| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
<x-charset iso-8859-1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "rafeb" <rafeb@channel1.com> > 'Tween you and me, don't bother with GF. But get the > demo, anyway, and see for yourself. Some folks here > think it's the cat's meow, and others (myself included) > find it inferior to good old bicubic interpolation. For normal enlargement...2-3x or so, I agree that Photoshop does as well or better. However, I tested the claim that GF was superior with large amounts of resizing. I did a small section of an image and resampled it to about 16x original. The results are at http://www.geocities.com/roberthaus/gftest.jpg While it can't invent detail that doesn't exist, the result in this case does look smoother and better. If you were making murals or large posters, the results with GF may justify the purchase price, but it's fairly expensive. It also took over an hour on a 450 Mhz machine to do the sample, as opposed to a couple of seconds in Photoshop. Gary Robertshaw groberts@fix.net Epson subscriber photo and art website list: http://www.geocities.com/roberthaus/photosites.html - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. </x-charset>
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp Users]
|