Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Tips & Tricks (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/tips-tricks-71/)
-   -   Upsizing..A New Technique (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/tips-tricks-71/upsizing-new-technique-119570/)

benjikan Apr 17, 2007 10:22 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Pro Applications..Making 10.2 megapixels in to 30.6 mega pixels, sort of...
There are ways to improve the rendition of the K10D that will give it similar resolution to a Pro Back of 31.6 megpaixels. I will be shortly doing an Ad Campaign with the K10D where I could have opted for a Digital Back. I will shoot in RAW and introduce three layers with a microscopic shift on each of the layers. After doing so I will sharpen the layers at between 0.3 and 0.5 pixels at 240 to 300 percent. I "Free Transform" the two duplicate layers by "1" Pixel each and I do not "Flatten" the image. It works quite well. What I do is use two colour layers and one B&W layer. I still use the "Soft Light" setting. I am effectively getting the impression of a 30.6 megapixel image. The pixels are all slightly offset. It really does work quite well.

Thought I would share that with you. Theoretically it is not 31.6 mega pixels, but it sure looks like it.

Here is a sample using "Free Transform" to offset the image "1" pixel per layer. What you are seeing is a crop from the original that can be viewed on one of my sites under the series name "Divine Inspiration".

Ben
http://anashcreation.com/thenashgall...closeup?full=1

http://www.pressbook.com/homebook.as...&owner_id=5144

learning_mode Apr 17, 2007 10:58 AM

wow... awesome work. I wanna be just like you when I grow up *grins*

outstanding :cool:

slipe Apr 17, 2007 11:34 AM

Is the free transform of 1 pixel your "microscopic shift" or are they separate? Both in the same direction?

benjikan Apr 17, 2007 4:30 PM

slipe wrote:
Quote:

Is the free transform of 1 pixel your "microscopic shift� or are they separate? Both in the same direction?
If I "Free Transformed" all at the same pixel offset there would be no effect. You take the original for example, I don't know let's say 2400 x 3600 as the original layer. The first duplicate I would make 2399 x 3599 and the second 2401x3601 and when applying Unsharp Mask I would sharpen at 0.3 to 0.5 pixels at 240 to 300 percent to compensate for the offset. Do not Flatten the layers as that would negate the size of the file.

http://www.pressbook.com/homebook.as...&owner_id=5144

slipe Apr 17, 2007 5:18 PM

Thanks – I'm following now.

I had thought you actually offset the images. When I referred to "both" I did understand one of the three had to be fixed, but I had thought you were running some kind of vertical and/or horizontal offset with the same sized images.

It has been in the back of my mind for years that someone should come out with software to slightly offset the pixels to increase density. Never thought of your method. Great idea.


benjikan Apr 18, 2007 4:16 AM

1 Attachment(s)
slipe wrote:
Quote:

Thanks – I'm following now.

I had thought you actually offset the images. When I referred to "both� I did understand one of the three had to be fixed, but I had thought you were running some kind of vertical and/or horizontal offset with the same sized images.

It has been in the back of my mind for years that someone should come out with software to slightly offset the pixels to increase density. Never thought of your method. Great idea.

"Tanks Mann"
Just remember to sharpen after the fact and on each layer to compensate for the offset. Try between 0.3 & 0.6 pixels at from 180 to 300 percent. I don't know which sensor you are using. I normally sharpen before the retouch and you are doing so as well here. Except your doing after the import from Raw and after the layers.

Ben
http://www.pressbook.com/homebook.as...&owner_id=5144

musket Apr 22, 2007 4:26 AM

Great shots, PP is well thought out, surface texture does

seem to be greatly enhanced, (wouldlike to see the original to see by how much)

Skin pores and pitting are not usually recognized as beauty features though.

In fact they are usually brushed outin glossy glamourmagazines.

:cool:...............musket


benjikan Apr 22, 2007 5:17 AM

1 Attachment(s)
musket wrote:
Quote:

Great shots, PP is well thought out, surface texture does

seem to be greatly enhanced, (would like to see the original to see by how much)

Skin pours and pitting are not usually recognized as beauty features though.

In fact they are usually brushed out in glossy glamour magazines.

:cool: ...............musket

Actually the tendency is changing. Beauty companies are fed up with the "Air Brush" look and want to see more skin texture. It is controlled skin texture but texture none the less...

http://www.pressbook.com/homebook.as...&owner_id=5144

Peacekeeper May 11, 2007 2:37 AM

Ben

I agree, there is a difference between a totally smoothed out image and one that shows texture, but at the ame time does not show skin blemishes, if you know what I mean. a Flawless texture rather than a flawless smooth surface.

I will try your technique and see what I can create or destroy.

Crash :lol:

benjikan May 19, 2007 7:51 PM

Crashman wrote:
Quote:

Ben

I agree, there is a difference between a totally smoothed out image and one that shows texture, but at the ame time does not show skin blemishes, if you know what I mean. a Flawless texture rather than a flawless smooth surface.

I will try your technique and see what I can create or destroy.

Crash :lol:
And what did you find?
http://www.pentax.fr/_fr/photo/photo...o&photographes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:13 PM.