Resampling sharp Foveon images

Hi Roland,

Here we have a classic issue between theory and practice. In theory you are correct, however, remember that with an electronic image we can actually "see" the pixels. In "practice," even though the initial incredibly "sharp" pixels are "mutated," we can't actually "see" that result in the print.

Once we get from the electronic pixel level view to the printer, things are quite different because unless we are printing billboards, we really never reach a situation where individual "pixels" are visible. Huge prints from Foveon captures which are printed at A0 and larger can be visually flawless even when using fairly common and mundane interpolation such as bicubic.

Using more sophisticated interpolation algorithms such as available with PhotoZoom Pro, (Max Spline, etc.) even the often maligned "aliasing" can almost always be totally ameliorated to the point of being inconsequential.

As you know, printers do not create tiny little "rectangles" of ink, they variously create lines or "dots" and they print on paper or other media which does not perfectly hold the shape of the tiny "dot" or line but bleed very slightly so that what our eyes eventually see on the printed result and what our eyes see on the electronic display are measurably different.

I too have made numerous panoramas and I have never been able to detect any deterioration in the printed result. Yes, if one zooms in to 400% it's possible to see a deterioration in the pixel, but what can easily be seen on an electronic display just doesn't pertain to the printed result in my experience. Foveon panoramas are, in my experience, measurably "better" than my CFA panoramas in terms of "sharpness".

The widely circulated large prints from Rick and Laurence are ample testimony to the quality of "resampled" Foveon large prints.

Best regards,

Lin

--
learntomakeslidshows.net