OnOne Perfect Resize Professional Edition 7

[romain_j.]

<p>Hello everybody,<br /><br />I am looking for experiences about Perfect Resize 7.0.1 OnOne software that allows you to enlarge the resolution files.<br /><br />Is it efficient to enlarge the image size without too much damage? If you use it you be satisfied? and do you recommend?<br /><br />I hope that the topic was not already addressed, from my side I do not find anything.<br /><br />Roman</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>i have made test.. and cant justify to buy a 160$ / 100$ plugin that do what Photoshop do... faster and without a big difference in quality. heres a example of what i mean.</p>

<p>1 side have been interpolated with Perfect Resize 7... take 20sec.</p>

<p>1 side have been interpolated with Photoshop CS5... instantly</p>

<p>witch one do you prefer?</p><div></div>

[patricklavoie]

<p>another view</p><div></div>

[patricklavoie]

<p>the original file</p><div></div>

[romain_j.]

<p>I Have Photoshop CS4.<br>

CS5 is more advanced interpolate files?<br>

When you increase the résolultion with photoshop, you just change the DPI in "Image Size"? Or should it be otherwise?<br>

Thank you for your advice, I did well to hold my purchase.</p>

[romain_j.]

<p>I Have Photoshop CS4.<br>

CS5 is more advanced interpolate files?<br>

When you increase the résolultion with photoshop, you just change the DPI in "Image Size"? Or should it be otherwise?<br>

Thank you for your advice, I did well to hold my purchase.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>CS3-4-5 are the same (if i remember correctly they all have bicubic smoother / sharper)</p>

<p>Heres the recipe for this particular example;</p>

<p>1_open the file</p>

<p>2_image size</p>

<p>3_change the pixel dimension to % instead of pixel</p>

<p>4_enter 800%</p>

<p>5_didtn touch the PPI</p>

<p>6_choose bicubic sharper to get the same level of sharpen that Genuine 7 add to the file. I normally use bicumic smooter and add a high pass filter after.. bicubic sharper does the job right wiht this image.</p>

[romain_j.]

<p>Are you french ?</p>

[patricklavoie]

I type in English that bad? : )

 

yes French Canadian from Montreal

[romain_j.]

<p>Bonsoir,<br>

Je suis francais de Paris. Merci pour vos conseils. J'ai suivie vos instructions (j'ai aumenté configuré mon fichier à 250% et non pas 800%).<br>

La seul chose que je n'ai pas compris c'est votre derniere instruction (<em>6_choose bicubic sharper to get the same level of sharpen that Genuine 7 add to the file. I normally use bicumic smooter and add a high pass filter after.. bicubic sharper does the job right wiht this image.</em>) ? Pourriez vous m'en dire plus ? <br>

Merci pour votre aide,</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I am not going to offend either of you with my attempts at French...</p>

<p>I have used this program back when it was "Genuine Fractals" (2, 5, and 6) and was never impressed. It was better than a simple "bicubic" in PS, but just about the same as several totally free higher order interpolators, like the Lanczos interpolator in IrfanView. It was also not really better than a PS action that simulated higher order interpolators by doing a bunch of small bicubic steps, i.e a sequence of eight 10% resizes instead of one 100% doubling.</p>

<p>I found that the best "resize for big print" program was Qimage, which delivered visibly better results than GF, PS bicbic whatever, and those PS "actions". Just my experience.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>i have made test.. and cant justify to buy a 160$ / 100$ plugin that do what Photoshop do... faster and without a big difference in quality. heres a example of what i mean.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. And I suspect on a print, the difference we see above would be all but invisible. </p>

<p>CS4 and CS5 (I’d have to check, perhaps CS3) are the same in terms of having the newer Bicubic options. </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>i print them for fun a moment ago, 2_ 11x14.. and when i drop them on the floor, pick them back.. i cant say witch is witch?! : )</p>

<p>Is Qimage also work on a Mac? i keep hearing about it but never tried it myself.. im curious about this *so better result* vs Photoshop..Do you have experience with it Andrew?</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Right and there is the rub. I see lots of people suggesting one is better than the other based only at how they look at some view magnification in Photoshop. Got to print em. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is Qimage also work on a Mac?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My understanding is no, Windows only. As such, never used it. </p>

[romain_j.]

<p>Hey,I'm trying on my side already with photoshop. To increase the resolution to make alarge format printing, what "mode" should I choose after increasing the percentageof size? (see attachment: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/capturedcran20110513214.png/ ).<br>

Thank you</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>bicubic smoother (bicubique plus lisse) for upsizing work well, but you need to add a bit of sharpen after.</p>

<p>bicubic sharper (biqubique plus net) for downsizing add a bit of sharpness by itself to compensate for the lost of it when downsizing. BUT you can also try it when you uprez a file (like in my example) if you want a sharper result, sometime a bit crude i must say.</p>

<p>Oh, and by the way, anything under 400% (you are using 220%) can be done in one shot, without most of the time no lost of visual quality. Also, many times, if you are printing bigger than a 16x20 (40cm x 60cm environ) you can use 200PPI instead of the 300.. so that way it is possible to interpolated the file even less..</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Yes, Computers only, but it's very well behaved code, capable of running under "loose" emulators like Wine. I've had it running on both Linux boxes and fruit flavored computer surrogates.</p>

[kirk_thompson]

<p>The original release of Perfect Resize was buggy, but they've fixed it now. I always use it in preference to Bicubid Smoother when printing over 13x19". IMO it's the best way of res-ing up on Mac. (QImage may be as good/better on PC.) </p>

<p>Kirk</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I found the same thing Patrick....Photoshop maintains texture better, without the painterly look from GF and other plugins.</p>

[romain_j.]

<p>I was told that it was preferable to extrapolate (for enlargements) image with photoshop in several times, exactly 10%, then another 10% etc... (by 10% steps exactly).<br>

This is better than one time?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I was told that it was preferable to extrapolate (for enlargements) image with photoshop in several times, exactly 10%, then another 10% etc... (by 10% steps exactly).<br />This is better than one time?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the old days (prior to Bicubic smoother, sharper) yes. Now, no. </p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>In my tests with using my textures, Perfect Resize was a significant improvement over just using Photoshop CS5. I did tests on how a texture would look upsized with Perfect Resize and another if I had upsized in CS5. I printed them on my Epson 3880. Perfect Resize was the winner. I did not test it against the free apps others talked about, but I got the standard version of PR on sale for $100 and I thought it was money well spent.</p><div></div>