genuine fractals?

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Peter, Nov 3, 2005.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    I do a lot of mining of old shots. This consists of taking fractions of
    images and blowing them up to approximately 12 x 18. so far I have used
    Photoshop CS2, with Bicubic smoothing. I know that I cannot recover details
    that are not in the shot, there, but I would like to recover all detail that
    is present. I have seen some comment here that GF is like "snake oil."
    It seems to me that since GF converts the bit map image to a vector image,
    it should allow one to make the type of enlargements I like to do, without
    loss of detail.
    Has anyone had any experience with this product? I would prefer not to
    install, (even a trial version,) unless there is a reasonable chance it will
    work.

    TIA
     
    Peter, Nov 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Peter

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    It works better than re-sampling in PS but it isn't magic. The more data
    you start with the better it works in my opinion. for instance, it can
    turn 4000 pixels into 8000 pixels better than it can turn 500 into 1000...
    Admittedly, I have only used it a few times. There website boasts, "Up to
    7X" enlarging. I imagine it all depends on the detail in the original
    image..

    I wouldn't worry about installing the trial version unless you have fussy
    PC.

    Once installed you will find the interface under File>Automate
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Nov 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Peter

    Clyde Guest

    I have an older version of it, but don't use it any more. It does work,
    but only very slightly better than Photoshop's Bicubic. In my own tests
    I see no difference between the two up to about double the size. In the
    really large jump ups, GF does seem to do a bit better. Luckily, I
    rarely need to enlarge that much.

    Remember that none of these will add anything to the picture. i.e. You
    will never add detail that wasn't there to begin with. So, the real
    question is how smooth is the up sizing? That is what my comparison was.

    One of the reasons that I got GF was that it would make much smaller
    files. They were a lot smaller in "near lossless" mode. I never saw any
    quality loss in that mode. In the "lossless" mode they were about half
    the size of PSD. Years ago, I didn't have the computer space and that
    was an issue. Now I have plenty of space. Besides, JPEG2000 is a wavelet
    compression method that does lossless compression even smaller than GF.

    Clyde
     
    Clyde, Nov 4, 2005
    #3
  4. Peter

    Peter Guest


    Thanks to all who replied.
    When I used PS 7.0 the images seemed to posterize at high magnifications,
    even though I used the 10% rule when increasing size. With CS2, I don't get
    as much posterization using bicubic smooth.
    For mining purposes I scan my old slides and negatives at 1,200 for those
    shot that will not be highly cropped and not much larger than 12 x 16. 3,000
    dpi for others. I can go up to 7,200 but speed and my lack of patience
    becomes an issue. If I need a very small area, I can always rescan at the
    higher res. (provided I can find the original.
     
    Peter, Nov 4, 2005
    #4
  5. Peter

    tacit Guest

    Genuine Fractals does not convert the image to vector; that is
    inaccurate. What it does is perform a fractal wavelet compression on the
    image. The image remains raster.

    Genuine Fractals retains all the information in the image already. So
    does Photoshop's interpolation. That's the problem. An enlarged image
    looks bad because there is not any more information in the image; the
    information contained in a raster image is sharply bounded by the total
    number of pixels in the image. When you resample upward, you are
    spreading the same amount of information over a larger number of pixels.
    As the size of the image increases linearly, the number of pixels
    increases exponentially.
     
    tacit, Nov 5, 2005
    #5
  6. Peter

    Peter Guest


    Thanks for the clarification on how GF works. But, my qauestion is still
    open, for making extreme enlargements, original file size .12 x .2 to 12 x
    20, does GF help. On screen I see little difference, but as many here must
    know, there is a vast difference between wht we see on screen and the final
    print.
     
    Peter, Nov 6, 2005
    #6
  7. Peter

    Clyde Guest

    Actually, you've been answered many times. If you look back in
    newsgroups there are many more answers. Then again, you've already
    started the testing, why not finish it? Print the different versions and
    see if you can see a difference. If you can't see a difference that
    matters to you, it doesn't matter.

    Clyde
     
    Clyde, Nov 7, 2005
    #7
  8. Peter

    tacit Guest

    No. What you see on screen is what you see in print.

    For some images, Genuine Fractals sometimes produces results that are
    slightly better than Photoshop--emphasis on "some images," "sometimes,"
    and "slightly." If it's better on screen, it's better in print, and vice
    versa.

    For extreme enlargements, nothing can beat, or even come anywhere close
    to, just making the image at the correct resolution in the first place.
     
    tacit, Nov 7, 2005
    #8
  9. Peter

    Peter Guest

    I have to apologize for my blankout moment. You are right, of course.
     
    Peter, Nov 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Peter

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    original file size .12 x .2

    ..12 x .2 What? Inches @ 300dpi?

    If you can print it at 300 dpi and get anywhere close to the size of a 35mm
    negative, then you can scan it on a flatbed that can do slides or negatives
    at 3200 or large PPI you "Might" then be able to print it at a magnification
    of the magnitude you are after.

    Genuine Fractal bost the ability to Enlarge an image, "Up TO" 7X, You are
    asking for 100X You can't do that via any type of re-sampling and expect to
    have good results.


    http://imagequest.netfirms.com
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Nov 11, 2005
    #10
  11. Peter

    Guest Guest

    tacit writes:

    tacit> In article <436a7906$0$42518$>,

    tacit> Genuine Fractals does not convert the image to vector; that is
    tacit> inaccurate. What it does is perform a fractal wavelet compression on the
    tacit> image. The image remains raster.

    tacit> Genuine Fractals retains all the information in the image already. So
    tacit> does Photoshop's interpolation. That's the problem. An enlarged image
    tacit> looks bad because there is not any more information in the image; the
    tacit> information contained in a raster image is sharply bounded by the total
    tacit> number of pixels in the image. When you resample upward, you are
    tacit> spreading the same amount of information over a larger number of pixels.
    tacit> As the size of the image increases linearly, the number of pixels
    tacit> increases exponentially.

    Quadratically, not exponentially.
     
    Guest, Nov 25, 2005
    #11
  12. It really depends IMHO on the quality of the image in question just
    as everyone said. I use GF for a magazine that I design and I'm often
    given small images that I need to enlarge. If the quality of the image
    is good (lighting, focus, etc ~ too many variables to list) then GF
    does a great job. But as an unknown genuis (atleast, I can't remember
    who said it) once said ~ you can't polish a turd. If the image sucks,
    no resampling will improve it. You'll just have a
    bigger-but-just-as-crappy image.

    And note: back when LizardTech owned GF it was $178 for a license for
    the PrintPro version . . . now since it was sold to OnOne Software
    it's $299 and I can't see any visible improvements made in the plug-in.
    Go figure.

    Good luck!!

    --
    Constance Pierce
    principal/designer


    "you can't polish a turd."
     
    Constance Pierce, Nov 26, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.