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

David T. · #1 11-13-2002, 09:17 AM

Hello each & all,

Currently I'm using Genuine Fractals for upsizing, but have heard good things about some of the newer products available. I have considered trying the FM SI Pro v2.0 action, VFZoom, and Qimage Pro. I was wondering if there may be anyone out there who has had first hand experience with any of these and would care to comment. I would be especially interested in comments from former GF users.

On a few occasions I've come across some jaggies in print (Epson 7500) on diagonal (only) lines from my scanned film GF (only) files. This leads me to think it's a GF problem, but I've yet to find anything to support this other than observation. Comments on similar experience's appreciated.

Thanks,

David -
[img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: David T. ]

zero zero · #2 11-13-2002, 10:20 AM

I did a post a few days ago about this, but darned if I can find it now - it simply evaporated!

Anyway, I can sum it up as follows:

-No method is best for everything. Some images fare well with stair interpolation, others with GF, others VFzoom, etc. Do extensive testing with many images before you decide.

-GF is weird in the sense that some people swear by it while others say it stinks. I find VFzoom much faster than GF (once the file is encoded, you may go from 20 MB to 120 MB in less than a second, as opposed to going for coffee with GF). VFzoom is in my opinion superior, but I have zero tolerance for GF's painterly effects, totally absent in VFZ. *.VFZ files are also significantly smaller than *.STN, even when losslessly encoded.

bottom line? in my extensive testing, none of the methods I tried (GF, VFzoom, Photoshop bicubic one-shot and bicubic incremental) worked best for every image. Sometimes differences were there but I was unable to declare a clear winner. Interestingly, I never found GF to be the best method for any image... [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

Hope this helps. Go ahead and try the free download of VFzoom against GF. Make sure you read the instructions and set encoding as lossless!

Best,

Roberto.

AlanSmallbone · #3 11-13-2002, 11:06 AM

Qimage pro works the best in the testing that I have done. It is a much better deal than the other solutions. YMMV.

Alan

Dale_Kaechler · #4 11-13-2002, 11:32 AM

I too have found Qimage Pro to be the best I've tested. Download the demo and give it a try. URL is:
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/

Greg Governale · #5 11-13-2002, 02:00 PM

http://www.greenspun.com/com/imaging/SOFT/GF/GF.HTM

I thought this might help,( please read the dates and comments carefully)

AntonioDias · #6 11-13-2002, 03:13 PM

Greg, Ustein:

Have you tried QImage Pro? I think it is a very good tool. The developer (Mike Chaney) has a very good understanding of interpolation and printer interfaces and many claim that his Lanczos interpolation, matched to the printer native resolution, does a better job than GF for prints up to 20x30 or thereabouts.

A. Dias

David T. · #7 11-13-2002, 04:09 PM

Thanks everyone,

Some interesting comments. Have any of you big printer people tried VFZoom or Quimage?

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

GF users, what has been your experience when down-sizing GF files. Lizardtech says you can go down as much as 500%, but I've tried it a couple times and the print got a "canvas" look to it.

Thanks,

David - [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]