> From: LAURIE SOLOMON
>
> Preston, technically you are correct in saying failes do not have
> resolution
> and even in saying that their contents do not either; but standard non-RAW
> file formats do contain metadata which furnish rendering
> instructions which
> tell the program to render the 300
Put simply, you're confused by the way that certain software applications
(e.g. Photoshop or scanner software such as Nikon View) allow the user to
specify the pixel-dimensions of a destination image by specifying dpi and
linear dimensions (in units that are not pixels - e.g. by requesting an 8
inc
printing press for puting on the
refrigerator, greeting cards, displaying on a wall, or for publication).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?
The dpi setting of a digital camera file is utterly irrelevant here.
Different cameras output their files (no matter their format) at fixed dpi
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: "Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar
with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you
can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format;
but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would
to do with the "dpi" setting recorded in a digital camera file.
Jawed
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON
> Sent: 25 November 2004 17:36
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genu
EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?
Date sent: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: &q
Date sent: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?
> I use the
> From: Stan Schwartz
>
> Help me with the math here. What would be the final dimension of the image
> whose snippet you are displaying here? And for reference, your
> 10D captures
> an image of about 3K pixels on the long dimension, right?
The 10D is 3072x2048. The magnification in both those tes
> From: LAURIE SOLOMON
>
> Again I have no complaint with your description of the
> differences between
> GF and Bicubic and potential artifacts and byproducts of each. I
> looked at
> your two examples and for the life of me I cannot see any
> differnces between
> them and do not see the artific
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?
> From: Laurie Solomon
>
> Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done
> since. I am
> not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic
> formulation as much as they made its i
Paul,
Help me with the math here. What would be the final dimension of the image
whose snippet you are displaying here? And for reference, your 10D captures
an image of about 3K pixels on the long dimension, right?
Stan Schwartz
Paul wrote:
I've posted a pair of examples, both involving blow
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
I've posted a pair of examples, both involving blowing up by 10x a small
piece of an image that had some architectural edges as well as some non-edge
detail. You can see what I mean:
http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399
http://ww
Sorry, the two images are:
http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399
http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593400
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsub
> From: Laurie Solomon
>
> Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done
> since. I am
> not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic
> formulation as much as they made its implementation more sophisticated by
> furnishing two subtle variations on the basic
evidence that the GF limits do not stop at upsamplings of lower than 4 or
5 X.
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Verkaik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:15 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?
From: "LAURIE
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have even seen comparisions of sections of 35mm images blown
up to billboard size by GF and Photoshop where GF has come out ahead in
terms of lower numbers of artifacts and averaging errors.
>>
Just to clarify, though... this refers to pre-CS versions o
Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?
> From: Brad Davis
>
> Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample ima
Laurie,
I can see that I wasn't being clear - first, I want to salvage some of those
shots done and saved as 1.5 Megapixel JPEGS, and then I want to see if I
can't get much better results out of the Sony than I am able to get now
when I enlarge - consistently. There are instances where I don't s
Paul, thanks, that's a useful piece of information.
Brad
On 20/11/04 17:44, "Paul D. DeRocco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: Brad Davis
>>
>> Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My scanner
>> provides very high resolution compared to my (current) digital camera,
> From: Brad Davis
>
> Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My scanner
> provides very high resolution compared to my (current) digital camera, but
> there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera that I
> would like to enlarge. I've had some success w
> As it happens, I can get a pretty good 8X10 from such a file, but
> then I go to 12X18 (if I can live with no cropping),
Well, I did a commercial job using as an experiemnt a point and shoot 4.3Mp
Nikon Coolpix camera captured at maximium resolution of 240ppi into a TIFF
format just to see what
On 20/11/04 13:12, "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the
> normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic
> methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may
> be
I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the
normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic
methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may
begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine.
What I do not understand is, i
Given an earlier long tread about Genuine Fractals, I hope this is
not considered too OT.
Anyone who might have received the subject program as a bundle and
didn't install and register it care to sell it?
Thank you,
Ebert STeele
25 matches
Mail list logo