|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 188
|
![]()
Here's a photo from my FZ5 (shot a few weeks ago when I wasn't quite sure about how to use my cam) interpolated to 10 MP. It shows a nice building in Bad Alexandersbad (a spa). Be warned - it's 2.3 MB:
http://www1.file-upload.net/27.01.06/m72wul.jpg The original file (1.5 MB): http://www1.file-upload.net/27.01.06/yvgz5b.JPG OK, next time I'll use natural instead of vivid mode - too much in-camera processing in vivid mode. The amount of CAs beats me - how to avoid them? Btw: I think I need a good wide converter for my FZ5 ... :G The next few days I'll try the same shot in natural mode with manual settings. :? EXIF data: Camera make : Panasonic Camera model : DMC-FZ5 Date/Time : 2006:01:11 13:27:29 Resolution : 2560 x 1920 Flash used : No Focal length : 6.0mm (35mm equivalent: 36mm) Exposure time: 0.0020 s (1/500) Aperture : f/4.5 ISO equiv. : 80 Exposure bias: -0.33 Whitebalance : Auto Metering Mode: matrix Exposure : program (auto) Workflow: interpolated the pic from 5 MP to 10 MP using Krita (in B-Spline mode) then sharpening with Gimp (setting 35). OS: Linux (Kanotix) Comments on how to improve my lacking cam skills are welcome! ![]() Downsampled to 1024x768 (makes a nice wallpaper): |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,915
|
![]()
unfortunately, the process of downsizing/resampling to 1024x768 negates anything you did by interpolating up to 10MP, because you've just turned your 10MP image into a less-than-1MP image and lost most of what you added in. the only real proof of how good a picture looks after interpolation is to either display it at full size (not practical on most PC monitors) or to print it as a poster-size enlargement. if you can make a nice, clear 16x20 or larger print from that 10MP file, then your interpolation process is good. if it comes out fuzzy or pixelated, then you need to revise your workflow a bit, or use a different sampling algorithm.
one trick i've heard is helpful wheninterpolating to a larger file size is to do it in stages, never upsizing more than 10% per step. i can't say for sure if that works better than doing it in one jump, but i have tried upsizing a 5MP file to about 7.5MP using that method, and it made a very commendable 16x20 print. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3
|
![]()
I am curious as to why you chose to interpolate up to 10MB. Coming from a digital printing background, interpolation or upsampling never seemed to give me any more real detail, although it did help make the resulting pixelization a little less dramatic.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 188
|
![]()
squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
The 1024x768 pic stems from the TIFF originated from the original JPG. I tried interpolating in steps with the outcome being bad. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 188
|
![]()
pdx_doug wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 98
|
![]()
It's quite a good photo - which could probably even look better with some post-processing (eg for architectural shots = a touch of unsharp mask, both for sharpening and local contrast enhancement; making sure all the horizontal and vertical edges are squared up; a bit of a saturation boost; some selective lighting to draw the eye into the frame; etc)
Though it's a bit of a pity that the modern path lights look out of place against this building! :roll: With the upsizing, the 10% increments only applies to methods such as bicubic or bilinear (where it does make quite an improvement). With better algorithms like splines, Lanczosor Mitchell - then it should be all in one go... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|