![]() * Think of a controlled trial - get a random selection of people and ask them to choose between the same photo sharpened through two different methods (or even no sharpening!). Stated another way - given a finite number of hours to spend on photography, I'd rather be doing anything but sharpening And furthermore, that most people won't notice the difference between 'fancy' sharpening and moderate unsharp masking. I'd hazard a guess that the idiosyncracies and limitations of the human visual system dominate over any of the fine technical details under discussion here. For that kind of work, the tests I did convinced me it wasn't worth the extra effort but of course, everyone should run their own test and most importantly NOT make decisions about the quality based on what they see on-screen but rather to an output device.To act as a devil's advocate: Does the whole question really matter?Īll of this technical discussion is ignoring something much more important - the role of the human observer. In my tests, I think I only sized the 5DMII images 300% or 400%. For example, Mac Holbert, formally of Nash Editions who's opinion I greatly respect told me he found these products very useful when he had to take a really tiny file and blow it up massively. That said, these products may be useful in some cases. ![]() ![]() Forget viewing distance, the differences I saw needed a loupe to see and considering the time and cost for the 3rd party products, I just decided it wasn't worth it (for me). And I'm sure image content, output device (even the paper) would play a role here. I just didn't see anything compelling on the print that convinced me it was worth the effort. I didn't go down that route as far as I could. That said, I think Bart is spot on that the settings in these products will make a big difference IF you want to go through the trouble of wading through what can be a vast amount of options. I found Perfect Resize to be VERY slow in comparison with no benefit I could see on the print compared to using tools I already own. That produced the biggest differences in the tests I did. ![]() I did not see a compelling difference doing this or upsizing in Photoshop or using Step Interpolation there but there were tiny differences (and improvements) upsizing from the raw data and very important, with proper capture sharpening. You can set a higher than native resolution. Just before rendering (using the Export dialog). In that case, also because you do not need to store a huge intermediate file, it may be more efficient to let Qimage do its on-the-fly magic based on the original output. However, it does not add resolution, it just optimizes the use of what the original image data has to offer.Īt a modest doubling of the linear pixel resolution, there will not be too much difference in output regardless of which of these applications you use. It uses very good interpolation algorithms to match the required upsampling for the specific output device one wishes to use, and can automatically add smart output sharpening after the automatic upsampling to match the output device/medium/size. Qimage has a different purpose, it's intended for creating great (printed) output at just about any size you need without having to specify and specifics other than output size. The benefit is that it can actually add some detail to sharp edges beyond which is available in the source image. Perfect Resize can produce a great upsampled result, but you do need to use the proper settings for the particular image you are upsampling.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |