Re: Looking for HQ scans/low price

[Jerry Olson <jerryolson@rrv.net>]

Gary, It's very obvious to me that the General Fractals image is higher
quality than the photoshop one.

jerry







Gary Robertshaw wrote:
> 
> ----- 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.
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.