irfanView

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Developwebsites, Jan 11, 2005.

  1. is a very good pic viewer.
    However, for better quality pic display I suggest:
    options->properties->viewing: use resample. slower but much better!
    The other one I use is CompuPic. Great for cropping.
    VuePro80 sucks!
    Developwebsites, Jan 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Developwebsites

    Mike Guest

    What does 'use resample' do?
    Mike, Jan 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Developwebsites

    Ben Thomas Guest

    Mike wrote:
    > What does 'use resample' do?
    >


    If you want to view a 3000x2000 image on a 1280x960 screen (shrunk to fit) you
    will get a better looking image if you have 'resample' turned on for image
    shrinking.

    --
    --
    Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

    My Digital World:
    Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
    Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
    Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
    Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

    Disclaimer:
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
    Ben Thomas, Jan 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Developwebsites

    Mike Guest

    Right..but I actually meant...what is the difference between
    resampleing and just shrink to fit? What happens to the file?
    Mike, Jan 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Developwebsites

    Owamanga Guest

    On 11 Jan 2005 12:58:34 -0800, "Mike" <> wrote:

    >Right..but I actually meant...what is the difference between
    >resampleing and just shrink to fit? What happens to the file?


    Resampling looks at groups of pixels, averages their color and chooses
    the value for the new pixel that best represents the group it is
    replacing.

    Shrink simply takes every 2nd pixel (in a 50% shrink) of every other
    line, dumping the rest. This is much faster, but for most images,
    won't give a nice result.

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga, Jan 11, 2005
    #5
  6. Developwebsites

    Matt Ion Guest

    Owamanga wrote:

    > On 11 Jan 2005 12:58:34 -0800, "Mike" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Right..but I actually meant...what is the difference between
    >>resampleing and just shrink to fit? What happens to the file?

    >
    >
    > Resampling looks at groups of pixels, averages their color and chooses
    > the value for the new pixel that best represents the group it is
    > replacing.
    >
    > Shrink simply takes every 2nd pixel (in a 50% shrink) of every other
    > line, dumping the rest. This is much faster, but for most images,
    > won't give a nice result.


    Which of course, ONLY affects the live view anyway and doesn't alter the
    orginal image. Doing a RESIZE on the image gives the option of different
    resampling algorithms.
    Matt Ion, Jan 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Developwebsites

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Mike wrote:
    > Right..but I actually meant...what is the difference between
    > resampleing and just shrink to fit? What happens to the file?
    >

    Nothing, this is for display.
    Ron Hunter, Jan 11, 2005
    #7
  8. Developwebsites

    Mike Guest

    Thanks for the explanation.
    Mike, Jan 11, 2005
    #8
  9. "Developwebsites" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > is a very good pic viewer.
    > However, for better quality pic display I suggest:
    > options->properties->viewing: use resample. slower but much better!
    > The other one I use is CompuPic. Great for cropping.
    > VuePro80 sucks!\


    I use irfanview for full-screen browsing and sorting, using the F7 and F8
    keys. Also I press Shift+E to open the image in Photoshop, take advantage of
    the EXIF plugin and sometimes the slideshows and thumbnails (though I wish
    there was a way to cache the thumbnails).
    Dave R knows who, Jan 11, 2005
    #9
  10. Developwebsites

    secheese Guest

    On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:38:05 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    wrote:

    >Doing a RESIZE on the image gives the option of different
    >resampling algorithms.


    And which of these is best?
    secheese, Jan 12, 2005
    #10
  11. >>>>> The other one I use is CompuPic. Great for cropping.

    I can't believe how little mention CompuPic gets (compared to ACDSee,
    ThumbsPlus, et. al.). I've had it for years, and have since downloaded
    trials of other things including ACDSee 7.0, and picked up other album
    managers gratis, but keep using Compupic because it is so incredibly fast
    and easy to the point of being superior to anything else--unfortunately for
    them, the version I bought several years ago is so efficient that I feel no
    need to upgrade; there is one major glitch in that the thumbnail database
    gets corrupted eventually, so you just erase the database file (def.phd) and
    start fresh.

    For photo editing of thousands of files (batch levels adjustment being the
    biggie--batch adjustment of contrast and exposure is there too--other edits
    and terrific clean-up tasks being super easy and just brilliant) I just got
    Microsoft Digital Image Pro 10. There were clean-up features I loved in
    Picture it 99 (but were time-consuming) that became a lot more awkward in
    Picture It 2001--but which are present in spades in Digital Image Pro and
    are quicker (though I do have more RAM) and much more dynamic--this is a
    GREAT and SUPER EASY program. If you don't want to learn Photoshop (and I
    don't; I prefer to work with hundreds of photos quickly than to spend half
    an hour on each one), this is FINALLY something immediately usable with
    phenomenal tools for everyday photographers--and the automated batch
    processing functions look GREAT straight out of the box--I have other batch
    'correction' utilities from other programs (like Roxio or even the fixes
    that come with my Nikon LS-5000 scanner software) that have been HIDEOUS and
    I gave up on them immediately--these MS Digital Image Pro batch fixes are
    BOFFO.

    End of rant. Delighted with my CompuPic and MS Dig Image Pro 10 combination
    (I don't use the MS album function--Compupic still reigns supreme).
    Douglas W. Hoyt, Jan 12, 2005
    #11
  12. Developwebsites

    Ron Hunter Guest

    secheese wrote:
    > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:38:05 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Doing a RESIZE on the image gives the option of different
    >>resampling algorithms.

    >
    >
    > And which of these is best?
    >


    That depends on whether you need speed, or quality. For a quick look at
    a larger image, the best is the fastest. Mine is always set for the
    better quality image, as I am seldom in a hurry.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Jan 12, 2005
    #12
  13. Developwebsites

    secheese Guest

    On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:50:19 -0600, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    >secheese wrote:
    >> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:38:05 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Doing a RESIZE on the image gives the option of different
    >>>resampling algorithms.

    >>
    >>
    >> And which of these is best?
    >>

    >
    >That depends on whether you need speed, or quality. For a quick look at
    >a larger image, the best is the fastest. Mine is always set for the
    >better quality image, as I am seldom in a hurry.


    Okay, let me be clear. I want quality, not speed. Now... which is
    the best algorithm? Any idea?
    secheese, Jan 13, 2005
    #13
  14. Developwebsites

    Tom Monego Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    >On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:38:05 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Doing a RESIZE on the image gives the option of different
    >>resampling algorithms.

    >
    >And which of these is best?
    >

    The Lanczos algorithm in Irfanview is very good for resampling adjustments. The
    best?? Bicubic, Step, or Genuine Fractals, all can do a good job.

    Tom
    Tom Monego, Jan 13, 2005
    #14
  15. Developwebsites

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    secheese <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Doing a RESIZE on the image gives the option of different
    >>>>resampling algorithms.
    >>>
    >>> And which of these is best?

    >>
    >>That depends on whether you need speed, or quality. For a quick look at
    >>a larger image, the best is the fastest. Mine is always set for the
    >>better quality image, as I am seldom in a hurry.

    >
    > Okay, let me be clear. I want quality, not speed. Now... which is
    > the best algorithm? Any idea?


    It depends on image content, but Lanczos works well for upsampling and
    downsampling, and works as well as anything for both diagrams and photos.

    Photoshop's Bicubic Smoother might be better for upsampling, and its
    Bicubic Sharper for downsampling, especially when changing aspect ratio
    of photographs. Mitchell works well for downsampling diagrams.
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 13, 2005
    #15
  16. Developwebsites

    Jürgen Eidt Guest

    "Tom Monego" <> schrieb
    > The Lanczos algorithm in Irfanview is very good for resampling
    > adjustments. The
    > best?? Bicubic, Step, or Genuine Fractals, all can do a good job.


    Yes, Lanczos is very good.
    The optimal filter would be a sinc function, but the filter would need to
    have an infinite length.
    So some variation based on the sinc function is used: Lanczos.
    The other filters have other advantages like being faster. Lanczos is
    expensive in that sense and therefore its an option to choose.

    --
    Regards
    Jürgen
    http://cpicture.de/en
    Jürgen Eidt, Jan 13, 2005
    #16
  17. Developwebsites

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Bill Tuthill <> wrote:

    >It depends on image content, but Lanczos works well for upsampling and
    >downsampling, and works as well as anything for both diagrams and photos.


    Not in my experience; Lanczos is worthless for diagrams, as it causes
    ringing at high-contrast edges. Lanczos is best used for images with
    limited pixel-to-pixel contrast.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jan 13, 2005
    #17
  18. Developwebsites

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > In message <>,
    > Bill Tuthill <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It depends on image content, but Lanczos works well for upsampling and
    >>downsampling, and works as well as anything for both diagrams and photos.

    >
    >
    > Not in my experience; Lanczos is worthless for diagrams, as it causes
    > ringing at high-contrast edges. Lanczos is best used for images with
    > limited pixel-to-pixel contrast.


    And while we are on the subject, .jpg compression is a bad choice for
    diagrams, and/or text.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Jan 13, 2005
    #18
  19. Developwebsites

    Guest

    In message <tAwFd.2921$>,
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    >And while we are on the subject, .jpg compression is a bad choice for
    >diagrams, and/or text.


    Not only does it look bad, but it may actually create larger file than a
    GIF or PNG might be, which have no loss at all.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jan 13, 2005
    #19
  20. Developwebsites

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    wrote:
    >
    >> It depends on image content, but Lanczos works well for upsampling and
    >> downsampling, and works as well as anything for both diagrams and photos.

    >
    > Not in my experience; Lanczos is worthless for diagrams, as it causes
    > ringing at high-contrast edges. Lanczos is best used for images with
    > limited pixel-to-pixel contrast.


    In this test of various ImageMagick filters, which I believe are similar
    or the same algorithms as used by Irfanview,

    http://www.dylanbeattie.net/magick/filters/result.html

    Lanczos is totally competitive used on image3 with pre-blur radius 1.
    The only one that's possibly better is Sinc. Mitchell and Catrom are
    almost as good.

    With diagram-like image1, the Lanczos downsample (pre-blur radius 1)
    is clearly the best, being smoother than Sinc without losing detail,
    although without pre-blur Mitchell is better.

    I stand by my previous post, unless you offer proof to the contrary.
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 13, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Raine

    Re - Mike / Re - Irfanview

    Raine, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    90
    Views:
    1,971
    °Mike°
    Sep 1, 2003
  2. GrailKing@oops!.Not.The.Realm.net

    How do you get copyright symbol in a picture using Irfanview?

    GrailKing@oops!.Not.The.Realm.net, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,115
    The Old Sourdough
    Sep 3, 2003
  3. Boomer..

    Attn: New version IrfanView FYI :)

    Boomer.., Sep 3, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    626
    Boomer
    Sep 4, 2003
  4. Dark Angel

    Irfanview

    Dark Angel, Sep 26, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    573
    trout
    Sep 26, 2003
  5. Moody Marco

    IrfanView

    Moody Marco, Apr 23, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,177
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Apr 25, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page