Shrinking a picture --- and it becomes blur !!

2008-04-29 21:13:56

On Apr 29, 12:39 am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

#14

@KatWoman

2008-04-29 21:37:07

wrote in message

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

are you setting to bicubic sharper??
I heard this is a better option to tick for sizing down
what if your original is not jpeg (compressed) but instead saved as tiff uncompressed?
then you are not compressing an already compressed format

are you choosing high or maximum for quality of the downsized jpg?

#15

@davem

2008-04-30 02:50:02

bugbear writes:

Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm

Since the downsize is an exact integer (factor of 8)
I'm not sure Lanczos (or anything "better" than bilinear) would help.

The fact that the downsize ratio is an integer factor means it's easy to use a box filter for the downsizing and get "not bad" results. That doesn't mean Lanczos would not be better
yet. A box filter still produces a fair amount of aliasing due to letting through input image frequency components that are above the Nyquist limit for the output resolution. Lanczos is better at attenuating these frequencies and suffers less aliasing artifacts. At the same time, it's better at retaining frequencies just below Nyquist that a box filter attenuates more than necessary.

Now, a reasonable-sized Lanczos downsampling filter will cost you more time than a box filter - but it should be small compared to the original render time.

Dave

#16

@Tacit

2008-04-30 07:03:51

In article
,
wrote:

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

Well, of course! What did you expect?

If you resize an image to make it smaller, you remove pixels. When you remove pixels, you remove detail.

On top of that, if you save as JPEG, you remove even more detail. JPEG compression is "lossy." It was invented for situations where file size is critical and image quality is not important. It makes files smaller by discarding image detail.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

#17

@bugbear

2008-04-30 08:46:23

tacit wrote:

In article
,
wrote:

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

Well, of course! What did you expect?

If you resize an image to make it smaller, you remove pixels. When you remove pixels, you remove detail.

On top of that, if you save as JPEG, you remove even more detail. JPEG compression is "lossy." It was invented for situations where file size is critical and image quality is not important. It makes files smaller by discarding image detail.

On rereading the OP's post, I think the
(interesting) discussion on sampling algorithms
is besides the point.

The key phrase (I think) is:

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE.

I think this implies that simply setting the "big image" as desktop gives results the OP finds acceptable, which I imagine involves pretty crude down sampling.

Which leaves JPEG artifacts as the culprit.

BugBear

#18

@Chris Malcolm

2008-04-30 11:09:12

In rec.photo.digital wrote:

On Apr 29, 8:13?pm, bugbear wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 29, 4:39 pm, wrote:

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

As advised, rendering to the size you want may be the best way.

Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm

Since the downsize is an exact integer (factor of 8)
I'm not sure Lanczos (or anything "better" than bilinear) would help.

? BugBear

But I did also refer to downsizing in much smaller steps - and Lanczos will possibly help there...

I experimented with downsizing in Irfanview with the Lanczos option and found that doing it in a number of steps never produced better results, and sometimes produced worse ones.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

#19

@Pico

2008-04-30 11:55:52

If you are creating graphics from scratch, that is not from a camera of any kind, then consider making your important detail in a vector drawing program. If you can and if it works visually. Vectors will display as the very best possible given the resolution of the display in use. (Look at US paper currency under magnification. The engraving could be vectors.)

I have not read nor seen anyone 'mixing' a vector image after scaling with a scaled raster image. The outcome will be a raster image with punctuations of very fine lines of detail and even colors (where the colors are unitary).

(Didn't Steve Jobs' R&D people have postscript display in their neXt OS?)

What an idea. I will explore it beginning tomorrow. My current grant runs out at 5PM today and I will be free for a week or so to use all this neat stuff for pure play. I mean research.

#20

@Pico

2008-04-30 11:57:38

"aruzinsky" wrote

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

ZING!

#21

@Beryl

2008-04-30 18:29:57

N wrote:

wrote:

....

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

....

What were expecting? If you remove seven eighths of the data then seven eighths of the data will be gone.

Much less than 1/8 of the data remains.

(1024 X 768) / (8192 X 6144) = fraction remaining
786432 / 50331648 = 0.015625

#22

@Allen

2008-04-30 20:59:52

Beryl wrote:

N wrote:

wrote:

...

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

...

What were expecting? If you remove seven eighths of the data then seven eighths of the data will be gone.

Much less than 1/8 of the data remains.

(1024 X 768) / (8192 X 6144) = fraction remaining
786432 / 50331648 = 0.015625

One time when I was a child my mother sent me to the store to buy ten pounds of potatoes. The bag was too heavy, so I took out nine pounds and threw them away. When I got home I couldn't believe it when I could find only one pound. I asked my mother how I could get them back, and she told me to go back to where I threw them away and bring them back; sadly, I couldn't find them.
Allen

#23

@Dave

2008-04-30 21:25:29

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:59:52 -0500, Allen wrote:

Beryl wrote:

N wrote:

wrote:

...

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

...

What were expecting? If you remove seven eighths of the data then seven eighths of the data will be gone.

Much less than 1/8 of the data remains.

(1024 X 768) / (8192 X 6144) = fraction remaining
786432 / 50331648 = 0.015625
One time when I was a child my mother sent me to the store to buy ten pounds of potatoes. The bag was too heavy, so I took out nine pounds and threw them away. When I got home I couldn't believe it when I could find only one pound. I asked my mother how I could get them back, and she told me to go back to where I threw them away and bring them back; sadly, I couldn't find them.
Allen

Stupid..! You should have kept the ten pounds with the one pound and carry all 11 pounds. You should never pick on a digital career when you grow up.
(clever people never throw potatoes away, anyway.)

#24

@nospam

2008-05-01 15:03:16

In article , Pico wrote:

(Didn't Steve Jobs' R&D people have postscript display in their neXt OS?)

nextstep/openstep used display postscript and os x uses pdf.

#25

@hsyq8xg

2008-05-01 15:12:32

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A. www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B. www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C. www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

#26

2008-05-01 15:24:26

On May 1, 8:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should be www.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.
If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

#27

@Martin Brown

2008-05-01 15:48:31

wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A. www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B. www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C. www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

All three time out from here long before they download.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

Any comment ??

Which JPEG encoder did you use?

And more critically what chroma subsampling - the default used for photographs does tend to compromise line art images.

If you override the chroma subsampling to save YCrCb with 1,1,1 ratio then you may get better fidelity (although a larger filesize).

Fundamentally you cannot get around the fact that when the image is downsampled the new image pixels get bigger and contain colours that are some weighted average of the original pixels.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

#28

2008-05-01 16:00:18

On May 1, 9:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.
If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apparently the links are broken. Also, please, don't post BMP, post small JPEG 100% crops of a problem area because I use a dial up modem.

#29

2008-05-01 16:26:44

On May 1, 9:00 am, aruzinsky wrote:

On May 1, 9:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apparently the links are broken. Also, please, don't post BMP, post small JPEG 100% crops of a problem area because I use a dial up modem.

All are PNG files. Yes, the links are damn broken !!!

#30

@Dave

2008-05-01 17:02:13

Apparently the links are broken. Also, please, don't post BMP, post small JPEG 100% crops of a problem area because I use a dial up modem.

and

All are PNG files. Yes, the links are damn broken !!

Why don't you idiots crop the crap?

#31

2008-05-01 21:49:57

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnE xpandedKernel.png

, to this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExp andedKernel.png

, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel.

Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

On May 1, 9:24 am, pg wrote:

On May 1, 8:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

#32

2008-05-01 22:03:12

Incidentally, for reciprocal odd integer scale factors, reduction using an unexpanded kernel is just plain decimation and the kind of interpolation kernel doesn't matter.

On May 1, 3:49 pm, aruzinsky wrote:

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnE xpandedKe...
, to this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExp andedKern...
, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel.
Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

On May 1, 9:24 am, pg wrote:

On May 1, 8:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

#33

@Martin Leese

2008-05-02 00:37:21

nospam wrote:

In article , Pico wrote:

(Didn't Steve Jobs' R&D people have postscript display in their neXt OS?)

nextstep/openstep used display postscript and os x uses pdf.

Sun's NeWS also used PostScript. All a bit
moot now. These days you would use SVG.

--
Regards,
Martin Leese
E-mail:
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/

#34

2008-05-02 10:26:31

pg wrote in
..com:

On May 1, 2:49 pm, aruzinsky

wrote:

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-

cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnExpandedKe...

, to this,

http://www.general-

cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExpandedKern...

, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation

kernel.

Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel

for

reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not

expanding

the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

Thank you for the info.

Would anyone kindly tell me which software provides the choice of "expanded" and "unexpanded" kernels of the Lanczos routine?
As I am not a pro in this, while I do own (LEGAL) copies of several commercial software, I do not recall, photoshop, for instant, offer the "expanded" and the "unexpanded" kernel versions of Lanczos.

Thank you again !!!

Appreciate bottom posting.

Adding:

adobe.photoshop.windows
alt.graphics.photoshop

#35

2008-05-02 10:26:31

pg wrote in
..com:

On May 1, 2:49 pm, aruzinsky

wrote:

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-

cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnExpandedKe...

, to this,

http://www.general-

cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExpandedKern...

, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation

kernel.

Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel

for

reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not

expanding

the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

Thank you for the info.

Would anyone kindly tell me which software provides the choice of "expanded" and "unexpanded" kernels of the Lanczos routine?
As I am not a pro in this, while I do own (LEGAL) copies of several commercial software, I do not recall, photoshop, for instant, offer the "expanded" and the "unexpanded" kernel versions of Lanczos.

Thank you again !!!

Appreciate bottom posting.

Adding:

adobe.photoshop.windows
alt.graphics.photoshop

#36

2008-05-02 10:26:31

pg wrote in
..com:

On May 1, 2:49 pm, aruzinsky

wrote:

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-

cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnExpandedKe...

, to this,

http://www.general-

cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExpandedKern...

, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation

kernel.

Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel

for

reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not

expanding

the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

Thank you for the info.

Would anyone kindly tell me which software provides the choice of "expanded" and "unexpanded" kernels of the Lanczos routine?
As I am not a pro in this, while I do own (LEGAL) copies of several commercial software, I do not recall, photoshop, for instant, offer the "expanded" and the "unexpanded" kernel versions of Lanczos.

Thank you again !!!

Appreciate bottom posting.

Adding:

adobe.photoshop.windows
alt.graphics.photoshop

#37

2008-05-02 10:29:10

pg wrote in
..com:

Thank you for the info.

You are a spammer:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=100&scorin g=d&hl=en&as_ep q=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=& ;as_uauthors=penang%40catho lic.org&lr=lang_en&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind =1&as_minm=1&as_miny=19 81&as_maxd=2&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2008&safe=off

#38

2008-05-02 10:29:10

pg wrote in
..com:

Thank you for the info.

#39

2008-05-02 10:29:10

pg wrote in
..com:

Thank you for the info.

#40

2008-05-02 10:38:29

Thank you for the info.

Would anyone kindly tell me which software provides the choice of "expanded" and "unexpanded" kernels of the Lanczos routine?

As I am not a pro in this, while I do own (LEGAL) copies of several commercial software, I do not recall, photoshop, for instant, offer the "expanded" and the "unexpanded" kernel versions of Lanczos.

Thank you again !!!

On May 1, 2:49 pm, aruzinsky wrote:

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnE xpandedKe...
, to this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExp andedKern...
, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel.
Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

On May 1, 9:24 am, pg wrote:

On May 1, 8:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

#41

2008-05-02 17:48:22

I already told you. Read again and Google for where to buy or get free demo.

On May 2, 4:38 am, pg wrote:

Thank you for the info.

Would anyone kindly tell me which software provides the choice of "expanded" and "unexpanded" kernels of the Lanczos routine?
As I am not a pro in this, while I do own (LEGAL) copies of several commercial software, I do not recall, photoshop, for instant, offer the "expanded" and the "unexpanded" kernel versions of Lanczos.
Thank you again !!!

On May 1, 2:49 pm, aruzinsky wrote:

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnE xpandedKe...

, to this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExp andedKern...

, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel.

Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

On May 1, 9:24 am, pg wrote:

On May 1, 8:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

#42

@Paul Furman

2008-05-05 16:12:11

wrote

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

Lee,
Post a cropped sample of an original size and a reduced sample, and the method you used. Maybe someone can do better (or not). In photoshop, the bicubic sharper option in the pull-down ought to be a tad sharper.

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

#43