Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals

<Pte227 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158868273.862270.185040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Everyone
> Has anyone tried Genuine Fractals plug-in for photoshop? I bought the
> 3.0LE version a couple of years ago but have never got it to work as
> Lizard Tech claim. It is supposed to enlarge up to 600% with virtually
> no loss of resolution. When I enlarge an image using Genuine Fractals
> the result is no different from the same enlargement using Photoshop's
> bicubic re-sampling! I guess I must be doing something wrong but I've
> tried many times following the manual instructions as best I can.
> Anyone got any ideas where I am going wrong?
> Thanks & Regards


Your experience is not unique. There are a few people
who swear by this product, but there's another group
(myself included) who have concluded that there's no
there there. (I worked with an older version that came
with my Nikon scanner.)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

Pte227.TakeThisOut@aol.com wrote:
> Hi Everyone
> Has anyone tried Genuine Fractals plug-in for photoshop? I bought the
> 3.0LE version a couple of years ago but have never got it to work as
> Lizard Tech claim. It is supposed to enlarge up to 600% with virtually
> no loss of resolution. When I enlarge an image using Genuine Fractals
> the result is no different from the same enlargement using Photoshop's
> bicubic re-sampling! I guess I must be doing something wrong but I've
> tried many times following the manual instructions as best I can.
> Anyone got any ideas where I am going wrong?
> Thanks & Regards
> Pte

I am using SizeFixer. There seems to be some improvement using this
program.
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

Pte227 RemoveThis @aol.com wrote:
> Hi Everyone
> Has anyone tried Genuine Fractals plug-in for photoshop? I bought the
> 3.0LE version a couple of years ago but have never got it to work as
> Lizard Tech claim. It is supposed to enlarge up to 600% with virtually
> no loss of resolution. When I enlarge an image using Genuine Fractals
> the result is no different from the same enlargement using Photoshop's
> bicubic re-sampling! I guess I must be doing something wrong but I've
> tried many times following the manual instructions as best I can.
> Anyone got any ideas where I am going wrong?
> Thanks & Regards
> Pte

I am using SizeFixer. There seems to be some improvement using this
program.
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

No program can create data or detail that isn't there. I don't care what the
marketing monkeys tell you. BTW Alien Skin Blow Up is a bit better than GF.
Not that I want either one of them.

R


<Pte227 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158868273.862270.185040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Everyone
> Has anyone tried Genuine Fractals plug-in for photoshop? I bought the
> 3.0LE version a couple of years ago but have never got it to work as
> Lizard Tech claim. It is supposed to enlarge up to 600% with virtually
> no loss of resolution. When I enlarge an image using Genuine Fractals
> the result is no different from the same enlargement using Photoshop's
> bicubic re-sampling! I guess I must be doing something wrong but I've
> tried many times following the manual instructions as best I can.
> Anyone got any ideas where I am going wrong?
> Thanks & Regards
> Pte
>
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

Bill Hilton <bhilton665.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone tried Genuine Fractals plug-in for photoshop? I bought the
>> 3.0LE version a couple of years ago but have never got it to work as
>> Lizard Tech claim. It is supposed to enlarge up to 600% with virtually
>> no loss of resolution. When I enlarge an image using Genuine Fractals
>> the result is no different from the same enlargement using Photoshop's
>> bicubic re-sampling!
>
> Many people have come to the same conclusion. I had GF 2.0 (bundled
> with a scanner) and tested it on several images and felt I could get
> better results with Photoshop too, at least at the magnifications I used.

That's interesting, because I have compared the Lanczos filter in Irfanview
and ImageMagick with Photoshop bicubic and bicubic smoother. In all cases
where upsampling aspect ratio remained 1:1, Lanczos produce sharper/smoother
edges and better detail. Perhaps bicubic might be better when changing
X and Y axes in different ratios; it is known for that.
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

<Pte227 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message news:1158868273.862270.185040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Has anyone tried Genuine Fractals plug-in for photoshop? I bought the
> 3.0LE version a couple of years ago but have never got it to work as
> Lizard Tech claim. It is supposed to enlarge up to 600% with virtually
> no loss of resolution. When I enlarge an image using Genuine Fractals
> the result is no different from the same enlargement using Photoshop's
> bicubic re-sampling! I guess I must be doing something wrong but I've
> tried many times following the manual instructions as best I can.
> Anyone got any ideas where I am going wrong?
> Thanks & Regards
> Pte

I've used GF (Anyone want the "light" and heavy" versions? - That
should tell you something... and was impressed with the results
until I tried up-sizing in Micrographyx Picture Publisher, and it did
about as well.
--
David Ruether
ruether DeleteThis @verizon.net
rpn1 DeleteThis @cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

>> Bill Hilton <bhilton665 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Many people have come to the same conclusion. I had GF 2.0 (bundled
>> with a scanner) and tested it on several images and felt I could get
>> better results with Photoshop too, at least at the magnifications I used.


>Bill Tuthill wrote:
>
> That's interesting, because I have compared the Lanczos filter in Irfanview
> and ImageMagick with Photoshop bicubic and bicubic smoother. In all cases
> where upsampling aspect ratio remained 1:1, Lanczos produce sharper/smoother
> edges and better detail.

I haven't tried this filter but the examples I saw didn't seem to look
any better than what you can get with Photoshop, for example these two
pages using older versions of Photoshop ...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/SI/
http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm

Roger Clark has a page on upsamping using "Adaptive Richardson-Lucy
Iteration" and feels that works the best ... you can download the fox
image snippet and run your software and see if you get something as
good or better ... when I did this using just Photoshop and my normal
three-step workflow (which includes two sharpening passes) that I use
for printing Roger thought it looked about as good what he gets with
R-L, except instead of taking 90 minutes to run I could do it in 3
minutes ... at any rate if you can beat his example Roger would like to
see it. This is useful info because it's a standardized image.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1/index.html

Note that different methods might give better or worse results
depending on the image (and the operator if sharpening is included).
For example here's a test (by someone selling GF, just as the guy
selling a Stair Interpolation action came up with an image that looks
good upsized using SI) that shows GF is better than Photoshop, at least
for this image ... http://www.inkjetart.com/news/gf/ ... but it's
irrelevant to me because they rasterized a vector image and then ran
the tests and none of my images are vector-like images. Few photos
are.

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

> I haven't tried this filter but the examples I saw didn't seem to look
> any better than what you can get with Photoshop, for example these two
> pages using older versions of Photoshop ...
>
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/SI/
> http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm
>
> Roger Clark has a page on upsamping using "Adaptive Richardson-Lucy
> Iteration" and feels that works the best ... you can download the fox
> image snippet and run your software and see if you get something as
> good or better ... when I did this using just Photoshop and my normal
> three-step workflow (which includes two sharpening passes) that I use
> for printing Roger thought it looked about as good what he gets with
> R-L, except instead of taking 90 minutes to run I could do it in 3
> minutes ... at any rate if you can beat his example Roger would like to
> see it. This is useful info because it's a standardized image.
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1/index.html
>
> Note that different methods might give better or worse results
> depending on the image (and the operator if sharpening is included).
> For example here's a test (by someone selling GF, just as the guy
> selling a Stair Interpolation action came up with an image that looks
> good upsized using SI) that shows GF is better than Photoshop, at least
> for this image ... http://www.inkjetart.com/news/gf/ ... but it's
> irrelevant to me because they rasterized a vector image and then ran
> the tests and none of my images are vector-like images. Few photos
> are.
>
> Bill
>

That last link is very old by a few years. GF is now owned by OnOne
software and it's version 4, no saving stn files anymore. And it goes
up to 800%.

But thanks for the Clarkvision link, don't want to spend more money
these days. Currently I have GF 2.5 and have happily used it since I
bought it, with perfect results.

Because of this thread I tested CS1's bicubic work for both sharper
and smoother against GF 2.5 as follows:

800 x 600 x 72ppi to 4800 x 3600 x 300ppi (600% up)

I had never tested this before since PS 5, and was quite pleasently
surprized! PS's BC smoother is perfect. Should I upgrade GF for
$69? Maybe not!

--
}<)))*> Giant_Alex
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

Bill Hilton <bhilton665.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>> ... I have compared the Lanczos filter in Irfanview and ImageMagick
>> with Photoshop bicubic and bicubic smoother. In all cases where
>> upsampling aspect ratio remained 1:1, Lanczos produce sharper/smoother
>> edges and better detail.
>
> I haven't tried this filter but the examples I saw didn't seem to look
> any better than what you can get with Photoshop, for example these two
> pages using older versions of Photoshop ...
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/SI/
> http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm

Fred Miranda has something to sell (stairstep) and the other page
is good but the images aren't similar to what I shoot.

I'm not saying Lanczos is the best upsampling filter-- Qimage and
SARS are better-- but Lanczos might be the best downsampling filter.
Here are samples showing its improvement over PS Bicubic Sharper.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E7py

The reason I mention Lanczos is that it's free, which is somthing
you can't say for Photoshop Bicubic Smoother. And IMO (although
opinions are subjective) Lanczos is enough of an improvement over PsBS
to be worth downloading and using despite its non-plugin status.

> Roger Clark has a page on upsamping using "Adaptive Richardson-Lucy
> Iteration" and feels that works the best ... you can download the fox
> image snippet and run your software and see if you get something as
> good or better ... when I did this using just Photoshop and my normal
> three-step workflow (which includes two sharpening passes) that I use
> for printing Roger thought it looked about as good what he gets with
> R-L, except instead of taking 90 minutes to run I could do it in 3
> minutes ... at any rate if you can beat his example Roger would like to
> see it. This is useful info because it's a standardized image.
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1/index.html

Thanks for the URL, which I had not seen before. I'll study it.

> Note that different methods might give better or worse results
> depending on the image (and the operator if sharpening is included).

Yes, certainly true.
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

Gea wrote:
> Please try Apophysis , its a free download
> this is from my art group and the link ought to get you there
>
> http://apophysis.deviantart.com/
> best wishes
>
> Gea

It appears to be a Windows program having nothing to do with
photography.

Serious artists use Macs.
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

Please try Apophysis , its a free download
this is from my art group and the link ought to get you there

http://apophysis.deviantart.com/
best wishes

Gea

"cjcampbell" <christophercampbell.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158893138.606024.252890@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pte227.RemoveThis@aol.com wrote:
>> Hi Everyone
>> Has anyone tried Genuine Fractals plug-in for photoshop? I bought the
>> 3.0LE version a couple of years ago but have never got it to work as
>> Lizard Tech claim. It is supposed to enlarge up to 600% with virtually
>> no loss of resolution. When I enlarge an image using Genuine Fractals
>> the result is no different from the same enlargement using Photoshop's
>> bicubic re-sampling! I guess I must be doing something wrong but I've
>> tried many times following the manual instructions as best I can.
>> Anyone got any ideas where I am going wrong?
>> Thanks & Regards
>> Pte
>
> I am using SizeFixer. There seems to be some improvement using this
> program.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

In article <1159602151.691242.304820 DeleteThis @e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"cjcampbell" <christophercampbell DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> Gea wrote:
> > Please try Apophysis , its a free download
> > this is from my art group and the link ought to get you there
> >
> > http://apophysis.deviantart.com/
> > best wishes
> >
> > Gea
>
> It appears to be a Windows program having nothing to do with
> photography.
>
> Serious artists use Macs.

Bloomin' heck! I'm finally a serious artist. Banzai!
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals 

Stewy wrote:
> In article <1159602151.691242.304820 DeleteThis @e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "cjcampbell" <christophercampbell DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gea wrote:
> > > Please try Apophysis , its a free download
> > > this is from my art group and the link ought to get you there
> > >
> > > http://apophysis.deviantart.com/
> > > best wishes
> > >
> > > Gea
> >
> > It appears to be a Windows program having nothing to do with
> > photography.
> >
> > Serious artists use Macs.
>
> Bloomin' heck! I'm finally a serious artist. Banzai!

Having a Mac is only the first step. In order to be a truly serious
artist you have to smell bad, dress badly, wear a bizarre hairstyle, be
addicted to drugs or alcohol or both, be on the run from the law,
suffer from at least one sexually transmitted disease, have several
children out of wedlock despite being a homosexual, prefer to work in
artistic media such as urine and human excrement, blame all your
problems on America, claim that nobody understands your work (and be
right), and suffer from psychoses such as schizophrenia or paranaoia or
preferably both.

Personally, I prefer to simply use a Mac, although paranoia seems
attractive at times.
 >> Stay informed about: Lizard Tech - Genuine Fractals