Genuine Fractals

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by twig|1, Sep 5, 2010.

  1. Yesterday, I was speaking with a photographer, at a juried craft-fair, that specialized in macro photography. The prints displayed were simply outstanding. She was kind enough to tell me about "Genuine Fractals" Software. Do you know if this is compatible with PE8 or do I need a CS version of photoshop for the software to function? Thank you Tom
     
  2. I'm going to be kinder and tell you about Qimage.
     
  3. Tom,
    Not sure why you didnt just look on the website to see, as I did. However, Genuine Fractals is compatible with PE8.
     
  4. Brad: Thank you for the suggestion.
    Kevin: I did look at the website, downloaded a free trial and the software wouldn't load into PE8. So I'm not sure the website is correct. Tom
     
  5. onone is a great company, just get in touch and find out what the problem must be.
    I use Qimage and it is a terrific printing RIP
     
  6. My suggestion would be to get a demo, test it next to Photoshop’s correct Bicubic interpolation (smoother for upsizing), then print both. I’m pretty sure you’ll see that unless you start with a tiny original going to a huge size, you will be fine with Photoshop. In fact, 200-300% interpolation is easily accomplished with a good quality digital capture if handled correctly (see:http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/the-art-of-the-up-res.html)
    You may end up saving yourself considerable time and money just using Photoshop or Elements assuming it uses the same upsizing options.
     
  7. Remember, unles we're printing really small we're doing plenty of interpolation.
    A 10MP camera takes images that are about 4,000 pixels wide. So if we print to an Epson (720dpi) at actual size it's only a 5.5" wide print (4000/720). I print mine at 19" wide - that's 345%, and they're very sharp.
    The reason I mention Qimage is that it's Hybrid, Hybrid SE and Pyramid interpolation schemes are superior to anything I've seen when looking close up, which affects the whole image I believe.
    Some reviews and recommendations
    Also everything's available as a trial, so you can do comparison prints.
     
  8. So if we print to an Epson (720dpi) at actual size it's only a 5.5" wide print (4000/720)​
    Expect you would never send, nor need to send 720ppi to an Epson! In fact, sending more than 480ppi can actually lower output quality. That the Epson is capable of producing 720 or 1440 dpi in no way means you would send it that. Pick the size of the print you want. IF the output resolution falls between a low of 180ppi, a high of 480ppi, just let the driver do all the work. If the image resolution falls below 180ppi, then you do need to interpolate up to that minimum size. If the resolution falls above 480ppi, you’d want to resample down to the size you want at that resolution.
     
  9. Yes, what Andrew said. For your 19" print you're sending the file at maybe 240ppi (as opposed to the 720 dpi of the printer that was mentioned, which is a different thing, and not connected to the ppi in the way suggested), so you're basically not upsampling much, if at all. 4,000 pixels / 19 inches = 210ppi
     
  10. I just meant that if you print a 4,000 pixel wide photo larger than 5.5" (on an Epson), interpolation is occurring. Different programs have different algorithms that produce different results (to accomplish the enlargement). And printers do it themselves quite well.
    And yes 210-240 is often used as the minimum (Qimage shows the PPI being sent to the printer), but I printed one at 199ppi through Qimage that looks great.
     
  11. I just meant that if you print a 4,000 pixel wide photo larger than 5.5" (on an Epson), interpolation is occurring.​
    That would be true if Epson’s technology used a one to one relationship between a pixel sent and a dot produced. My understanding is, that’s not the case. If memory serves (and various models and their release date could play a role), the native rez is 360dpi, not 720, 1440 or 2880.
     
  12. Genuine Fractals has been around now for 14 years.
    It is sort of like shake and bake; or hamburger helper.
    A believer thinks one can take a Barbie Cam 240x320 image and make one a great 100 megapixels.
    A believer thinks one can take a dead mouse and use hambuger helper and feed an entire NFL team.
    Upsizing with alternate programs helps; but has its limits.
    What is canned in modern photoshop often works about as good; once the aftermarket stuff was way better; today it is less.
    In printing for the public there are always new customers who "discover" upsizing. Often their attempts are OK; but many timesit is over done; like a 10 year old girl who first uses makeup.
    One could "upsize" even 20 years ago with Photostyler
    Genuine Fractals goes back to about Photoshop 4.0 in 1996; thus there are many variants; just like Photoshop has grown too.
     
  13. Thank you to every one for all the info. I was able to get the "Genuine Fractals" on a free trial. Andrew thank you for the article from Digital Photo Pro and the other suggestions. I am going try a few experiments tomorrow. Tom
     
  14. Go Kelly! All that jibes with my 18 years of Photoshop experience.
    1.) Output device resolution HAS NEXT TO NOTHING TO DO with input source image resolution. (it takes many dots of a few colors to approximate the millions of colors possible with 14/16 bit channel depths)
    2.) Uprezzing (with bicubic/GFP) is a bad idea, period.
    3.) Most output device drivers show little improvement in output clarity (but huge delays in output time) using input greater than the specced native resolution. Meaning don't ship 600 dpi to the inkjet, you're just wasting your time as it determines how to best throw out the information you're sending it.
     
  15. OK, I like Genuine Fractals as a practical and easy to use tool for upsizing when I need to do so and can accept the compromises.
    Kelly, you're exaggerating your description of "believer." I think you're talking about naive dreamers. There may be these people, but I doubt that's the photo.net population that's reading here.
    Tom, tell us more about the prints you saw. How big? How closely did you look at them? How were they shot? I'll bet you saw 16x24 or 20x30 prints that looked great from normal viewing distances.
    Rogan, are you saying uprezzing is a bad idea, period? Or that there a better way?
     
  16. The prints were 16x24, from macro shots. The photographer indicated that they were X10 (1000%) from the original. The prints were glossy and from about a foot they had excellent sharpness. I was truly amazed. Tom
     
  17. Uprezzing (with bicubic/GFP) is a bad idea, period.​
    I think you need a very convincing explanation for such a strong blanket statement. A proper test would be to take 25ppi and 50ppi source files, uprezzed using best practices to 150ppi and 300ppi for each, and then print the resulting 8 files using inkjet, offset, and photo process. Short of having those results in hand I don't know how one can make such a statement.
     
  18. 1000000% agree with Andrew.. i have tested every Fractal version vs Photoshop Bicubic, smoother, sharper, adding noise etc.. Photoshop is simple, effective, faster.. dont see why i would need Fractal anytime soon.
    When you go to the fractal web site, you can see example, and the version from fractal vs photoshop look kind of noise free.. but also like a strong anti noise filter where applied to them rendering them kind of watercolor like effect..
     
  19. The photographer indicated that they were X10 (1000%) from the original.​

    Well, I could be mistaken, but I believe that they were referring to a macro magnification of 10x. This magnification factor is created by a combination of extension tubes and macro lenses and is registered in the recorded image. Thus, this has nothing to do with print magnification.
    If he/she had blown up these images to be five feet wide, yes, then they would have had to have done some upsizing. However, 16x24 is not a particularly large size. Ad 20+ MP camera can print 16x24 at 200 DPI without any upsizing and pixels to spare.
     
  20. I took her statement at face value, she indicated with her hands that the area from the original file was about 3x5 and that she increase the size 10x. Photo presented were 16x20 for the largest, but some were 11x14. So (11x14)/(3x5)=10.26 , so for me 10X works. Am I missing something? I don't know what mp size camera she used only that it was digital.
     
  21. I took her statement at face value, she indicated with her hands that the area from the original file was about 3x5 and that she increase the size 10x. Photo presented were 16x20 for the largest, but some were 11x14. So (11x14)/(3x5)=10.26 , so for me 10X works. Am I missing something? I don't know what mp size camera she used only that it was digital.
     
  22. Richard; I upsize and drink beer too; but in moderation! :)
    To all; As a practical matter I usually just modern Photohops called upsizing like Bicubic ets that Genuine Fractals. I used GF more when dialup modems were in vogue!
     
  23. @Brett -You are absolutely correct. Having worked in prepress for several (5) years, I have had opportunity (if you can call it that) to do the above tests--and I encourage you to do the same. There is nothing like eating the pudding.
    Information != Data. There is a distinction. Unprezzing cannot 'create' information, it can only interpolate existing data, to create more data. Fundamentally interpolation is creating an artificial relationship (as transitional a data set) between two or more pieces of information. In effect this destroys the clarity of the relationship between pixel values.
    If the information isn't there, which at 25ppi it isn't, hope, prayer and uprezzing, are all much the same--use them if you want a warm fuzzy feeling all over and have time to devote. Or get out there and make another image.
     

Share This Page