Most Intelligent Interpolation Software

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by T. Parker, Apr 3, 2009.

  1. T. Parker

    T. Parker Guest

    Hi,

    What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
    and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
    you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
    old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
    resolution. Of course we can't extract more details
    than the original but the software eliminating all the
    jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
    of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
    I need at will.

    Parker
    T. Parker, Apr 3, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. T. Parker <> wrote:
    > Hi,


    > What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
    > and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
    > you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
    > old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
    > resolution. Of course we can't extract more details
    > than the original but the software eliminating all the
    > jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
    > of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
    > I need at will.


    I'm not sure what you mean by "come alive". As far as good upsampling
    of size with good intelligent interpolation is concerned, I don't know
    what is considered the best, and there may well be debate about that,
    but Irfanview is often considered to be among the best, and a lot
    better than Photoshop. Note that it provides you with a list of many
    different upsampling algorithms which you can use, and which is the
    best may vary with the particular photograph. This is a particular
    concern of Irfan's, and the list gets updated as good new algorithms
    are published, so make sure you're using a current version.

    If this is an ongoing serious concern of yours you should probably
    stop thinking in terms of programs and study the discussions and
    comparative reviews of the different algorithms, and then find out
    which programs feature those you prefer.

    If the original already has jagged edges due to oversharpening etc.,
    then you may need to do something about that first before trying to
    upsample it, because software can't tell the difference between real
    image detail and artefacts.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 3, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. T. Parker

    Don Stauffer Guest

    T. Parker wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
    > and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
    > you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
    > old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
    > resolution. Of course we can't extract more details
    > than the original but the software eliminating all the
    > jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
    > of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
    > I need at will.
    >
    > Parker
    >


    I don't know if it still does, but several versions ago Paint Shop Pro
    used to let you add your own algorithm. I never tried this, so I don't
    know how easy it was. Again, I do not know if the latest version allows
    this, but I know it it gives you a choice of two or three canned ones.
    Don Stauffer, Apr 3, 2009
    #3
  4. T. Parker schrieb:
    > Hi,
    >
    > What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
    > and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
    > you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
    > old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
    > resolution.


    You're not serious, are you?

    > Of course we can't extract more details
    > than the original but the software eliminating all the
    > jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
    > of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
    > I need at will.
    >

    This can be done by almost any scaling algorithm. You migh want to take
    a look at GreyCstoration.
    Demo under: http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycstoration/demonstration.shtml
    Go to the bottom of the page. Maybe this is what you want.

    kruemi

    --
    Agfa isolette, EOS 40D
    http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
    And a cool timekiller: http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708
    Marco Tedaldi, Apr 4, 2009
    #4
  5. T. Parker

    T. Parker Guest

    On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <>
    wrote:
    > T. Parker schrieb:
    >
    > > Hi,

    >
    > > What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
    > > and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
    > > you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
    > > old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
    > > resolution.

    >
    > You're not serious, are you?
    >
    > > Of course we can't extract more details
    > > than the original but the software eliminating all the
    > > jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
    > > of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
    > > I need at will.

    >
    > This can be done by almost any scaling algorithm. You migh want to take
    > a look at GreyCstoration.
    > Demo under:http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycstoration/demonstration.shtml
    > Go to the bottom of the page. Maybe this is what you want.
    >
    > kruemi
    >
    > --
    > Agfa isolette, EOS 40Dhttp://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
    > And a cool timekiller:http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708


    I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
    like the image processor to make the text
    darker turning it into 300 dpi. This is possible
    because in texts and fonts, the letters have
    absolute contrasts against the background.
    Any idea what program I need? Also what
    other newsgroup that specifically attend to
    image editing besides this which seems to
    be photo related only. Thanks

    Parker
    T. Parker, Apr 4, 2009
    #5
  6. "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    >On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <>
    >I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
    >like the image processor to make the text
    >darker turning it into 300 dpi.


    That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
    density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
    produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
    And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
    driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
    5000DPI nowadays.

    Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
    a JPEG.

    jue
    Jürgen Exner, Apr 4, 2009
    #6
  7. T. Parker

    T. Parker Guest

    On Apr 4, 8:41 pm, Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    > "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    > >On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <>
    > >I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
    > >like the image processor to make the text
    > >darker turning it into 300 dpi.

    >
    > That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
    > density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
    > produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
    > And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
    > driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
    > 5000DPI nowadays.
    >
    > Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
    > a JPEG.
    >
    > jue


    Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
    letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
    from google books. When printing on a
    8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
    72. If I can find a program that can make
    the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
    then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
    Get the idea?

    Parker
    T. Parker, Apr 4, 2009
    #7
  8. T. Parker

    Bob Larter Guest

    T. Parker wrote:
    > On Apr 4, 8:41 pm, Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    >> "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    >>> On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <>
    >>> I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
    >>> like the image processor to make the text
    >>> darker turning it into 300 dpi.

    >> That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
    >> density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
    >> produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
    >> And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
    >> driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
    >> 5000DPI nowadays.
    >>
    >> Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
    >> a JPEG.
    >>
    >> jue

    >
    > Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
    > letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
    > from google books. When printing on a
    > 8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
    > 72. If I can find a program that can make
    > the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
    > then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
    > Get the idea?


    What you're saying makes no sense. Changing the density of the text will
    make no difference whatever to the DPI of the image.


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Apr 4, 2009
    #8
  9. T. Parker

    T. Parker Guest

    On Apr 4, 10:46 pm, Bob Larter <> wrote:
    > T. Parker wrote:
    > > On Apr 4, 8:41 pm, Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    > >> "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    > >>> On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <>
    > >>> I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
    > >>> like the image processor to make the text
    > >>> darker turning it into 300 dpi.
    > >> That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
    > >> density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
    > >> produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
    > >> And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
    > >> driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
    > >> 5000DPI nowadays.

    >
    > >> Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
    > >> a JPEG.

    >
    > >> jue

    >
    > > Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
    > > letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
    > > from google books. When printing on a
    > > 8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
    > > 72. If I can find a program that can make
    > > the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
    > > then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
    > > Get the idea?

    >
    > What you're saying makes no sense. Changing the density of the text will
    >   make no difference whatever to the DPI of the image.
    >
    > --
    >     W
    >   . | ,. w ,   "Some people are alive only because
    >    \|/  \|/     it is illegal to kill them."    Perna condita delenda est
    > ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
    You print it at 300 dpi.

    Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
    72 dpi.

    However, if you scan a book at 72 dpi, and you
    can image process the text or fonts to make it
    increase in density. Then it's like upgrading
    the image to become 300 dpi equivalently
    speaking. This won't work in photos because
    you can't add information that is not there,
    but in texts or fonts, you can add information
    by giving more density to it. Then the final
    print of it would match the one scanned at
    300 dpi (because after you get the 72 dpi
    book image, you add information to the
    texts or fonts making it look like you scanned
    it at 300 dpi).

    Of course, one can just scan it at 300 dpi
    in the first place, but in the google books
    where the final image is only 72 dpi, you
    can add post image processing to improve
    the quality and density of the texts or fonts
    to make it equal to a 300 dpi scanned image
    (sorta).

    Parker
    T. Parker, Apr 4, 2009
    #9
  10. T. Parker wrote:
    > On Apr 4, 10:46 pm, Bob Larter <> wrote:
    >> T. Parker wrote:
    >>> On Apr 4, 8:41 pm, Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    >>>> "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <>
    >>>>> I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
    >>>>> like the image processor to make the text
    >>>>> darker turning it into 300 dpi.
    >>>> That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
    >>>> density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
    >>>> produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
    >>>> And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
    >>>> driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
    >>>> 5000DPI nowadays.
    >>>> Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
    >>>> a JPEG.
    >>>> jue
    >>> Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
    >>> letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
    >>> from google books. When printing on a
    >>> 8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
    >>> 72. If I can find a program that can make
    >>> the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
    >>> then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
    >>> Get the idea?

    >> What you're saying makes no sense. Changing the density of the text will
    >> make no difference whatever to the DPI of the image.
    >>
    >> --
    >> W
    >> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    >> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    >> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
    > You print it at 300 dpi.
    >
    > Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
    > 72 dpi.
    >
    > However, if you scan a book at 72 dpi, and you
    > can image process the text or fonts to make it
    > increase in density. Then it's like upgrading
    > the image to become 300 dpi equivalently
    > speaking. This won't work in photos because
    > you can't add information that is not there,
    > but in texts or fonts, you can add information
    > by giving more density to it. Then the final
    > print of it would match the one scanned at
    > 300 dpi (because after you get the 72 dpi
    > book image, you add information to the
    > texts or fonts making it look like you scanned
    > it at 300 dpi).
    >
    > Of course, one can just scan it at 300 dpi
    > in the first place, but in the google books
    > where the final image is only 72 dpi, you
    > can add post image processing to improve
    > the quality and density of the texts or fonts
    > to make it equal to a 300 dpi scanned image


    You really need to grok the diff. between pixels and dots.

    You scan at a dot rate, and 72-300 are extremely low. What you end up
    with is something in pixels, with 300 ppi being high quality if the
    underlying input is also HQ. When you send to a printer, the driver
    thereof converts the ppi info into how many dpi's to lay down. Again,
    300 dpi is a low res. print, regardless of the quality of the input.

    But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Apr 4, 2009
    #10
  11. "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    >It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
    >You print it at 300 dpi.


    So you are printing on an older inkjet printer, fine. Modern printers
    have a significant higher resolution.

    >Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
    >72 dpi.


    Are you printing on an ancient dot matrix printer? Those had about
    72DPI. If you are not printing on one of those, then you are not
    printing at 72DPI.

    jue
    Jürgen Exner, Apr 4, 2009
    #11
  12. Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    >"T. Parker" <> wrote:
    >>It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
    >>You print it at 300 dpi.

    >
    >So you are printing on an older inkjet printer, fine. Modern printers
    >have a significant higher resolution.
    >
    >>Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
    >>72 dpi.

    >
    >Are you printing on an ancient dot matrix printer? Those had about
    >72DPI. If you are not printing on one of those, then you are not
    >printing at 72DPI.


    PS: you really, really should read
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch#DPI_or_PPI_in_digital_image_files

    jue
    Jürgen Exner, Apr 4, 2009
    #12
  13. T. Parker

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:04:25 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"T. Parker" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
    >> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
    >> you have encountered or heard of?

    >
    >It's interesting that I'm not hearing this question more often. I suppose
    >that in this age of 12, 15, and 21MP cameras, there's not that much use for
    >it any more.
    >
    >Qimage offers a lot of different algorithms and seems to get a lot of
    >respect. But it's only for making prints, it doesn't give you the files to
    >play with (in normal use, anyway). And it's Windows only.
    >
    >Genuie Fractals is the "usual suspect". I was never impressed, but lots of
    >people were.
    >
    >Here, I find Photoshop perfectly adequate, but I'm usually downsampling, not
    >upsampling.


    Downsampling requires interpolation also if you're not going by
    factors of 2. Rotate requires interpolation if you're not going by
    multiples of 90 degrees.

    Programs that can use sinc/lanczos interpolation will give the best
    results. The ones I use that use it are GIMP and XnView. I'm sure
    there's others.

    >> One that can make
    >> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
    >> resolution.

    >
    >More than a tad unreasonable, that...


    Any can do that if you're standing far enough away.

    Steve
    TheRealSteve, Apr 4, 2009
    #13
  14. T. Parker

    T. Parker Guest

    On Apr 4, 11:13 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    > T. Parker wrote:
    > > On Apr 4, 10:46 pm, Bob Larter <> wrote:
    > >> T. Parker wrote:
    > >>> On Apr 4, 8:41 pm, Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    > >>>> "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    > >>>>> On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <>
    > >>>>> I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
    > >>>>> like the image processor to make the text
    > >>>>> darker turning it into 300 dpi.
    > >>>> That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
    > >>>> density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
    > >>>> produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
    > >>>> And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
    > >>>> driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
    > >>>> 5000DPI nowadays.
    > >>>> Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
    > >>>> a JPEG.
    > >>>> jue
    > >>> Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
    > >>> letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
    > >>> from google books. When printing on a
    > >>> 8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
    > >>> 72. If I can find a program that can make
    > >>> the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
    > >>> then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
    > >>> Get the idea?
    > >> What you're saying makes no sense. Changing the density of the text will
    > >>   make no difference whatever to the DPI of the image.

    >
    > >> --
    > >>     W
    > >>   . | ,. w ,   "Some people are alive only because
    > >>    \|/  \|/     it is illegal to kill them."    Perna condita delenda est
    > >> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > > It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
    > > You print it at 300 dpi.

    >
    > > Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
    > > 72 dpi.

    >
    > > However, if you scan a book at 72 dpi, and you
    > > can image process the text or fonts to make it
    > > increase in density. Then it's like upgrading
    > > the image to become 300 dpi equivalently
    > > speaking. This won't work in photos because
    > > you can't add information that is not there,
    > > but in texts or fonts, you can add information
    > > by giving more density to it. Then the final
    > > print of it would match the one scanned at
    > > 300 dpi (because after you get the 72 dpi
    > > book image, you add information to the
    > > texts or fonts making it look like you scanned
    > > it at 300 dpi).

    >
    > > Of course, one can just scan it at 300 dpi
    > > in the first place, but in the google books
    > > where the final image is only 72 dpi, you
    > > can add post image processing to improve
    > > the quality and density of the texts or fonts
    > > to make it equal to a 300 dpi scanned image

    >
    > You really need to grok the diff. between pixels and dots.
    >
    > You scan at a dot rate, and 72-300 are extremely low. What you end up
    > with is something in pixels, with 300 ppi being high quality if the
    > underlying input is also HQ. When you send to a printer, the driver
    > thereof converts the ppi info into how many dpi's to lay down. Again,
    > 300 dpi is a low res. print, regardless of the quality of the input.
    >
    > But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.
    >


    Well. Google books use text in jpegs. There are
    millions of pages of them.. jpegs of text. This
    is because they got their books from scanning
    them with scanners. See www.books.google.com



    > --
    > john mcwilliams- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -
    T. Parker, Apr 5, 2009
    #14
  15. T. Parker

    T. Parker Guest

    On Apr 5, 1:31 am, TheRealSteve <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:04:25 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >"T. Parker" <> wrote:

    >
    > >> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
    > >> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
    > >> you have encountered or heard of?

    >
    > >It's interesting that I'm not hearing this question more often. I suppose
    > >that in this age of 12, 15, and 21MP cameras, there's not that much use for
    > >it any more.

    >
    > >Qimage offers a lot of different algorithms and seems to get a lot of
    > >respect. But it's only for making prints, it doesn't give you the files to
    > >play with (in normal use, anyway). And it's Windows only.

    >
    > >Genuie Fractals is the "usual suspect". I was never impressed, but lots of
    > >people were.

    >
    > >Here, I find Photoshop perfectly adequate, but I'm usually downsampling, not
    > >upsampling.

    >
    > Downsampling requires interpolation also if you're not going by
    > factors of 2.  Rotate requires interpolation if you're not going by
    > multiples of 90 degrees.
    >
    > Programs that can use sinc/lanczos interpolation will give the best
    > results.  The ones I use that use it are GIMP and XnView.  I'm sure
    > there's others.
    >


    I downloaded and tried GIMP and XnView
    as you mentioned. But Lanczos can only
    be used during image resizing. In IrFanview,
    Lanczos is engaged everytime you press
    Zoom. So IrFanview, if there is none else
    like is, is the best in zooming software
    that automatically use Lanczos.

    Parker

    > >> One that can make
    > >> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
    > >> resolution.

    >
    > >More than a tad unreasonable, that...

    >
    > Any can do that if you're standing far enough away.
    >
    > Steve- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -
    T. Parker, Apr 5, 2009
    #15
  16. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    >>> But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.

    >
    > Well, JPEGs of text for *printing* is stupid...
    >
    >> Well. Google books use text in jpegs. There are
    >> millions of pages of them.. jpegs of text. This
    >> is because they got their books from scanning
    >> them with scanners. See www.books.google.com

    >
    > Scanners do not directly produce JPEG images. They
    > almost all produce TIFF (or something similar), which
    > can then be converted to JPEG. No doubt Google converts
    > to JPEG because the intention is to provide a readable
    > copy, but not necessarily a copy that can be printed.
    > Note that JPEG also creates the smallest file size for a
    > readable copy, so it best accomplishes Google's goal at
    > minimum cost.


    I'm rather sure Google uses this method to prevent HQ copies of either
    print or electronic use, don't you?
    As for readable at minimum cost, you can't beat text in HTML or other
    formats that scale. Smaller, too. So, Google has clearly got additional
    goals than cost and readability.

    Mr. Parker: What is your ultimate goal here??

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Apr 5, 2009
    #16
  17. T. Parker

    T. Parker Guest

    On Apr 5, 7:28 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    > "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    > >> But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page..

    >
    > Well, JPEGs of text for *printing* is stupid...
    >
    > >Well. Google books use text in jpegs. There are
    > >millions of pages of them.. jpegs of text. This
    > >is because they got their books from scanning
    > >them with scanners. Seewww.books.google.com

    >
    > Scanners do not directly produce JPEG images.  They
    > almost all produce TIFF (or something similar), which
    > can then be converted to JPEG.  No doubt Google converts
    > to JPEG because the intention is to provide a readable
    > copy, but not necessarily a copy that can be printed.
    > Note that JPEG also creates the smallest file size for a
    > readable copy, so it best accomplishes Google's goal at
    > minimum cost.
    >


    So is there a program or software that can
    increase the density of the characters or
    alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
    characters deeper and blacker and print
    at much better quality? What functions in
    software are available that is close to that
    goal?

    parker

    > --
    > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              
    T. Parker, Apr 5, 2009
    #17
  18. "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    >So is there a program or software that can
    >increase the density of the characters or
    >alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
    >characters deeper and blacker


    Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
    contrast. That should do it.

    >and print at much better quality?


    That is a different question, and no, I don't have an answer.

    jue
    Jürgen Exner, Apr 5, 2009
    #18
  19. T. Parker

    T. Parker Guest

    On Apr 6, 6:50 am, Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    > "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    > >So is there a program or software that can
    > >increase the density of the characters or
    > >alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
    > >characters deeper and blacker

    >
    > Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
    > contrast. That should do it.


    Is increasing the contrast the same as sharpening
    it? There is a sharpen button and the printing indeed
    improve :) I can't find the contrast button.

    Parker



    >
    > >and print at much better quality?

    >
    > That is a different question, and no, I don't have an answer.
    >
    > jue
    T. Parker, Apr 6, 2009
    #19
  20. T. Parker

    T. Parker Guest

    On Apr 6, 6:50 am, Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    > "T. Parker" <> wrote:
    > >So is there a program or software that can
    > >increase the density of the characters or
    > >alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
    > >characters deeper and blacker

    >
    > Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
    > contrast. That should do it.
    >


    I found out that in sharpening it, white boundary
    lines are added to the black image to make it
    more distinct but how do you actually make
    the black part more black and not just putting
    a white line around it??

    Parker



    > >and print at much better quality?

    >
    > That is a different question, and no, I don't have an answer.
    >
    > jue
    T. Parker, Apr 6, 2009
    #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. phobos

    Re: Interpolation on a lowres camera

    phobos, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    452
    John H. Guillory
    Jul 29, 2003
  2. John Wilson

    Interpolation / Resizing / Quality

    John Wilson, Sep 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    301
    Jim Townsend
    Sep 30, 2003
  3. Click

    Use camera interpolation for C-750

    Click, Oct 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    416
  4. Brute Force
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    595
    Hans-Georg Michna
    Feb 13, 2004
  5. Waylon Kenning
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    515
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Nov 24, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page