ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????



Paul,
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 artificial elements in the foreground that you note.
Maybe it is because I am viewing the images over the internet on a monitor
or maybe I am just not as sensitive and picky as you. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:31 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
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 implementation more sophisticated by
> furnishing two subtle variations on the basic formulation.

As I understand it, bicubic is a linear (in the sense of linear algebra)
resampling filter. If you blow something way up, you always wind up with a
blurry result, if you zoom in on it. PS CS has added Bicubic Smoother and
Bicubic Sharper variants, but they merely tweak the high frequency response
of the filter, which you can see quite easily if you blow up some sharp
edges to 10x.

GF attempts to go beyond that by finding edges, and then trying to preserve
that edge sharpness when it upsamples. This is nonlinear processing, and is
in some sense artificial--and therefore not always effective. I find that it
works great on images that have distinct edges, e.g., architectural shots,
but sometimes creates edges where there were none.

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://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399

In the foreground, the artificial edge invention looks like some exotic
Photoshop special effect.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.