urgent Help Needed Techno Boffs Please!!

antonroland

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,210
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
Guys and girls

Which method of upsampling is better to upsample a bitmap of 720 x 576 to a printable level?

And why?

Much appreciated!
 
Photoshop will interpolate (invent new pixels) the upsampling for you - "bicubic smoother" is the best option for enlargement. Upsampling in 10% increments produces better results than going from small to large in one jump. There are limits though, you can't go from a postage stamp to an A1 poster, for example :)
 
Grendel said:
Photoshop will interpolate (invent new pixels) the upsampling for you - "bicubic smoother" is the best option for enlargement. Upsampling in 10% increments produces better results than going from small to large in one jump. There are limits though, you can't go from a postage stamp to an A1 poster, for example :)
Click to expand...

Thanx G!:thumbs:

Due to time constraints I had to do the big jump thing.

I upsampled from 720 x 576 to 1440 x whatever (2x the long side by 2x the short side so 4x the area basically.

I got better results than when I upsampled 1,5 times...:thinking::shrug:

Wish I could tell you folks more about what I'm up to but cannot do so now...:rules:

Is there any technical reason you know of why Bicubic smoother is better than the rest?

cHEERS M8
 
Anton Roland said:
Is there any technical reason you know of why Bicubic smoother is better than the rest?
Click to expand...


TBH Anton....not a clue :lol: But I know that the sampling rule is as follows:

Bicubic smoother for enlargements
Bicubic sharper for reduction

I guess it's to do with how the software deals with the pixels when resizing the image :shrug:

Sorry I can't be more help
 
Grendel said:
TBH Anton....not a clue :lol: But I know that the sampling rule is as follows:

Bicubic smoother for enlargements
Bicubic sharper for reduction

I guess it's to do with how the software deals with the pixels when resizing the image :shrug:

Sorry I can't be more help
Click to expand...

No worries - much appreciated - once this is over and public record I promise to share it with you guys!

All I can say now is that there is a LOOOOONG night ahead of me!

Cheers
 
bump!

Any takers?:D
 
CT might be ya man, he mentioned a program not long back that was an alternative to PS? CT :wave:
 
Glen said:
CT might be ya man, he mentioned a program not long back that was an alternative to PS? CT :wave:
Click to expand...

Well I'm not really, but I agree Bicubic smoother if your using Photoshop to upsize.

I'm not sure about the incremental upsizing - Alamy specifically say it makes no difference, but they recommend Genuine Fractals for upsizing.

Alien Skin is supposed to be another good programme, but tbh, I fail to see a lot of difference between any of them.
 
LadyLens said:
OK, next question on this, what format is the best to upsize in? Tiff, bitmap, jpg? :thinking:
Click to expand...

In 16 bit TIFF every time if you can. As soon as it's a jpeg you're down to 8 bit and have already lost a lot of data. :)
 
CT said:
In 16 bit TIFF every time if you can. As soon as it's a jpeg you're down to 8 bit and have already lost a lot of data. :)
Click to expand...

Oh good, at least I was accidentally getting something right, thanks CT. I guessed jpg would be a no no, but its bitmaps that always confuse, I never use them and never sure if I should be doing. :shrug:
 
Well bitmaps are non lossy so far better than jpegs, but 16 bit TIFFS is best as the upsizing software has the max amount of data to work with.
 
Thanks CT and all others!:thumbs:

As said earlier I am in a bit of a tight spot time-wise and need to get a lot done - bear in mind I type with two fingers:bang::bonk::lol:


I had to start with a .bmp (24bit) of 720 x 576.

When I upsampled from 720 to 1080 I got worse results than upsampling to 1440...:shrug: I thought it would get progressively worse as you go bigger...:suspect:

I used cs2 as this is all I have and did not have the luxury of time to hunt for the stuff you guys mentioned.

I did read in a local mag once that bicubic smoother was the better way to upsample but I thought I'd get a 2nd opinion on here.

Would still like to hear from anyone who can give me some technical explanation.

I am working on a VERY LONG report for our local circuit of the Supreme court and I promise (again) to share the details later!!

Thanks folks!!
 
By the way,

Does anyone know if jpeg, bmp, tiff, raw, and all these other alphabet soup file formats all developed individually or did the one evolve from the other?
 
Photoshop CS was the first version of Photoshop which enabled upsizing to be achieved in one shot without noticeable, undesirable attributes. Previous versions produced 'chunky', blocky results and all it's attendant problems.This was why Genuine Fractals became so popular at the time. PS couldn't compete until, as I said, along came PS CS.

Bicubic smoother for upsizing smooths or fills the pixellated edges which run in any direction other than vertical or horizontal. This is because the process is 'inventing' data that wasn't there in the original image. Interpolation is the correct term.

Bicubic sharper is used for downsizing which is removing data from the image which leaves unsharp edges, hence the need to be sharpened.

The upsize/downsize process will always be performed in PS's native format PSD which, I believe is similar to TIFF. The resulting jpg, if any, is only because you chosen to save it as such
 
You should be able to find Genuine Fractals as a plugin for CS2 - I've never seen a standalone version so I dunno if there is one.

A 200% increase in file size is doable but I find it's more to do with the quality of the original image than the software you use. If it's a crappy image, you get a crappy result reagrdless of which method you use.
 
Thanks Chuckles

If the up/downsizing is done in psd, does p/s then convert it temporarily and revert it to, say, bmp or am I missing something?
 
CT said:
You should be able to find Genuine Fractals as a plugin for CS2 - I've never seen a standalone version so I dunno if there is one.

A 200% increase in file size is doable but I find it's more to do with the quality of the original image than the software you use. If it's a crappy image, you get a crappy result reagrdless of which method you use.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I had a copy of GF long ago and I honestly cannot remember if this was a plug-in or other type of package - got it on a DC Mag cd...

I suppose what helped me was that the cyberlink .bmp was 24 bit:shrug: because I got rather pleasing results...

Now to be able to get a judge to believe what I'm telling him:thumbs:
 
CT said:
Ah...I know that problem.

A Judge In Chambers threw his wig at me once! :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol:Tea all over my monitor... CT you dog!:lol::lol::lol:

What the hell did YOU DO???
 
LOL. He stopped a part heard trial because I was refusing to disclose certain information and saw me in his chambers with the prosecuting barrister.

He said" Young man you're pushing my patience to the limit - I've no wish to see you languishing in Winson Green Prison over the weekend (this was on the Friday) but that's where you'll be going unless you disclose this information" :eek:

I stood my ground and he backed down in the end, but he got a bit vexed! :lol:

My bum was going half a crown - a tanner though at the time. :D
 
CT said:
LOL. He stopped a part heard trial because I was refusing to disclose certain information and saw me in his chambers with the prosecuting barrister.

He said" Young man you're pushing my patience to the limit - I've no wish to see you languishing in Winson Green Prison over the weekend (this was on the Friday) but that's where you'll be going unless you disclose this information" :eek:

I stood my ground and he backed down in the end, but he got a bit vexed! :lol:

My bum was going half a crown - a tanner though at the time. :D
Click to expand...

I will rather not ask what type of info we are talking about
:eek:

You say he got a BIT vexed eh?:naughty::D
 
Anton Roland said:
You say he got a BIT vexed eh?:naughty::D
Click to expand...

Just a tad. I ducked the wig and it hit this posh drinks cupboard in the corner with all this fancy cut glass in it. It ddn't sound at all good. :p
 
And you STILL did not spend the weekend in Winson Green?:D

Good for you!:lol:
 
It'll be in Chapter 6 when I write me book. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top