Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > genuine fractals

Reply
Thread Tools

genuine fractals

 
 
David Ruether
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009

"David Ruether" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hgu0kc$dru$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "UC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...


>> anyone here own it?
>>
>> I have a smallish file that I have to use large in a calendar. It has
>> obvious pixellation. Is anyone willing to help me process this into a
>> larger size?
>>
>> Thanks


> Ah, that brings back memories - I used to enjoy playing with it.
> If you had the original program and knew the parameters you
> had fed into it, it may be possible to generate a new similar image
> with a higher resolution - but, sorry, I can't help...
> --DR


Ah, sorry, I was thinking of a different program, although I
do own Genuine Fractals also (wanna buy it? . I've been
able to get decent horizontals for DVD covers from SD
video frames, but for anything larger than about 1.5x (with
compatible image material), the results are not great - and
your photo does not look like it would work well trying
to do anything with this program... You may be able to get
around this by having a graphic artist turn the image into an
illustration based on the photo (which would also likely
result in a "prettier" image for the calendar...).
--DR


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
J. Clarke <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>John McWilliams wrote:
>> UC wrote:


>>> It's 600 x 450 pixels, 72 pixels/inch resolution. I have Photoshop
>>> 5.0 LE, and have enlarged the image using that program, judiciously
>>> applying sharpening etc. It still looks like crap. I need to use it
>>> in a calendar at about 30-40% bigger than its actual size. I'm sure
>>> you see the problem. I need to use it at 9 x 5.23 when it should be
>>> used at about 6 x 3.5.

>>
>> A 6" x 3.5" print from the above pixels will itself look like crap,
>> never mind at a larger size. You really need to retake or substitute
>> something else.

>
>Or hire an illustrator to do a photorealistic rendering based on the photo.
>This will probably cost more than just reshooting if the subject is still
>accessible.


That's probably the best idea yet. A decent arist with the photo and
Adobe Illustrator could produce something that would look far better
than the photo magnified far more than is sensible.

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:32:21 -0800, UC wrote:

> anyone here own it?
>
> I have a smallish file that I have to use large in a calendar. It has
> obvious pixellation. Is anyone willing to help me process this into a
> larger size?
>
> Thanks


Have you tried using a photo editor to do an 'artistic effect' - like
'clothify' or 'impressionist' or 'cartoon' - lots of possibilities
several of which will likely end up looking a lot better than what you're
trying to accomplish.
 
Reply With Quote
 
NameHere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2009
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:47:45 -0800 (PST), UC <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Dec 24, 3:09 am, Bob Williams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> UC wrote:
>> > anyone here own it?

>>
>> > I have a smallish file that I have to use large in a calendar. It has
>> > obvious pixellation. Is anyone willing to help me process this into a
>> > larger size?

>>
>> > Thanks

>>
>> How big is your original? (X pixels x Y pixels)
>> How big do you want the Calendar image to be? (X inches x Y inches)
>> Do you have Photoshop? Any other image editor?
>> Bob Williams

>
>Here it is:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/45947372@N08/4210457549/


Here's using that even smaller 500x375 version posted at flickr. Better
results could be obtained with the slightly larger original.

Yours

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/...b4014207ec.jpg

Upsampled to 1800x1350 for 300dpi printing. A 360% enlargement.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2679/...83284354_b.jpg

(flickr again downsizing it to 1024x76

However, for a calendar you could easily get away with 150dpi, upsampling
to only 900x675 pixel dimensions.

Upsample to 6"x4.5" at 300 dpi using B-Spline algorithm. Not S-Spline this
time, B-Spline was better for this type of subject, when knowing I was
going to again later use a Fourier Transform tool on it. No unsharp-mask
sharpening. Then applying the Fourier Transform in 3 steps.

4 pixel dia. at 75%
2 pixel dia. at 75%
2 pixel dia. at 75%

(Those are not cut 'n dried rules for transform steps, it's just what
seemed to work okay with so little time and effort devoted to this)

Compare the images side-by-side of the workers at the edge of the bridge to
see what kind of plausible results can be munged out of so few pixels.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2696/...30234f5e_o.jpg

Half-tone printing in most magazines and calendars, at that image size, has
far less detail than this does. Besides, you say it's for a company
calendar. Most of those will be used for dart-board practice by any
employees or thrown in the trash or used to light their fireplaces when
they get it home. Make sure you credit the photo with original pixel
dimensions to get yourself off-the-hook, should anyone whine about the
image quality.

I wouldn't suggest using this one I that uploaded, as it was done with your
even-lower-resolution image from flickr and I used a high JPG compression
on it so as to not waste bandwidth. Not to mention that flickr downsized it
and JPG compressed again.

Use the above method and try it yourself with your own tools. I have no
intentions of offering further help than this. Unless you give me ten times
that portion of your hourly paycheck or salary for the time you would have,
and already have, spent doing this yourself.

 
Reply With Quote
 
UC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2009
On Dec 24, 11:16 am, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 3:09 am, Bob Williams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> UC wrote:
> >>> anyone here own it?
> >>> I have a smallish file that I have to use large in a calendar. It has
> >>> obvious pixellation. Is anyone willing to help me process this into a
> >>> larger size?
> >>> Thanks
> >> How big is your original? (X pixels x Y pixels)
> >> How big do you want the Calendar image to be? (X inches x Y inches)
> >> Do you have Photoshop? Any other image editor?
> >> Bob Williams

>
> > It's 600 x 450 pixels, 72 pixels/inch resolution. I have Photoshop 5.0
> > LE, and have enlarged the image using that program, judiciously
> > applying sharpening etc. It still looks like crap. I need to use it in
> > a calendar at about 30-40% bigger than its actual size. I'm sure you
> > see the problem. I need to use it at 9 x 5.23 when it should be used
> > at about 6 x 3.5.

>
> A 6" x 3.5" print from the above pixels will itself look like crap,
> never mind at a larger size. You really need to retake or substitute
> something else.
>
> --
> john mcwilliams


Impossible. Was taken by county engineer during construction of a
bridge several years ago.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2009
UC wrote:
> On Dec 24, 11:16 am, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> UC wrote:
>>> On Dec 24, 3:09 am, Bob Williams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> It's 600 x 450 pixels, 72 pixels/inch resolution. I have Photoshop 5.0
>>> LE, and have enlarged the image using that program, judiciously
>>> applying sharpening etc. It still looks like crap. I need to use it in
>>> a calendar at about 30-40% bigger than its actual size. I'm sure you
>>> see the problem. I need to use it at 9 x 5.23 when it should be used
>>> at about 6 x 3.5.

>> A 6" x 3.5" print from the above pixels will itself look like crap,
>> never mind at a larger size. You really need to retake or substitute
>> something else.


> Impossible. Was taken by county engineer during construction of a
> bridge several years ago.


I understand that now. So, either substitute something else, or your
next best bet was suggested by John Clark.

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2009
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:32:21 -0800 (PST), UC
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>anyone here own it?
>
>I have a smallish file that I have to use large in a calendar. It has
>obvious pixellation. Is anyone willing to help me process this into a
>larger size?


In stead of GF you might give the demo version of Qimage a try. It
contains some of the best upsampling algorithms. But given the size of
the original you stated elsewhere, it sounds like you are asking for a
miracle.
 
Reply With Quote
 
UC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2009
On Dec 31, 1:31 pm, me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:32:21 -0800 (PST), UC
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >anyone here own it?

>
> >I have a smallish file that I have to use large in a calendar. It has
> >obvious pixellation. Is anyone willing to help me process this into a
> >larger size?

>
> In stead of GF you might give the demo version of Qimage a try. It
> contains some of the best upsampling algorithms. But given the size of
> the original you stated elsewhere, it sounds like you are asking for a
> miracle.


Yeah, I need a miracle. LOL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Upscaling Programs - Qimage, Genuine Fractals, pxl SmartScale Hans-Georg Michna Digital Photography 16 10-26-2003 05:43 PM
16x20 prints from 10D, Genuine Fractals? Lisa Horton Digital Photography 5 09-04-2003 06:43 PM
Re: Genuine fractals trial JPS@no.komm Digital Photography 4 08-01-2003 11:38 PM
Genuine Fractals questions Click Digital Photography 2 07-27-2003 03:20 AM
genuine fractals ser no req'd thanks speedburn Digital Photography 3 07-25-2003 05:14 PM



Advertisments