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?????



> 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 with Photoshop's
> BiCubic - it
> depends on the image - but I've wondered about Genuine Fractals.
>
> I know the theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me, but my experience is
> that there is often some distance between theory and implementation.
>
> So, has anyone used Genuine Fractals as a primary means of up sampling to
> allow much larger prints than logically should be done from an
> original like
> a 1.5 MegPixel jpeg (down from a 5 Megpixel digital photograph)?

I think it works pretty well, if the image has some sharp edges in it,
because it is somewhat able to recognize edges, and artificially preserve
them when blowing the image up. If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each
dimension, it starts to look artificial.

--

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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.