Reading mode: Light Dark

Genuine Fractals and Qimage Pro

Go to last post
N

nick stroumbakis

Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I just started playing with Qimage Pro for printing (after I edit in photoshop). I'm a little confused as to what is the best way of resizing a photo. If I were to use something like genuine fractals and skip bicubic, should I then not use the lanczos interpolation built in to qimage pro? Would it be better to just save the edits I make in photoshop to a tiff or psd file and then print via qimage and let it interpolate up to whatever size I want to print? Alternately, I read in the nikon forum something about fred miranda having a free download for "stair interpolation", which from his website would seem to be similar to lanczos. He says that for some stuff stair is superior to genuine fractals. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.
Nick
 
Here is a link to a site that compares Genuine Fractals and other types of resampling. http://www.dl-c.com/Resampling.pdf This is writen by a company that produces digital editing software, but I haven't been able to discern any true bias. It just suggests that Genuine Fractals benefits certain type of photos more than others (ie photos with blocks of solid colors separated by sharp lines).
nick stroumbakis said:
I just started playing with Qimage Pro for printing (after I edit
in photoshop). I'm a little confused as to what is the best way of
resizing a photo. If I were to use something like genuine fractals
and skip bicubic, should I then not use the lanczos interpolation
built in to qimage pro? Would it be better to just save the edits
I make in photoshop to a tiff or psd file and then print via qimage
and let it interpolate up to whatever size I want to print?
Alternately, I read in the nikon forum something about fred miranda
having a free download for "stair interpolation", which from his
website would seem to be similar to lanczos. He says that for some
stuff stair is superior to genuine fractals. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.
Nick
Click to expand...
 
I own both GF and QP.

I have changed my workflow to heavily favor QP for all image sizing. I work on my original size photos in Photoshop, then print from QP using it's Max/Max/Lanczos routines, not doing any resizing in PS.

I tried th SI Interpolation and think it is a fine way of upsizing, but I prefer the Lanczos interpolation QP uses.

I find that the results are great and I don't need to use GF as mush as I used to. QP is a great program, highly recommend that you keep playing with it. I am getting outstanding results from Epson printers and a Fuji Pictrography 3500.

-Brian
 
Brian,

Thanks (to everyone else, too) for your response. In which situations do you still favor GF over QP, and do you ever use them both together? Thanks again.

Nick
Brian Trimm said:
I own both GF and QP.

I have changed my workflow to heavily favor QP for all image
sizing. I work on my original size photos in Photoshop, then print
from QP using it's Max/Max/Lanczos routines, not doing any
resizing in PS.

I tried th SI Interpolation and think it is a fine way of upsizing,
but I prefer the Lanczos interpolation QP uses.

I find that the results are great and I don't need to use GF as
mush as I used to. QP is a great program, highly recommend that
you keep playing with it. I am getting outstanding results from
Epson printers and a Fuji Pictrography 3500.

-Brian
Click to expand...
 
Brian,

So you don't mind interpolating up after sharpning rather than before?
Brian Trimm said:
I own both GF and QP.

I have changed my workflow to heavily favor QP for all image
sizing. I work on my original size photos in Photoshop, then print
from QP using it's Max/Max/Lanczos routines, not doing any
resizing in PS.

I tried th SI Interpolation and think it is a fine way of upsizing,
but I prefer the Lanczos interpolation QP uses.

I find that the results are great and I don't need to use GF as
mush as I used to. QP is a great program, highly recommend that
you keep playing with it. I am getting outstanding results from
Epson printers and a Fuji Pictrography 3500.

-Brian
Click to expand...
 
I've never used them both together. I don't know what the output would look like, but if you already used GF on a file, you wouldn't want to put that file through another interpolation algorithm. Probably just set the output prefs to none.

It depends on the situation and specific image, but for really large prints (anything over 40 inches) I would use GF, because that is where the program really shines. GF is really good at keeping the edges sharp, at the expense of some (but not alot, just some) fine detail, but for really large prints, at normal viewing distances, it's not noticeable. Other methods of sharpening try to keep the fine detail, but then you lose edge sharpness. It's a give and take. You need to experiment and see what works for you.

QP, I believe, will now allow you to export images using it's interpolation and sharpening parameters. It might have had this feature for a long time now, but I don't use it. I use the program for printing, not image conversion.

Hope tis helped. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

-Brian
nick stroumbakis said:
Brian,

Thanks (to everyone else, too) for your response. In which
situations do you still favor GF over QP, and do you ever use them
both together? Thanks again.

Nick
Click to expand...
 
Nick, I started to answer this question on another site, but I
am new there, so I decided not to. GF is used for very large
sizes, many multiples above the original resolution. Qimage
will handle anything you need at an normal photo size, and do
it quite well. One of the issues several people have brought
up is that sharpening should be the last process done, after the
interpolation is done. This is, and isn't true. It is true in most
cases, and was the common method until recently. Software has
changed, and the resolution of the files being printed has changed
even faster. Today, using the s800, I can get superior prints
using PhotoRecord and files from my G-1 without touching them.
The software is doing all that was needed all by itself. Qimage
fits in here also. I have been using it for a while now, and it does
just fine with the sharpening being done before the image
is converted to final print size. If I edit an image in PhotoPaint,
and then bump it to 300 ppi at 8x10.xx, it is about 21 megs in
size. Even if I do this, and then load that image into Qimage,
Qimage takes that file to around 100 megs for printing using the
max/max/lanczos settings. Unless you plan to take your images
to native printer print settings, then Qimage will always resample
the image anyway. Take an image that is nice, edit it any way you
want. Then save a copy of it before you bump it up with
what ever software you want to use. Finish it up in your editor,
and print it from there. Load the copy into Qimage, and print
it as it is, and after you sharpen it in Qimage. Compare the
prints. The best output may shock you just a bit.
Brian Trimm said:
When using GF, I sharpen after converting to output size, then send
the print to the printer.

-Brian
Paul Greenleaf said:
Brian,

So you don't mind interpolating up after sharpning rather than before?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Bob Williams wrote:
The best output may shock you just a bit.

Bob's going for understatement of the year ...

... We've taken pixely little web page JPG's and blown them up to 8.5x11 with Qimage Pro and it's astounding how much improved it is over just using the printer driver.
 
Brian,

I just downloaded the trial version of Qimage. I did what you listed below and do not see any results on my monitor. Do you have to print an image before you see the results.

MIke Adams
Brian Trimm said:
I own both GF and QP.

I have changed my workflow to heavily favor QP for all image
sizing. I work on my original size photos in Photoshop, then print
from QP using it's Max/Max/Lanczos routines, not doing any
resizing in PS.

I tried th SI Interpolation and think it is a fine way of upsizing,
but I prefer the Lanczos interpolation QP uses.

I find that the results are great and I don't need to use GF as
mush as I used to. QP is a great program, highly recommend that
you keep playing with it. I am getting outstanding results from
Epson printers and a Fuji Pictrography 3500.

-Brian
Click to expand...
 
Brian Trimm said:
I own both GF and QP.

I have changed my workflow to heavily favor QP for all image
sizing. I work on my original size photos in Photoshop, then print
from QP using it's Max/Max/Lanczos routines, not doing any
resizing in PS.
Click to expand...
This is where I am at present--own both.
Brian Trimm said:
I tried th SI Interpolation and think it is a fine way of upsizing,
but I prefer the Lanczos interpolation QP uses.
Click to expand...
I have to admit I haven't tried Fred's SI, but I should before I speak out.

The test will be this week when I get the 11 x 14 paper and print with my new 1280. I am expecting good resutls though having heard this from many others.

Diane--Diane B http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleriesB/W lover, but color is seducing me
 
[thread marked]
nick stroumbakis said:
I just started playing with Qimage Pro for printing (after I edit
in photoshop). I'm a little confused as to what is the best way of
resizing a photo. If I were to use something like genuine fractals
and skip bicubic, should I then not use the lanczos interpolation
built in to qimage pro? Would it be better to just save the edits
I make in photoshop to a tiff or psd file and then print via qimage
and let it interpolate up to whatever size I want to print?
Alternately, I read in the nikon forum something about fred miranda
having a free download for "stair interpolation", which from his
website would seem to be similar to lanczos. He says that for some
stuff stair is superior to genuine fractals. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.
Nick
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top