Program to make low-res image files look sharper

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:01:18 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp when printed at a large size.

Does anybody know the name of program?

Vapor/dreamware

GIGO

Robert Montgomery wrote:

A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp when printed at a large size.

Does anybody know the name of program?

I forgot to mention that the program should be Mac-compatible.

Robert

Robert Montgomery wrote:

A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp when printed at a large size.

Does anybody know the name of program?

Genuine Fractals is reputed to be able to do this, also some advanced algorithms like Lanczos, and resampling as incorporated in Qimage, a specialist printing program.

None of them increase detail, the manufactured pixels are derived from existing pixels, but the way they are derived can influence the look of the finished image to some extent. Best is to retake the image if possible.

Colin D.

"Robert Montgomery" wrote in message

A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp when printed at a large size.

Does anybody know the name of program?

I think it has to be a TV program called CSI. They can do real magic with digital images.

Roy G

Colin.D wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp when printed at a large size.

Does anybody know the name of program?

Genuine Fractals is reputed to be able to do this, also some advanced algorithms like Lanczos, and resampling as incorporated in Qimage, a specialist printing program.

None of them increase detail, the manufactured pixels are derived from existing pixels, but the way they are derived can influence the look of the finished image to some extent. Best is to retake the image if possible.

Colin D.

Thanks.

I know that none of those programs increase detail. What I want is to smooth jagged edges and avoid the halo effects of sharpening.

Anyone know how Genuine Fractals compares to Alien Skin’s Blow-Up?

Robert

"Colin.D" wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp when printed at a large size.

Does anybody know the name of program?

Genuine Fractals is reputed to be able to do this, also some advanced algorithms like Lanczos, and resampling as incorporated in Qimage, a specialist printing program.

None of them increase detail, the manufactured pixels are derived from existing pixels, but the way they are derived can influence the look of the finished image to some extent. Best is to retake the image if possible.
Colin D.

I don’t have the original message and hope you won’t mind me quoting yours.

– The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose Percentage and other option instead.

– It will help to improve a larger print but not making the blurry image looks sharper which is part of Sharpen and similar. I don’t do sharpen besides messing to gain little experience to know much about it.

– And to deal with low-rez image you often need more than making it look sharper (often make it looks worse), like you may want to edit in 16-bit mode instead of 8-bit.

And I hope this won’t be another suicide letter <bg>

Joel wrote:

"Colin.D" wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp when printed at a large size.

Does anybody know the name of program?

Genuine Fractals is reputed to be able to do this, also some advanced algorithms like Lanczos, and resampling as incorporated in Qimage, a specialist printing program.

None of them increase detail, the manufactured pixels are derived from existing pixels, but the way they are derived can influence the look of the finished image to some extent. Best is to retake the image if possible.
Colin D.

I don’t have the original message and hope you won’t mind me quoting yours.

– The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose Percentage and other option instead.

I own Photoshop CS3 and I can’t fine "Image Resize" in the program and I can’t find where I would change the image size by percentage.

– It will help to improve a larger print but not making the blurry image looks sharper which is part of Sharpen and similar. I don’t do sharpen besides messing to gain little experience to know much about it.
– And to deal with low-rez image you often need more than making it look sharper (often make it looks worse), like you may want to edit in 16-bit mode instead of 8-bit.

So in other words the programs like Alien Skin’s Blow-Up and On One’s Genuine Fractals are unnecessary for blowing up images while minimizing the dark outlines and halo effect that are produced by blowing up?

And I hope this won’t be another suicide letter <bg>

Huh?

Robert

Robert Montgomery wrote:

I own Photoshop CS3 and I can’t fine "Image Resize" in the program and I can’t find where I would change the image size by percentage.

Image -> Image Size -> then click on the little down-arrow by ‘pixels’ in the first row.

Robert Montgomery found these unused
words:

Joel wrote:

– The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose Percentage and other option instead.

I own Photoshop CS3 and I can’t fine "Image Resize" in the program and I can’t find where I would change the image size by percentage. Robert

I believe it’s "Image Size" in the "Image" menu drop down and for the rest Press "F1" for instructions on the tool.

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Robert Montgomery found these unused
words:

Joel wrote:

– The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose Percentage and other option instead.

I own Photoshop CS3 and I can’t fine "Image Resize" in the program and I can’t find where I would change the image size by percentage. Robert

I believe it’s "Image Size" in the "Image" menu drop down and for the rest Press "F1" for instructions on the tool.

Thanks, John and F. A.

I tried enlarging an image file by percentage and saved it. I also tried enlarging the original image file by pixels and saved it.

I printed both files, which ended up being the same size (118 megabytes) and the same resolution (300 dpi).

I printed the images. I couldn’t tell any difference between the printed results.

Robert

Robert Montgomery wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Robert Montgomery found these unused
words:

Joel wrote:

– The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think
CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose Percentage and other option instead.

I own Photoshop CS3 and I can’t fine "Image Resize" in the program and I can’t find where I would change the image size by percentage. Robert

I believe it’s "Image Size" in the "Image" menu drop down and for the rest
Press "F1" for instructions on the tool.

Thanks, John and F. A.

I tried enlarging an image file by percentage and saved it. I also tried enlarging the original image file by pixels and saved it.
I printed both files, which ended up being the same size (118 megabytes) and the same resolution (300 dpi).

I printed the images. I couldn’t tell any difference between the printed results.

The results would be the same. It’s all about the actual pixels, the pixel count (area formula).

John J wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Robert Montgomery found these unused
words:

Joel wrote:

– The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think
CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose Percentage and other option instead.

I own Photoshop CS3 and I can’t fine "Image Resize" in the program and I can’t find where I would change the image size by percentage. Robert

I believe it’s "Image Size" in the "Image" menu drop down and for the rest
Press "F1" for instructions on the tool.

Thanks, John and F. A.

I tried enlarging an image file by percentage and saved it. I also tried enlarging the original image file by pixels and saved it.
I printed both files, which ended up being the same size (118 megabytes) and the same resolution (300 dpi).

I printed the images. I couldn’t tell any difference between the printed results.

The results would be the same. It’s all about the actual pixels, the pixel count (area formula).

But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:

– The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose Percentage and other option instead.

– It will help to improve a larger print but not making the blurry image looks sharper which is part of Sharpen and similar.

Robert

But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:

Robert

You can try enlarging the image in small percentages (10%) till you reach the desired size.
This should keep the edges a bit sharper.
You can also make an action to do that.

Fred

Robert Montgomery wrote:

<snip>

The results would be the same. It’s all about the actual pixels, the pixel count (area formula).

But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:

You should learn to blame yourself for not smart enough to THINK about the whole thing.

– You can’t not nee the difference between the difference is so little so human eye can see

– You can see a BIG difference if there is a BIG difference for you too see. IOW, if you start with a poor image then you may be able to see the difference.

– You may even see BIGGER difference if you have to work on the very poor image (more than just resizing), and with combination of 16-bit etc. then you should see the difference.

IOW, if someone here try to teach you English then you may not see much improvement, but if you are smart enough to teach me English then I may see a HUGE improvement. Get it? or what I am trying to say it depends on different situation, different technique.

Or a little more hint.

– If you print the same image before/after Enlargement size 4×6" then you should not tell the difference from a much lower quality. This is normal

– If you print a good image size 8×10 then you may not be able to tell the difference. This is normal and the limitation of human eyes

– Now, if you do everything correctly then print the before/after to size 40×510 then you should be able to see the difference.

If you don’t want to print that large then test on a very very poor image, or ZOOM IN to study the difference. But you will have to stare at the same PIXELS (area) to see the difference.

And you can always GOOGLE for more detail information, and many may have PICTURES to tell the differences between the original and others programs, techniques too.

"Fred" wrote:

But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:

Robert

You can try enlarging the image in small percentages (10%) till you reach the desired size.
This should keep the edges a bit sharper.
You can also make an action to do that.

Fred

Here, I don’t do on good normal quality photo, but I sometime have to create a DVD label from a small 50-300K image from internet, so I don’t do 10% but quite often 200-400%.

Just by looking at the percentage, you can tell how small and poor the image may be. Besides the Percentage I also have to switch to 16-bit mode, then back to 8-bit (to save or combine with other photo) after done all the editing.

Robert Montgomery wrote:

Joel wrote:

"Colin.D" wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp when printed at a large size.

Does anybody know the name of program?

Genuine Fractals is reputed to be able to do this, also some advanced algorithms like Lanczos, and resampling as incorporated in Qimage, a specialist printing program.

None of them increase detail, the manufactured pixels are derived from existing pixels, but the way they are derived can influence the look of the finished image to some extent. Best is to retake the image if possible.
Colin D.

I don’t have the original message and hope you won’t mind me quoting yours.

– The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose Percentage and other option instead.

I own Photoshop CS3 and I can’t fine "Image Resize" in the program and I can’t find where I would change the image size by percentage.

Just select the "Image Resize" then instead of selecting the Width/Height etc. you just hi-lite the PIXEL selection then you will see the Percentage option available.

OK, here is one of the links I just found so you can see the PHOTO http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/image-resizing .php

Then there should be few Percentage options these you may have to play with them to pick the one you like best. Since the photos I use to make DVD labels are not important so I just use whatever default setting

– It will help to improve a larger print but not making the blurry image looks sharper which is part of Sharpen and similar. I don’t do sharpen besides messing to gain little experience to know much about it.
– And to deal with low-rez image you often need more than making it look sharper (often make it looks worse), like you may want to edit in 16-bit mode instead of 8-bit.

So in other words the programs like Alien Skin’s Blow-Up and On One’s Genuine Fractals are unnecessary for blowing up images while minimizing the dark outlines and halo effect that are produced by blowing up?

I don’t know much about Alien Skin Blow-Up to have anything to say, I don’t own the Genuine Fractals but have read several talks about it, and comparing it with Adobe built-in Enlargement (Percentage) feature so I think both (and other too) work pretty similar to each other, and some may be a hair better than other.

Enlargement doesn’t work like Sharpen which darken some pixels to make it look sharper (in some case it may look worse). The Percentage/Enlargement using some trick (calculation) to multiply the pixel by size and pixel, so you will have MORE pixel that make a larger print looks better.

And I hope this won’t be another suicide letter <bg>

Huh?

Hahaha I have run into so many folks who drops a question then vanish, and we don’t know if they read the answer, if the answer helps or not. And that’s why I call them suicide letter just like many people who write a suicide note before killing themselves.

Robert

Joel wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

<snip>

The results would be the same. It’s all about the actual pixels, the pixel count (area formula).

But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:

You should learn to blame yourself for not smart enough to THINK about the whole thing.

No; I should not blame myself. Thinking about the whole thing is useless without experimenting, because thinking is merely academic and nebulous due to variable, whereas experimenting produces tangible results and proof. You implied that same thought in the same letter as the criticism that you wrote above:

what I am trying to say it depends on
different situation, different technique.

That’s why I was smart not to believe whatever I read without testing the scenario myself.

Robert

Robert Montgomery wrote:

Joel wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

<snip>

The results would be the same. It’s all about the actual pixels, the pixel count (area formula).

But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:

You should learn to blame yourself for not smart enough to THINK about the
whole thing.

No; I should not blame myself. Thinking about the whole thing is useless without experimenting, because thinking is merely academic and nebulous due to variables, whereas experimenting produces tangible results and proof. You implied that same thought in the same letter as the criticism that you wrote above:

what I am trying to say it depends on
different situation, different technique.

That’s why I was smart not to believe whatever I read without testing the scenario myself.

Robert

So it is YOU – not me – who is not smart enough.

Robert

Joel wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

Joel wrote:

"Colin.D" wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp when printed at a large size.

Does anybody know the name of program?

Genuine Fractals is reputed to be able to do this, also some advanced algorithms like Lanczos, and resampling as incorporated in Qimage, a specialist printing program.

None of them increase detail, the manufactured pixels are derived from existing pixels, but the way they are derived can influence the look of the finished image to some extent. Best is to retake the image if possible.
Colin D.

I don’t have the original message and hope you won’t mind me quoting yours.

– The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose Percentage and other option instead.

I own Photoshop CS3 and I can’t fine "Image Resize" in the program and I can’t find where I would change the image size by percentage.

Just select the "Image Resize" then instead of selecting the Width/Height etc. you just hi-lite the PIXEL selection then you will see the Percentage option available.

OK, here is one of the links I just found so you can see the PHOTO http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/image-resizing .php

BTW, the link above I try to point to you WHERE to locate the Percentage option *not* the technique the author tries to do and to say. Remember that the idea is trying to *enlarge* the image for better print *not* to compare the original with the enlarged those are 2 different beats have nothing to compare.

Or if you want to compare then compare the PRINTS one with the original and one with the enlargement, and also up to much larger size where you can easily be able to tell the difference. Or do not print to 4×6 or 8×10 cuz you may not even be able to tell the difference if you decrease the quality.

Robert Montgomery wrote:

Joel wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

<snip>

The results would be the same. It’s all about the actual pixels, the pixel count (area formula).

But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:

You should learn to blame yourself for not smart enough to THINK about the whole thing.

No; I should not blame myself. Thinking about the whole thing is useless without experimenting, because thinking is merely academic and nebulous due to variable, whereas experimenting produces tangible results and proof. You implied that same thought in the same letter as the criticism that you wrote above:

what I am trying to say it depends on
different situation, different technique.

That’s why I was smart not to believe whatever I read without testing the scenario myself.

Robert

Hmmm what do you think if I am telling you that you have too much water in your head? <bg>

Robert Montgomery wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

Joel wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

<snip>

The results would be the same. It’s all about the actual pixels, the pixel count (area formula).

But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:

You should learn to blame yourself for not smart enough to THINK about the
whole thing.

No; I should not blame myself. Thinking about the whole thing is useless without experimenting, because thinking is merely academic and nebulous due to variables, whereas experimenting produces tangible results and proof. You implied that same thought in the same letter as the criticism that you wrote above:

what I am trying to say it depends on
different situation, different technique.

That’s why I was smart not to believe whatever I read without testing the scenario myself.

Robert

So it is YOU – not me – who is not smart enough.

Robert

Of course I’m not smart to teach you English! and of course you ain’t smart enough to understand what you should understand <bg>

Joel gave his solution to up-sizing and it was dead wrong.

Such advise happens all the time.

Joel is wrong.

So be it.

Joel wrote:

Joel wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

Joel wrote:

"Colin.D" wrote:

Robert Montgomery wrote:

A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp when printed at a large size.

Does anybody know the name of program?

Genuine Fractals is reputed to be able to do this, also some advanced algorithms like Lanczos, and resampling as incorporated in Qimage, a specialist printing program.

None of them increase detail, the manufactured pixels are derived from existing pixels, but the way they are derived can influence the look of the finished image to some extent. Best is to retake the image if possible.
Colin D.

I don’t have the original message and hope you won’t mind me quoting yours.

– The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose Percentage and other option instead.

I own Photoshop CS3 and I can’t fine "Image Resize" in the program and I can’t find where I would change the image size by percentage.

Just select the "Image Resize" then instead of selecting the Width/Height etc. you just hi-lite the PIXEL selection then you will see the Percentage option available.

OK, here is one of the links I just found so you can see the PHOTO http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/image-resizing .php

BTW, the link above I try to point to you WHERE to locate the Percentage option *not* the technique the author tries to do and to say. Remember that the idea is trying to *enlarge* the image for better print *not* to compare the original with the enlarged those are 2 different beats have nothing to compare.

Or if you want to compare then compare the PRINTS one with the original and one with the enlargement, and also up to much larger size where you can easily be able to tell the difference. Or do not print to 4×6 or 8×10 cuz you may not even be able to tell the difference if you decrease the quality.

Here is another link about Genuine Fractals vs CS3, and remember that the images are 200% larger than the original. Or if you want to compare the original with the ones create by Genuine Fractals and Photoshop then you will have to use regular Image Resize (not Percentage) or ZOOM IN the original 200% to see the difference.

http://ronmart.blogspot.com/2008/12/review-onone-software-ge nuine-fractals.html

The link above isn’t the good one comparing to other I saw long time ago, and I will try to locate it or the similar.

More info

http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/jennifer/bicubic.h tml

Some sample of the results from a BETTER original to begin with. As I said, the original is very important, and it often be much worse if you screw up the original then applying sharpen or upscaling to it.

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00QlJy

More info and sample. It isn’t the same one I read long time ago, and I didn’t read the link below but a quick browse through the zoom in samples

http://www.photomigrations.com/articles/0605200.htm

http://www.butzi.net/articles/resample.htm
http://www.llvj.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t28857.html

I still can’t find the one with lot of closeup samples of many different plug-ins and technique. But after reading some of the above then you may have figured out that the author of the first link doesn’t seem to get the idea of unscaling. Or s/he knows how to find and apply to command, but doesn’t understand what it’s for.