I see what appears to me to be improved sharpness and contrast but I
wouldn't call it detail. And I'm not at all sure that 200% pixel
peeping bears any relationship to prints.
Why haven't you compared them on paper at largish print sizes?
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>>You've posted this page several times before and I have to say that I
>>don't see what you see. At least not anything that would get me to
>>spend money for FM's stuff.
>>
>
> I agree that it's hard to compare while scrolling the screen. Try this
> version (but not in IE) where you can switch between overlaid images
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/UpSample/Uprez.htm>.
>
> It's arranged so that you can easily move your mouse quickly between
> between the last version and the bicubic versions. If you don't see a
> big difference in detail and sharpness with no increase in noise and no
> annoying artifacts, I'll eat that man's clams. :-)
>
> FM stair interpolation doesn't blow bicubic away, but is definitely
> better at full pixel. Again the boxes are arranged so you can quickly
> slide between it and the best bicubic version*. and will work on any
> sort of image, not just those from a specific camera. What was most
> interesting to me is that the results are the reverse of Butzi's results
> with the test chart. I also like the fact that I can just do it all in
> one step, rather than manually doing several to many steps with bicubic.
> I could make my own actions(s), but Fred's already done it for less $
> than my time to do all the experimenting is worth to me. And it works.
>
> To my eyes, the camera specific Resize Pro simply blows bicubic away at
> full pixel on screen. How big the difference on a print would be I don't
> know. So far, I go on the naive assumption that more detail and
> sharpness on screen will at least not be worse on paper, and may be
> better when the difference is so great.
>
> It makes no difference to me whether folks buy FM's software, although I
> find his price/performance ratio very good. I'm simply interested in
> tools that:
>
> 1. Accomplish what I want effectively.
> 2. Do it without a great deal of time and effort on my part.
> 3. Are priced reasonably for what they do.
>
> Moose
>
> * Notice that Butzi uses bicubic smoother because it "is what Adobe
> recommends for resampling images to be larger:" and doesn't try sharper,
> which works slightly better with my test image. Maybe he's not very curious?
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|