Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Software > Resizing / Interpolation

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 26, 2011, 1:01 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,045
Default Enlarging?

I've been asked to make a file larger for printing. Now the person who asked for the picture doesn't know anything about photography or printing, I suspect, so she just asked me for a file that's around 50 mb, instead of the 5 mb jpg file I sent here. I'm not entirely sure what size the picture is to be and that also makes it difficult to know what to tell her. The 5 mb file is over 3500 pixels wide, so it could print at 11 inches, assuming 300 dpi printing. But its entirely possible that the page size could be larger.

So I'm now faced with the possibility of enlarging the original file, possibly to 15 inches (I can't imagine even a coffee table book being bigger than that). Does anyone have any suggestions on how to do that without losing quite quality? Can CS4 do it as well as something like onOne's Perfect Resize plugin? If so, what settings should I use/hints can you give me?

The other problem is that the picture was taken at ISO800 with a camera that used Sony's 10 mp sensor - one that had quite a bit of noise, and it was slightly underexposed. I can run it through deNoise easily enough but then I'll need to sharpen, etc. and I'm thinking that the resizing would accentuate any artifacts left by all that manipulation.

I did go back to the original raw file, did the crop/rotate/perspective correction it needed etc. and saved it as a tiff file - it was 50 mb, interestingly enough. But I still think I need to have the ability to give her something with a bit more pixels, if she really needs to print larger at 300 dpi.

Is there anyone here who uses Perfect Resize and could give me hints about it?

Thanks for your help!
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 26, 2011, 5:36 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,885
Default

G'day mtngal

Some time ago [3yrs??] one of the UK photo mags did some experimenting along these lines
Memory says that they used PS & chose the bicubic-smooth option and did a series of increases using +10% each time, till the image size was 300% of the original

They also did it with a single 300% increase and determined that the 'gentle' method produced better results

Dunno whether this helps - hope so
Regards, Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Google me at Travelling School of Photography Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2011, 7:30 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,045
Default

I tried to increase the picture by 500 pixels at a time (about 15%) twice but while it was better than doing it all at once, it still made for a soft image. I tried Perfect Resize (OnOne's program) and that did better, but it introduced different problems. Not sure I really liked the increase, I'll give both tiff files and let her/the printer decide which to use. It wasn't such a bad thing as I think I did better with correcting the perspective and slight lens distortion, as well as doing a better job with the noise reduction.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2011, 3:21 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,748
Default

Hi not sure if this relevant but you said in your first post that you had 300dpi if you want to go to a larger print then the dpi will have to be reduced.
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2011, 10:15 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

I have upres'ed with Focus Magic and have been reasonably content with the results if I just do it by a factor of 2 (which is actually a factor of 4 -- they measure linearly, but perform the operation in both directions, of course.) There is not good granularity with that program (I presume they are doing this in fourier space, so it's a lot eaiser to double than do anything else unless you are doing a discrete FT other than the standard FFT). Anyway, the photo looks absolutely identical to the original if displayed at the original size. To my eye, the colors are a bit washed out above that, but otherwise the 2x is quite tolerable. You might try the freebie (10 operations before it is disabled) to see what you think. The interpolation is only available when the program is run stand-alone -- for some reason, the plugin doesn't support this. FWIW
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2011, 11:11 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,045
Default

wave01 - I don't think the 300 dpi was negotiable, though it might have been. The person putting the book together thought my upsized version was best. I printed both the full sized and the upsized versions at 8 x 10 and you couldn't tell the difference. The upsized one was a very slight hair softer but that was probably more a reflection of the more aggressive noise reduction I had to do.

I didn't know Focus Magic did upsizing. I think I checked out the program a while ago though and it's only for Windows (I have a Mac). That might have been a very interesting option as someone I know swears by their sharpening methods.

I don't know whether I'll buy the OnOne software or not - publication stuff seems too much like that 4-letter word "work". On the other hand, it might be fun to print something poster sized, if I ever take an exceptional photo, and it's not so expensive compared to many other things I've bought for my hobby. Hmmmm...
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2011, 4:54 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,748
Default

Hi I found this it may help
http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2011, 10:47 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,045
Default

Got my hands on the book yesterday - I don't know which version of the picture they used (full sized or upsized), but it came out looking really, really good. They also used another photo (half page) that looked great, one I didn't try upsizing. While the pages are larger than letter sized, they aren't all that much larger so it all worked out well. They used a third picture of mine that was a small, filler type of photo. The book has lots of other photos in it, mostly historical, but a couple of modern ones were awesome - wish I had taken them. In any case, I'm really pleased with it and how my photos came out.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2011, 1:02 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,885
Default

G'day MtnGal

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtngal View Post
Got my hands on the book yesterday - I don't know which version of the picture they used (full sized or upsized), but it came out looking really, really good. ..... In any case, I'm really pleased with it and how my photos came out.
and so you should be too ~ your work is of a high quality and we all enjoy seeing your posts

Well done...
Regards,Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Google me at Travelling School of Photography Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:34 AM.