To Chip and the group,
From what I have read, the latest enlarging techniques in Photoshop CS,
particularly "bicubic smoother", incorporates routines that approximate the
incremental jumps.
Stan Patz NYC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.PatzImaging.com
>
> >Photoshop books and courses I've been to all suggested
> > applying many successive small increments
> > rather than large increments to the final resolution.
>
> I've read this before and can't help the immediate feeling of "it must
> be BS".
>
I thought the same thing when I read the incremental resampling thing but
as
it turns out there was both practical evidence and mathematical proof for
why this is so. I can't find the links to what I read but it's out there.
I've tried it myself and it works as advertised. The differences are not
huge but seeable if you have to upres more than 200% or so as I recall.
But
once I tested QImage I had to but it as there is basically no way to get
upresed images to look as good, try it on large prints where you are
resampling 200% or more, do not just go by what you see on the screen as
there is more to it than this.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
