I've seen Fred's plug-in plug. I think he's one of only a few who still consider stepping to be a good method. For normal upsizing a straight Bicubic Smoother interpolation compares very favorably to a fractals job as well. Fractals is at its best when you have to go extremely large. The art directors I work with specify it when interpolating an MF shot for a 50-foot billboard. That's where it shines. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Perhaps you should tell that to Fred Miranda, who sells a Photoshop > plugin. to do Stepwise, (or as he puts it stair), interpolation, and > seems to be well respected for his results. He even supplies samples to > compare results between his SI method and Genuine Fractals. I'm not > sure where Greywolf is coming from. By my quick mental calculation > using a 300 DPI as a standard then Dave is looking at more of a 3-4x > linear increase in size which implies that some care should be taken. I > usually settle for 250 dpi for my prints but this is for presentation... > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Exactly. And upsizing in steps has been shown to be destructive. Every > interpolation introduces some error. You only multiply the problems by > stepping. > > Paul > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > > From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> The point everyone seems to be missing is that this is only a 2x upsize at > the > >> most. No need for a lot of exotic stuff. And I have not noticed that GF or > >> Stepping does all that much better than Bicubic Smoother. Converting from > >> RAW > is > >> a bit better, but not miraculously so. While I do not print 16x20's I do > often > >> crop that much. This is not rocket science, for crying out loud. > >> > >> graywolf > >> http://www.graywolfphoto.com > >> http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > >> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > >> ----------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> P. J. Alling wrote: > >> > >>> I think it would depend on three things. 1.) Subject matter, a very > >>> detailed photo will loose a lot upresed that much, while a less detailed > >>> shot might be fine. 2,) Viewing distance. If viewed from a reasonable > >>> distance it will look fine. Close up flaws will be very apparent. 3.) > >>> The method used to upres the shot. Genuine Fractals is supposed to work > >>> miracles, stepwise bicubic interpolation is supposed to work almost as > >>> well, (and is available to anyone willing to make a Photoshop action). > >>> You could try resizing using the second method to get a reasonable pixel > >>> density for your purposes then crop out a sample size and print it to > >>> see if it would work. > >>> > >>> David J Brooks wrote: > >>> > >>>> I can't seem to fiqure out the math on this and don't want to quess, > >>>> but can anyone tell me what size i need to uprez a 2000 x 1300 file to > >>>> print 16x20. > >>>> > >>>> If a 2.74 D1H file can be resized that big. > >>>> > >>>> A client wants this size for her company wall. > >>>> > >>>> Dave > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
