Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done since. I am not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic formulation as much as they made its implementation more sophisticated by furnishing two subtle variations on the basic formulation. As in the past, it is debatable if there is or is not a need to employ 3rd party solutions like GF. In the end, it all boils down to standards and tastes ultimately if Bicubic methods cut it ot not and if the 3rd party solutions are improvements over the Bicubic methods. I only mentioned the cited example as evidence that the GF limits do not stop at upsamplings of lower than 4 or 5 X.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Verkaik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:15 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals????? From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have even seen comparisions of sections of 35mm images blown up to billboard size by GF and Photoshop where GF has come out ahead in terms of lower numbers of artifacts and averaging errors. >> Just to clarify, though... this refers to pre-CS versions of PS right? I understood that PSCS had significant improvements doing down- and upsizing and effectively removed the need for a 3rd party solution like GF. Ed Verkaik ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
