At 08:09 AM 4/11/2006, you wrote:
>\> I agree it's amazingly good. A couple of times, I posted some full pixel
>> comparisons of tests that convinced me it is better at up sampling than
>> anything else I have. As they contain some comparison sof different SI
>> Pro settings, and it does make a difference, here's the link again
>> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/resize.htm>.
>>
>> Moose
>
>I remember when you posted that. It didn't hit me as the cat's PJs at
>the time. It's trying to convey something distinctive but subtle
>through a relatively crude display medium (the web), which is no fault
>of yours, of course. Where it really impressed was in the large print
>I made. I did two successive upsamples (through convenient paper
>sizes -- 8X12 and then 12x18, I think) and the printed result is
>photographic in a sense that the one with regular bicubic upsampling
>isn't. Halleluia!
I "read" in Photoshop User magazine review of Genuine Fractals that the
Photoshop ACR can up-sample an image about as good as GF. That the
up-sampling done in ACR is better than up-sampling later in PS with,
for example, bicubic interpolation. I have not tried this myself.
WayneS
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|