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

[David T.]

Roger,

Thanks for the link. Very interesting results. The "quadrant" effect you mentioned concerned me until I saw the tests on the second link. Though I have not ever considered my GF files as looking "painterly," they certainly have that appearance in the work you've done. The SI images you've shown, absent of the quad thingy, surely look cleaner & more natural than the rest.

Have you given Qimage or VFZoom a try?

Also, it looks like we another new fish to throw in the pot - has anyone tried S-Spline? http://www.shortcut.nl/products.php?parentid=3&count=7

David -

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: David T. ]

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: David T. ]

[Russell_Stewart]

I have used GF, Photoshops Bi-cubic in 110% steps, Photshops Bi-cubic in 133% steps (some say 133% steps are better for fine detail), Fred's SI Pro Action and also S-Spine 2 (Demo).

I would have to say I get great results from GF and Bi-cubic 110%. Some images suit GF and some suit Bi-cubic, after a little practice you will learn which one to use.

Fred's action is way to agressive for me :-(

But, what is interesting is S-Spine 2... It offers you the choice of bi-cubic, bi-linear and S-Spine and gives a realtime preview so you can pick which one works best for the image before any processing.

It is worth a look... http://www.astrovid.com/S%20-%20Spline.htm

[Noel_Carboni]

quote:

---

I have zero tolerance for GF's painterly effects

---

I've found some transforms in Photoshop that combine with GF and mostly eliminate that look. Check this thread:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/cgi-bin/...c&f=8&t=002452

-Noel

[David T.]

PixelPix,

Thanks for the link and comments, but why did you not remark on S-Spline if you've used it.

Below is a Q&A from the above mentioned link regarding different methods of upsizing. I thought it would be best to just post it for easier reading:

"Q: Does S-SplineÆ offer a general improvement over bicubic resampling (Adobe Photoshop) or Genuine Fractals?

A: That depends. Usually: yes, but sometimes: hardly. Realize that for certain types of images, it's almost impossible to enlarge better than the common techniques, like bicubic interpolation (as offered in AdobeÆ Photoshop(tm)). Especially with blurred photographic images and such, S-SplineÆ will never be able to achieve (much) improvement over those common techniques. But neither will Genuine Fractals, or any sophisticated enlarging technique. But for images that do have 'potential' of being enlarged better than common interpolation, i.e. sharp images, or images containing high frequency data in general - scanned text or cartoons for example, or images with sharp edges and contrasts, S-SplineÆ gives a big improvement over the common interpolation techniques.

Furthermore, Genuine Fractals (GF)is actually performing worse than normal interpolation on extremely contrast-rich images. If you try to enlarge (e.g. 1000%) an image containing white on black text, for example, bicubic will give a fair result, but rather blurry, but GF will give much fractal artifacts (like if you jpeg it on low quality). S-SplineÆ will give a great result, and in this case it beats the rest by far."

Though I do not know anything about the author of these comments, they do appear to be worth investigating. This is the first time I've actually heard/read anyone making a directive statement with regards to the When & How of upsizing low (soft) or high (sharp) frequency data images.

Can anyone comment on the validity of these statements?

David -

PS, I have no idea why this double posted below. Just one of those things I guess - Sorry.
[img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: David T. ]

[David T.]

PixelPix,

Thanks for the link and comments, but why did you not remark on S-Spline if you've used it.

Below is a Q&A from the above mentioned link regarding different methods of upsizing. I thought it would be best to just post it for easier reading:

"Q: Does S-SplineÆ offer a general improvement over bicubic resampling (Adobe Photoshop) or Genuine Fractals?

A: That depends. Usually: yes, but sometimes: hardly. Realize that for certain types of images, it's almost impossible to enlarge better than the common techniques, like bicubic interpolation (as offered in AdobeÆ Photoshop(tm)). Especially with blurred photographic images and such, S-SplineÆ will never be able to achieve (much) improvement over those common techniques. But neither will Genuine Fractals, or any sophisticated enlarging technique. But for images that do have 'potential' of being enlarged better than common interpolation, i.e. sharp images, or images containing high frequency data in general - scanned text or cartoons for example, or images with sharp edges and contrasts, S-SplineÆ gives a big improvement over the common interpolation techniques.

Furthermore, Genuine Fractals (GF)is actually performing worse than normal interpolation on extremely contrast-rich images. If you try to enlarge (e.g. 1000%) an image containing white on black text, for example, bicubic will give a fair result, but rather blurry, but GF will give much fractal artifacts (like if you jpeg it on low quality). S-SplineÆ will give a great result, and in this case it beats the rest by far."

Though I do not know anything about the author of these comments, they do appear to be worth investigating. This is the first time I've actually heard/read anyone making a directive statement with regards to the When & How of upsizing low (soft) or high (sharp) frequency data images.

Can anyone comment on the validity of these statements?

David -

[Noel_Carboni]

No one can give you a "this is better than that" answer, unfortunately.

Bear in mind we're splitting hairs here. Don't expect night and day differences. The feel of the images will be subtly different, and can be affected more by what you do in addition to upsampling than by the upsampling process in general.

You simply have to try various techniques and see what feel you like best for your images.

If you E-mail me an image (or post it on the net), I'll be happy to apply Genuine Fractals to it and send it back to you.

-Noel

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Noel Carboni ]

[Jorge Alban]

Stair Interpolation in 110% steps such as Fred Miranda or Stephens action enhances very fine detail BUT creates thick white lines along high contrast edges (like USM with a high Radius value). One more reason to shoot with in-camera sharpening and contrast set to minimum and to ALWAYS upsample before applying any tonal corrections (levels or curves).

The nice thing about 110% step upsampling is that it works in 16-bit mode, while GF, Pano Tools Spline 36 and VFZoom, do not. Upsampling in 16bit mode makes a visible difference once unsharpmask is applied as the last step, since it shows much less of the "quadrant artifact " mentioned above.

This holds true if going beyond a 200% increase in image size. For smaller upsamplings Photoshops straight bicubic works well, specially in 16 bit mode.

Jorge Alban
Costa Rica