Genuine Fractals 4.1 with CS2?

John Stovall writes …

Now that One on One is doing Genuine Fractals. Has any one tried their new 4.1? … How is it and is it worth it compared to Photoshop’s up sampling tools?

In the past when they upgraded they added something like 16 bit or CMYK or batch support but the underlying algorithm apparently hasn’t changed much, so there’s no reason to be optimistic that this version is wildly improved. I’ve never seen any evidence that it could beat other resizing options for the kind of upsampling most photographers do but it seems to be better for vector-like shapes, fwiw. Maybe better if you’re doing exceptionally large blow-ups, dunno …

They claim you no longer have to save in the .STN
format to use it in photoshop.

Big deal … what difference does it make what format you save in? ..STN was easy enough to work with so what do you gain by changing to a different format?

I ask because they are having a 50% off sale now which is cheaper than my normal academic pricing from Academic Superstore.

The smart move is to get the trial download and try it out yourself on the type of images you shoot, comparing it to whatever methods you’re currently using. After that the next smart move should be readily apparent …

Bill

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message

Now that One on One is doing Genuine Fractals. Has any
one tried their new 4.1? They claim you no longer have to save in the .STN format to use it in photoshop.

They used to have a free trial good for a limited number of conversions. The latest one I tried, allowed to resample any image already opened in Photoshop.

How is it and is it worth it compared to Photoshop’s up
sampling tools?

The GF results seemed as unattractive as before; over-enhanced edges and painterly, almost posterized gadients. Photoshop’s tools are not bad but certainly sub-standard compared to several other utilities.

I’ve been using Scott Kelby’s suggested bicubic sharper
method for upsizing in CS2.

‘Sharper’ for upsizing? Oh horror.

I ask because they are having a 50% off sale now which is cheaper than my normal academic pricing from Academic
Superstore.

IMHO you can spend that amount (after discount) or even less, better on alternatives like "PhotoZoom Pro" (which has a Photoshop export module) or "Qimage" (automatically resamples, and prints to file or to a printer, to almost any size).

By the way, a 50% discount doesn’t inspire confidence for future support.

Bart

On 14 Dec 2005 14:22:09 -0800, "Bill Hilton"
wrote:

John Stovall writes …

Now that One on One is doing Genuine Fractals. Has any one tried their new 4.1? … How is it and is it worth it compared to Photoshop’s up sampling tools?

In the past when they upgraded they added something like 16 bit or CMYK or batch support but the underlying algorithm apparently hasn’t changed much, so there’s no reason to be optimistic that this version is wildly improved. I’ve never seen any evidence that it could beat other resizing options for the kind of upsampling most photographers do but it seems to be better for vector-like shapes, fwiw. Maybe better if you’re doing exceptionally large blow-ups, dunno …

They claim you no longer have to save in the .STN
format to use it in photoshop.

Big deal … what difference does it make what format you save in? .STN was easy enough to work with so what do you gain by changing to a different format?

I ask because they are having a 50% off sale now which is cheaper than my normal academic pricing from Academic Superstore.

The smart move is to get the trial download and try it out yourself on the type of images you shoot, comparing it to whatever methods you’re currently using. After that the next smart move should be readily apparent …

My interest in it due to Alamy "suggesting" it be used for preparing a QA cd for them.

******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

I’ve been using Scott Kelby’s suggested bicubic sharper
method for upsizing in CS2

Bart writes …

‘Sharper’ for upsizing? Oh horror.

John, if you are actually using ‘sharper’ for upsizing then either you misread Kelby or he goofed when he wrote this … check the Photoshop Help for resampling, ‘sharper’ is for downsizing, ‘smoother’ for upsizing …

On 14 Dec 2005 15:34:51 -0800, "Bill Hilton"
wrote:

I’ve been using Scott Kelby’s suggested bicubic sharper
method for upsizing in CS2

Bart writes …

‘Sharper’ for upsizing? Oh horror.

John, if you are actually using ‘sharper’ for upsizing then either you misread Kelby or he goofed when he wrote this … check the Photoshop Help for resampling, ‘sharper’ is for downsizing, ‘smoother’ for upsizing …

That’s what he wrote in his latest book on CS2 for digital photographers.

I suggest you read the book.

Here a cite about it:

http://lubowphotography.com/outline1.htm

*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/