From: John Campbell (tojohn@texas.net)
Date: 02/27/02-09:28:24 AM Z
Just a comment or two, Jack-the bi-cubic interpolation is fine, provided
it's done in miniscule increments (like 1% at a time) which makes it
enormously time consuming. I'm a big fan of Genuine Fractals, mostly
because I can store a print-ready negative in one file and open it to
whatever size I need to print and get exactly the resolution required. I
haven't experienced it taking any longer than opening any other format-and
it's certainly faster than the incremental bi-cubic adjustment. Of course,
I'm usually off tending to something else while my files are opening. These
days I'm mostly getting more Girl Scout cookies. . . .
And, okay, I admit it-I don't run any 4x6 foot negatives.
Go easy,
John
http://www.photogecko.com/
Home of The Gecko UV Light Box
"Get The Gecko!"
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Fulton [mailto:jfulton@itsa.ucsf.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:08 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Re: fractal
> Genuine Fractals is the program. It is a method of interpolating images
to
> larger sizes that is supposed to hold up better when making large prints.
It
> is supposed to give a smoother interpolation. It uses some sort of
fractal
> algorithm when doing the interpolation that is supposed to retain more
> sharpness in the image. I don't know if it might develop artifacts in the
> image when doing so or not.
>
> I have never used the program. Usually I am interpolating down rather
than
> up.
Mark's close to right (correct) here. With Genuine Fractals, one can blow up
an image and it'll be interestingly substantial. If you have a file that is
20 megs or more, then it'll do an excellent job.
A friend who knows much more than I says phooey on it however . . and that
bi-cubic interpolation is just as good.
I did take a shot in my backyard and using GF blew it up to the equivalent
of 4 by 6 feet. It was shot w/my 4 year old 1.2 megapixel Olympus) and,
gosh, but it looked terrific. I mean, yes, you could see distortion, but,
overall, the result was literally fantastic.
The other major prob w/GF is that it is extremely slow when you open an
image to much larger (or even not so large) size. You really need a fast
computer to make programs of this ilk work efficiently.
Jack Fulton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST