resizing software options

[James Stirling]

I have been trying out various programs for upsizing images. Not that I particularly need the feature

After trying a number of programs I have found that for me Adobe Photoshop overall is the best

This is a quarter crop of an sample image taken with the OM-3 and new 100-400mm II at the 400mm end . I use 3:2 aspect ratio almost exclusively . My most common print size from m43 is 18x12" so that is what my processing is aimed at

This is a link to the gallery image

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1564684221/om-system-om-3-sample-gallery/9600996373

The original image cropped to 3:2





A quarter crop, effective 800mm ( FF 1600mm !! ) processed to taste





It is a simple process , tweak the RAW file in ACR , apply super resolution filter , crop the resulting image to the desired output size. I find that the Adobe software gives less artefacts than others such as Gigapixel etc



Which software do you like for this

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[SonyX]

I have been trying out various programs for upsizing images. Not that I particularly need the feature

After trying a number of programs I have found that for me Adobe Photoshop overall is the best

This is a quarter crop of an sample image taken with the OM-3 and new 100-400mm II at the 400mm end . I use 3:2 aspect ratio almost exclusively . My most common print size from m43 is 18x12" so that is what my processing is aimed at

This is a link to the gallery image

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1564684221/om-system-om-3-sample-gallery/9600996373

The original image cropped to 3:2



A quarter crop, effective 800mm ( FF 1600mm !! ) processed to taste



It is a simple process , tweak the RAW file in ACR , apply super resolution filter , crop the resulting image to the desired output size. I find that the Adobe software gives less artefacts than others such as Gigapixel etc

Which software do you like for this

I tried different options and wasn't completely satisfied with any of them. Gigapixel produces fewer artifacts when redrawing details, but it still makes the feathers look like fur. Adobe adds artifacts, false colors, and blurry patches. With some minor tweaks, it's suitable.



Your option is good for printing; for viewing on a screen, I'd prefer the regular Bicubic Smooth Resize.







--
Alex
http://www.instagram.com/alex_cy

 

[James Stirling]

I have been trying out various programs for upsizing images. Not that I particularly need the feature

After trying a number of programs I have found that for me Adobe Photoshop overall is the best

This is a quarter crop of an sample image taken with the OM-3 and new 100-400mm II at the 400mm end . I use 3:2 aspect ratio almost exclusively . My most common print size from m43 is 18x12" so that is what my processing is aimed at

This is a link to the gallery image

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1564684221/om-system-om-3-sample-gallery/9600996373

The original image cropped to 3:2



A quarter crop, effective 800mm ( FF 1600mm !! ) processed to taste



It is a simple process , tweak the RAW file in ACR , apply super resolution filter , crop the resulting image to the desired output size. I find that the Adobe software gives less artefacts than others such as Gigapixel etc

Which software do you like for this

I tried different options and wasn't completely satisfied with any of them. Gigapixel produces fewer artifacts when redrawing details, but it still makes the feathers look like fur. Adobe adds artifacts, false colors, and blurry patches. With some minor tweaks, it's suitable.



Your option is good for printing; for viewing on a screen, I'd prefer the regular Bicubic Smooth Resize.

Yep, I typically aim for prints which as you say can give an over sharpened look on screens. The software is moving on for sure

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[TheRealYeats]

Quite the challenge you've issued to the resizing software :-D

I imagine this is one of the most common types of images folks would like to upsize, and IMO the software is not yet up to the task, although improving. AI will eventually get there, for those who wish to take advantage of the technology.

Thank you both for posting samples and commentary.

 

[Regor250]

I use either ACDSee or Topaz (although not so frequently anymore). The result hence choice depends on the image. What works well in one situation, may not in another. What I don't like with Topaz, especially the latest editions, is the AI replacement of people faces. I like smart resizing, but not fake images. I suppose replacing my face with someone with a moustache was the tipping point for me.

--
Roger

 

[James Stirling]

I use either ACDSee or Topaz (although not so frequently anymore). The result hence choice depends on the image. What works well in one situation, may not in another. What I don't like with Topaz, especially the latest editions, is the AI replacement of people faces. I like smart resizing, but not fake images.

Faces seem to be one of the biggest challenges for all these apps. I suppose faces are a very critical part of how we look at people so anything even slightly off is very noticeable

I suppose replacing my face with someone with a moustache was the tipping point for me.

That would be a bigger problem if it did it with a female subject

 

[James Stirling]

Quite the challenge you've issued to the resizing software :-D

Go big or go home

I imagine this is one of the most common types of images folks would like to upsize, and IMO the software is not yet up to the task, although improving. AI will eventually get there, for those who wish to take advantage of the technology.

I don't really have a genuine real life use case for it. I just enjoy dabbling with the latest software options . As an 18x12" print it actually looked better than on the screen

Thank you both for posting samples and commentary.

 

[grsnovi]

I have only felt the need to upsize one shot taken of a bald eagle across a valley. I couldn't get close enough. Here is the full frame:



...and here is the 2x upscaled and cropped final image:



This was done using Topaz AI only a month or so after I got both the s/w and the new laptop (purchased specifically to run Topaz and DxO).

I should probably start printing some shots...

--
Gary

Gary Smith

Explore Gary Smith’s 169 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[James Stirling]

I have only felt the need to upsize one shot taken of a bald eagle across a valley. I couldn't get close enough. Here is the full frame:



...and here is the 2x upscaled and cropped final image:



This was done using Topaz AI only a month or so after I got both the s/w and the new laptop (purchased specifically to run Topaz and DxO).

I don't need it either just too much time on my hands to tinker.Not the only one with a lot of tinker time



"What kind of guitar do you have? At the moment I have 2 Martins, a Fender and an Epiphone 335 that (at age 71) I just got.

I also have 3 mandolins and a mandola.

Oh yeah, 15 cameras..."

I should probably start printing some shots...

I do tend to process with the intention of a print

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[grsnovi]

Thanks Jim!

I might be done buying cameras. I thought I was done with guitars a long time ago. I haven't actually played the new Epi all that much (probably more unplugged than amplified).

 

[James Stirling]

Thanks Jim!

I might be done buying cameras.

Never say never There is little that I actually need in a future model but we are way by need motivating our buying . I am actually down sizing my camera gear. The OM-1 is an excellent camera but it has way more features than I need or use. The E-M5 III feels fiddly and the old menu is a downside.

So I will be cutting my m43 kit down to the GX8 , 15mm, 20mm F/1.7, 12-35 mm & 35-100mm F/2.8 PL with the 60mm macro. My next m43 camera would be ideally a true GX8 update or other higher end RF design . Sadly I don't think it will happen

Over in Nikon land I am hoping for a Z7 III body with the latest AF etc as the Z9 for me is in the same boat as the OM-1/II . Amazing feature set but I don't need most of it so if/when it comes along it will be bye bye Z9.

I thought I was done with guitars a long time ago. I haven't actually played the new Epi all that much (probably more unplugged than amplified).

My mate is a great guitar fan and has been playing since we were teenagers . Despite his efforts over the years he could never get me bye the basics. It seems I either have too many or too few fingers to master it

 

[grsnovi]

Thanks Jim!

I might be done buying cameras.

Never say never

Well, my last one was a honking, huge Nikon D700. Talk about a beast. It dwarfs the a7R3 (or my other Nikon FE).

If Panny releases a new LX100 with interesting specs, I could be enticed.

 

[James Stirling]

Thanks Jim!

I might be done buying cameras.

Never say never

Well, my last one was a honking, huge Nikon D700. Talk about a beast. It dwarfs the a7R3 (or my other Nikon FE).

The D700 was a baby , I used its big brothers ( D3/D3s and D3X ) for a lot of paid work. The results from the D700 are still lovely

If Panny releases a new LX100 with interesting specs, I could be enticed.

I think an LX100 III is more likely than my wished for GX8 update :-( The LX100 camera offered a lot and could be made near perfect P&S with just a few tweaks.

 

[MyReality]

Sometime earlier this year or late last year DPR did a test of 4 major upsizing software. The best software that gave the best result was dependent on the photo content(light, contrast, color) of the photo used and how much original detail someone wanted to retain. Differences were only noticeable in extremely large prints.

 

[James Stirling]

Sometime earlier this year or late last year DPR did a test of 4 major upsizing software. The best software that gave the best result was dependent on the photo content(light, contrast, color) of the photo used and how much original detail someone wanted to retain. Differences were only noticeable in extremely large prints.

Yep, I think that is fair observation as with most things the answer is it depends

 

[Art_P]

Long before the current crop of editing software was available, I was resizing my 5 and 10 mp images by up sizing 4X, applying a softening filter to reduce jaggies, then downsizing it to 2X original size before applying sharpening. Sure there was no recovering fine detail that was never captured, but it did a decent job for the day.

Now I have Topaz, but haven't been that impressed with it so far.

 

[James Stirling]

Long before the current crop of editing software was available, I was resizing my 5 and 10 mp images by up sizing 4X, applying a softening filter to reduce jaggies, then downsizing it to 2X original size before applying sharpening. Sure there was no recovering fine detail that was never captured, but it did a decent job for the day.

And no AI in sight

Now I have Topaz, but haven't been that impressed with it so far.

I have tried Topaz and feel it is more prone to artefacts especially if you are not careful with the settings. Software is moving on at a pace these days