Up-res?

[GB1]

Hey Folks - I want to make a fairly large print of a digital image, but the size doesn't match the photo lab image resolution requirements. They said to up-res it, but although I've heard of this I'm not exactly sure what it means. Simply resizing the image won't do any good, I assume it will just create jagged edges (staircasing)?

Does anyone know what upresing entails, and what it takes to do it, what quality can one expect, etc?

Thanks!

Gb

[Didache]

What program will you be using? For instance, if you resize in Elements (Image/Resize/Image Resize) you get the option to Resample the image - this has the effect of interpolating pixels in order to avoid the jags. In effect, it "guesses" what the new pixels should be in the resized image.

It isn't perfect, but it seems to work reasonably well, up to a limit. It depends though on how much resizing you are intending.

Hope this helps
Mike

[mjs1973]

It's not something I have done much of, but from what I have read, it's better to upsize in several small steps instead of one big one. Fred Miranda has some photoshop plug ins for resizing images.

I'm curious to know what size file you have, and how big you're planning on printing it. I have made 20x30 prints from my 6mp DRebel without any resizing needed.

[another view]

I have done a 10% up-res several times to an image and not seen any problems with it - the final 16x24 print from a 6mp camera looked great, and I think it was at 240dpi by the time I got done with it.

As mentioned, the best way to do it will depend on your software. Let us know what you're using and someone should be familiar with it. Along the lines of what Mike said, I saw 16x20 prints that Nikon made from their 4mp D2H. They said they were "right out of the camera" and looked great.

Trying to make a big print from a small file has a lot to do with the particular image, IMO...

[drg]

Up-res(z) - ing IS resizing.

If there are critical areas such as eyes or details that involve print/text/lettering or sharp edges, then you might want to to do some selective 'tweaking' of the image before submitting it to be printed.

What is the original file size (h x w in pixels) and what size (hxw in inches) are you trying to print? There are limits in how far you can go, even with a good original.

Once you have re-sized it large, some noise reduction may be of assistance (NR softens the image in most algorithms first) to de-jaggy it, then you may want to even sharpen edges or do a masked USM on areas that need it as in two examples from above.

Large prints are for viewing from a greater distance, and as long as the color holds up and you don't get 'blotches' or patterns the quality is dependent upon the printing method. Continuous tone or similar (digital enlargement on conventional photo RA Paper) really only needs slighly more than 200 dpi to look fine. Inkjet tech may need a lot more depending upon the type of RIP (Raster Image Processing) from the printers manufacturer. RIP is sometimes turned off by 'Pro Labs' because they aren't 'printers' they are basic service bureaus.

You can always ask for a sample print of a critical portion of your final work printed in a crop at final resolution at a 4x6 size to see how it will come out.

Hope this helps some . .

[Medley]

Alien Skin's Blow Up is, in my opinion, the absolute best third party filter currently available for Photoshop and Elements. The web page boasts of the ability to enlarge images up to 3600% (six times the pixels in both directions), but in reality you start to lose detail after about 900% (3x, both directions). Still, it's WAY better than anything Photoshop can do on it's own.

There's good and bad news. The bad news is that at $199.00 for a single-operation filter, it's also one of the most expensive plug-ins out there.

The good news is that Alien Skin offers a 30-day, fully functional free trial !

Here's the link to Alien Skin's webpage: http://www.alienskin.com/blowup/index.html

Click on the "demo" button to download the free trial. Don't blame me if you're hooked after 30 days though. This is an incredibly handy plug-in that belongs in every editor's toolkit.

- Joe U.

[mn shutterbug]

I just got done doing a little surfing and found this one. A trial version is free and only $30 to purchase. I gave it a shot and resized an image from about 500 X 700 to about 1200 X 1600. I thought it worked pretty well. Check it out and let me know what you think.
http://www.fsoft.it/imaging/en/Default.htm

[dhyravy]

If you're using PS or similar program, you need to go to "Image Size" then select the dimensions you need and make sure that the "ppi" or pixels per inch is set at 300. Also make sure that "Resample Image" is checked and "Bicubic" is selected. I have had shots from my D50 printed to 48"x96" with great results.

[mn shutterbug]

If you're using PS or similar program, you need to go to "Image Size" then select the dimensions you need and make sure that the "ppi" or pixels per inch is set at 300. Also make sure that "Resample Image" is checked and "Bicubic" is selected. I have had shots from my D50 printed to 48"x96" with great results.

I just tried this method and it does work pretty darned well. However, when I compare a photo resized this way with one resized with the program I mentioned, I see a slight edge with the plugin. Although,it's pretty darned close.

[AgingEyes]

If you're using PS or similar program, you need to go to "Image Size" then select the dimensions you need and make sure that the "ppi" or pixels per inch is set at 300. Also make sure that "Resample Image" is checked and "Bicubic" is selected. I have had shots from my D50 printed to 48"x96" with great results.

Scott Kelby said Vincent Versace used Bicubic Sharper and got great results.

[mn shutterbug]

Scott Kelby said Vincent Versace used Bicubic Sharper and got great results.

I just read a tutorial regarding this and it says to use bicubic sharper for reducing the size of an image and bicubic smoother for enlarging a photo.

[GB1]

Guys - Thanks for the feedback. The dimensions of a Nikon D200 image at full size are 3872 x 2592 pixels. However I'm only interested in a crop of this which is roughly (don't have the data here) 1000 x 1000. The problem is that the lab I use wants 300 px per inch, so for even a 4 by 6 inch print, they want a 1200 x 1800 image file. So I must up-res. I'm looking for something around a 16 inch x 16 inch print, so the image file must be upped quite a bit.

I have both Corel PhotoPaint and PS CS2. I'm willing to look into other software if needed.

Drg, there definitely has to be something else happening in the software for a successful up-res to occur, for normal resizing is just that: trying to get more out of something than is there. I guess it must be interpolating. I really don't know much about the process, but reading all the posts here it appears that there are techniques to getting the best possible print.

-GB

[AgingEyes]

I just read a tutorial regarding this and it says to use bicubic sharper for reducing the size of an image and bicubic smoother for enlarging a photo.

Yes, that's the conventional "wisdom". The key of that method is to use bicubic sharper. And the result is just as good as using plug-ins, per Scott.

Given the background of Scott Kelby and Vincent Versace, I tend to think they know what they are doing.

Also, some also said that the method of up-sizing a bit at a time (say 10% again and again) is also not recommended anymore. Not sure why.

[Medley]

GB, I'm telling you, give Blow Up a shot. It's compatable with CS2. I took an image from my DRebel XT (3456x2308) and upsized it to a 30x20 inch print at full res. (9000x6000). I had to do some additional sharpening, but the image came out beautifully!

Once you try it, by all means give Photoshop's methods a try, and compare the images. For me, there was no comparison. The trial is free for 30 days with no further commitment required.

- Joe U.

[drg]

Guys - Thanks for the feedback. The dimensions of a Nikon D200 image at full size are 3872 x 2592 pixels. However I'm only interested in a crop of this which is roughly (don't have the data here) 1000 x 1000. The problem is that the lab I use wants 300 px per inch, so for even a 4 by 6 inch print, they want a 1200 x 1800 image file. So I must up-res. I'm looking for something around a 16 inch x 16 inch print, so the image file must be upped quite a bit.

I have both Corel PhotoPaint and PS CS2. I'm willing to look into other software if needed.

Drg, there definitely has to be something else happening in the software for a successful up-res to occur, for normal resizing is just that: trying to get more out of something than is there. I guess it must be interpolating. I really don't know much about the process, but reading all the posts here it appears that there are techniques to getting the best possible print.

-GB

Again, re-sizing, up-rez, is INTERPOLATION. There are various methods of 'getting something from nothing' which isn't really the point or what is happening. Bi-Cubic, nearest neighbor, Lanzcos, etc. are all different methods and some will work better than others. The type of printing that will be done will more often than not dictate what type of algorithm should be applied. Half-tone and most lithographic techniques are not going to be as enlarged quite the same way as for an ink-jet. Then there are tricks for doing color separations where you only 'sharpen' one color. And so on and so on . . .

Bi-cubic sharper and bi-cubic smoother have built in Noise Reduction actions (blur, edge, trace, etc.) that are appropriate for many uses. It just depends how much time you want to put into the image.

These are all a method of spreading out the data available in more usable fashion.

A few programs though do have advanced algorithmic features that produce far better scaling than others. Genuine Fractals 5, as long as we are tossing out examples of Adobe PS add-ons, is pretty much the industry standard. Genuine Fractals, or a specific proprietary program, are pretty much the best to use with Raster Image Processing or other digital based pre-production work.

A 1000x1000 image unfortunately, isn't going to get you much more than an average 4x6 inch print. There are limits.

None of these of course even approach what can be done with Image Processing that uses common object interpolation. This starts with a fractal based analysis, looks at a database of common objects, then builds each section of the image and adds detail. It only works for items that are 'known' to the database. This is one of the types application that you will see applied to Satellite imagery (Google Earth as an example) or to forensic reconstruction software which the latest Adobe Photoshop supports at the developer level certainly. It is not cheap and requires a fairly powerful set of hardware to effectively implement. 18 months they'll be including it in cameras. Well two or three years.

Meanwhile, Adobe Photoshop re-sizing functions in any of their current or recent products are going to do as well as probably can be done on a small file. It still may require adjustments and is a process worth learning in the digital photography age. Depending soley upon someone else 'actions' or add-ons ultimately only limits what you will understand later as this technology speeds along.

Sebastian Szyszka has an article about the program Imagewell here at PR that mentions several of these topics in terms of a specific program.

[Medley]

I agree with most of what you're saying drg. I consider Genuine Fractals5 and Blow Up to be on a par. I believe Alien Skin's plug-in is gaining in popularity, but in the end it's a judgement call by the user. I ended up perchasing Blow up because, in a test of trials software, Blow Up seemed to work on a higher percentage of images. The only reason I plug the Blow Up trial version over GF5, is that the GenuineFractal5 trial software embeds a logo as a watermark on all images from the trial version, whereas the Blow Up trial embeds none. You essentially get the full version of the software to try for 30 days, the only restriction being the software's 30,000x30,000 pixel maximum.

The best solution would be to have BOTH versions, to cover the widest array of images possible. But budgetary considerations currently prevent this possibility.

- Joe U.