Genuine Fractals, Qimage Pro, SI Pro v2.0, VFZoom, Lions & Tigers & Bears, Oh My!

Uwe_Steinmueller · #8 11-13-2002, 04:26 PM

>Have you tried QImage Pro?

I know Qimage for a long time but use a RIP for printing. And just using Qimage for upsizing does not fit in my workflow right now. If you use Qimage then it is a good tool.

SI, Qimage and GF will all show their strength in different situations. I need a tool that does a good job most of the time and also own GF.

Uwe

Greg Governale · #9 11-14-2002, 01:36 AM

I specialize in reproducing fine art Giclee prints for a number of different wildlife artists.I also reproduce many of my wildlife images as fine art Giclee prints. I currently print on an Epson 9500 or 9600.

In my opinion genuine fractals does a better job with many images. It is the program I use most often for the large sizes I require. Not every image is reproduced as a fine art print. Quality in = quality out! Some images reproduce better then others. I have tried Freds SI method and found that I liked the look of genuine fractals much better. I do not like the look of GF at pixel level, I do like the look at print size. I believe that is what matters most, after all, it is the print that people will be viewing and hopefully purchasing.

Carefully follow the instructions contained on the GF web site. Always sharpen the image based on the final size. Keeping in mind the content and the overall feeling you are trying or the artist was trying to convey. Do not apply sharpening before you resize the image, this is especially important when working with film.

SI does a fairly good job with a number of images, I have reproduced the exact same file, at the exact same size using SI and GF, and it seems like most of the time I prefer GF.

I also apply GF in a series of small steps, until I reach a 100MB file. This may take as many as five or six steps depending on the size of the original file.

I do not believe any one method of reproducing a file at large sizes is always better then another. To my eye GF is well worth the money,SI is hard to beat if price is important, Photoshop and other programs I have tried usually produce results that I do not like.
sincerely,
Greg Governale

Uwe_Steinmueller · #10 11-14-2002, 01:51 AM

FYI: I invited Greg to this discussion as he does much more large scale print than I do.

The only reason I do not recommend GF in my e-booklets is because of the price and this might not worth for some people going large only once in the lifetime.

I have a 27" print from a D1x at Calypso Imaging in Santa Clara done with GF and it looks fine to me.

Uwe

zero zero · #11 11-14-2002, 03:48 AM

quote:
Zero-Zero, can you elaborate on the GF "painterly" look you've mentioned?

Certainly. If you've used GF for a while, you'll recognize it easily. Sorry I didn't keep my .STN files around since I'm not using it anymore, but you'll see it clearly in the aerial image shown here.

Guess I'll have to try Qimage, too.

Roberto.

Roger_Cavanagh · #12 11-14-2002, 07:48 AM

David,
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/library/t04_upsizing.htm

I've got a side-by-side example linked to this page, so you can compare the GF effect to PS bicubic.

Regards,

Adam Wade · #13 11-14-2002, 08:48 AM

Maybe it's just my poor eyesight [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img], but I couldn't see any real visible difference between SI and bicubic. Was the difference more visible on an ink/paper output device?

DavidSchneider · #14 11-14-2002, 09:11 AM

Sept/Oct issue of PEI magazine ran an interesting article comparing Genuine Fractals PrintPro, VFZoom, S-Spline and Photoshop. (They didn't include Fred Miranda's action.)

Basically, S-Spline was the sharpest (but not by very much at all), VFZoom the fastest and second sharpest, GF, then PS.

Final paragraph: "All things considered, there is no hands-down winner in this comparision, with each application showing strengths and weaknesses in different areas."