[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: Looking for HQ scans/low price



<x-charset iso-8859-1>Thanks Gary, Thats really useful information. On one of the lists, someone
stated that the trial version of the lower price version of GF was file size
limited but the trial version of the high priced version (print pro ?) was
not. If thats not the test version you down loaded, you might whant to try
it.
Thanks again, Ron Carlson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Robertshaw" <groberts@fix.net>
To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Looking for HQ scans/low price


> Ron,
> I had to go back and check, since it's been a few weeks, but the file was
> enlarged 16x in each dimension...it was originally a 220 x 245 pixel jpg
> image, which I cropped somewhat, and then enlarged to overfill a 11 x 17
> page at 240 dpi.
>
> While this is way too much to expect from Photoshop resampling, it is what
> GF is advertised as being good at, and the results show that it indeed
does
> a better job of producing a usable image at these high enlargements.  It
> stands to reason, since it apparently uses a mathematical formula to
> calculate what the pixels should be, rather than just divide up what is
> there.  The fact that it took over an hour to do this indicates that there
> were some heavy duty operations going on.
>
> My conclusion from all this was that if you're doubling or tripling the
> image size (dimensions), then resampling in Photoshop is as good as GF,
and
> either one will work....some say Photoshop even does better.  However, if
> you want to scan a 4 x 6 print or use a 1 MB digital camera file to make a
> 3' x 5' poster, then GF will make it feasible, where resampling will just
> make a mess.
>
> I'm using up my 20 trials of GF only when I really need them, as I think
> it's a bit overpriced for non-commercial use, but for those extreme
> enlargements, it does a good job.
>
> I have a 1.3 Mb Olympus digital camera (1280 x 960), and I sometimes make
11
> x 17 prints from the file, using bicubic resampling, though GF works also.
> The results are not "sharp" of course, but viewed from a normal distance
> they look fine.  I was really amazed when I discovered this, as I expected
a
> chunky, pixelated mess.  I discovered it while testing GF, but found that
> the result at that size was virtually the same with Photoshop or GF.  It
> works out to about 3x dimensional enlargement to go to that size at 240
dpi.
>
> Gary Robertshaw
> groberts@fix.net
> Epson subscriber photo and art website list:
> http://www.geocities.com/roberthaus/photosites.html
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Carlson" <carlson@olypen.com>
> To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 12:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Looking for HQ scans/low price
>
>
> > Gary, by 16x original I assume you are referring to file size, ie; a 3
MB
> > file becomes a 48MB file and so on. I don't need that kind of multiple
but
> > I'll have to go back and see what I do need. I do know that when I tried
> > bicubic in PS the result was not even close to what I could accept. I
> > haven't tried Jerry's latest tip to fix the sky pixilation but I will
when
> I
> > revisit that image. I  think the $160 version of GF is all that I would
> need
> > since I'm only working with RGB. Thanks for you input.
> > Regards, Ron Carlson
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Robertshaw" <groberts@fix.net>
> > To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
> > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 7:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: Looking for HQ scans/low price
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ----- 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.
> > >
> >
> > -
> > *      SAVE MONEY on inkjet cartridges. BUY genuine Nectron compatible
> *
> > *  cartridges for Epson or Canon.  Colors will be sharper, brighter,
more
> *
> > * accurate. Fine quality paper, too. http://www.1asupplies.com and save
> now *
> >
>
> -
> *      SAVE MONEY on inkjet cartridges. BUY genuine Nectron compatible
*
> *  cartridges for Epson or Canon.  Colors will be sharper, brighter, more
*
> * accurate. Fine quality paper, too. http://www.1asupplies.com and save
now *
>

-
GOSHAWK - Hawk Mtn Art Papers-economical, 100% cotton, coated fine art paper
in sheets & 44" rolls. Ideal for brightly colored fine art reproductions
Free samples (Limit 500) http://www.hawkmtnartpapers.com/goshawk.htm

</x-charset>

[Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Scanner]     [Gimp]     [Gimp Users]

Powered by Linux