The exotics may work better when you are trying for a 10x upsize, but Dave is only talking about 2x. And Steady was normally upsizing his images to 50mb files for his agency last I knew, but but don't listen to him. Instead listen to someone who read something, or is selling something, or is confusing printer dpi (really squirts per inch) with ppi.
Even my little 5mp P&S gives me 256ppi native at 8x10 (actually 7.5x10 which is fine in an 8x10 matt). A 16x20 is only 2x that. Camera Raw or Bicubic Smoother does that very nicely, no hassles at all. No one has ever said that my prints at 256ppi look like crap. My experiments showed that anything 240ppi and up looked pretty much the same (viewed from 10 inches which is the centuries old standard) from my printer. 200ppi was passable but a bit downgraded. Below 200ppi the prints did look like crap. Don't make things more complicated than they need to be. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- P. J. Alling wrote: > 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 >>> >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
