Best software for increasing resolution?

Unless you are taking a 1MP image up to billboard size you don't need
anything beyond Photoshop. These programs are in general (except for very
large blow-ups and not the kind you would need for a desktop printer even a
13x19) a big waste of money.

The Spider
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

SS wrote:
> I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent'
> software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair
> interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what
> experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there
> anything even better on the market now.
>
> Thanks

Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

The Spider Formally Seated Next To Little Miss Muffet wrote:
> Unless you are taking a 1MP image up to billboard size

That would be the CSI filter

> you don't need
> anything beyond Photoshop. These programs are in general (except for
> very large blow-ups and not the kind you would need for a desktop
> printer even a 13x19) a big waste of money.

Hmmm. A sharp print standard is 300 ppi. At 13x19, that is
13 * 300 * 19 * 300 = 22.2 megapixels. Unless you have a 1Ds
Mark III 22 megapixel camera, increasing sharpness can really
help. Of course, then there is the "knock you socks off"
600 ppi print, which needs 89 megapixels to cover 13x19.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:49:42 GMT, "SS" <xsx2000x.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent'
>software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair
>interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what
>experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there
>anything even better on the market now.
>
>Thanks
>

Any of the methods that are using PhotoShop's native bicubic interpolation and
its 16-bit math foundation (like Miranda's stair interpolation or that
Richardson-Lucy iteration) will be abysmal compared to other more evolved
interpolation methods. PhotoShop is still only using 16-bit math (think Windows
3.1), it has to throw away so much data required for the detail. If you are
using 16-bit images you're already at the limit of PhotoShop's math-bandwidth.
Trying to do anything complex with 16-bit data in a 16-bit math environment is
pushing it beyond what it was designed for and inherently limited to. No
different than trying to add 5+7 and getting 2 or 9 as a result in a
single-digit math universe. The 10's unit of measure would have to be thrown
away in that environment because it doesn't and can't exist within that
constraint. The same as getting ERR- displayed on your hand calculator when
trying to multiply values beyond what it can calculate.

I happen to use the old S-Spline 2.2 first to see if that will do the job. When
just trying to find a page for that I see now that it's long since been updated
into PhotoZoom. It's worked so well all these years, I guess it's time to try an
update.

CleanerZoomer is also a pretty interesting utility to keep on hand. It's a
multi-purpose tool that includes a Lanczos upsampling. Its noise removal method
I also sometimes like better than others I've used.

http://www.stratopoint.com/czoomer.htm

There used to be a site online that compared all the various upsampling
utilities. I have long since lost that bookmark. Maybe you or someone else can
find and share it again. It's where I was lead to these other programs. So much
will depend on the kind of detail in your image and which kinds of detail that
you want to enlarge. Some of them work better if there is a lot of sharp angular
details in your image. For example if your image is of a graphics-arts event, it
would upsample all those bold edges, signs with text, and color detail very
well. Other interpolation programs work worse on those but do better on softer
or more curved and random details. This is why that comparison page was so
handy. It clearly showed when one utility and method was better than another.
There's no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to upsampling.
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:37:57 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote:

>IggyZiggy wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:49:42 GMT, "SS" <xsx2000x.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent'
>>> software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair
>>> interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what
>>> experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there
>>> anything even better on the market now.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>> Any of the methods that are using PhotoShop's native bicubic interpolation and
>> its 16-bit math foundation (like Miranda's stair interpolation or that
>> Richardson-Lucy iteration) will be abysmal compared to other more evolved
>> interpolation methods.
>
>The long rant has little to do with reality. Not that I'm defending
>photoshop's math, which is actually 15-bit, not 16-bit. Digital
>camera images have a signal to noise ratio limited by photon noise.
>Camera's with larger pixels have a maximum S/N of about 250 and less.
>Cameras with smaller pixels have maximum S/N of much less, and
>15-bit math is plenty for all. What programs like
>photoshop and other photo editors lack is true sharpening
>algorithms. Obviously you do not understand what Richardson-Lucy
>is (it is not a resampling algorithm in the sense of the rest of the
>rant).
>
>Roger

You should have the word "Obfuscate" tattooed to your forehead. You seem to
live, breathe, eat, and worship that God. Look it up.

Keep digging and supporting the construction of those deep ditches, the ones in
which you have permanently buried your crippled mind and any morsel of talent
and creativity.
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

IggyZiggy wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:37:57 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark)" <username RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>
>> IggyZiggy wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:49:42 GMT, "SS" <xsx2000x RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent'
>>>> software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair
>>>> interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what
>>>> experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there
>>>> anything even better on the market now.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>> Any of the methods that are using PhotoShop's native bicubic interpolation and
>>> its 16-bit math foundation (like Miranda's stair interpolation or that
>>> Richardson-Lucy iteration) will be abysmal compared to other more evolved
>>> interpolation methods.
>> The long rant has little to do with reality. Not that I'm defending
>> photoshop's math, which is actually 15-bit, not 16-bit. Digital
>> camera images have a signal to noise ratio limited by photon noise.
>> Camera's with larger pixels have a maximum S/N of about 250 and less.
>> Cameras with smaller pixels have maximum S/N of much less, and
>> 15-bit math is plenty for all. What programs like
>> photoshop and other photo editors lack is true sharpening
>> algorithms. Obviously you do not understand what Richardson-Lucy
>> is (it is not a resampling algorithm in the sense of the rest of the
>> rant).
>>
>> Roger
>
> You should have the word "Obfuscate" tattooed to your forehead. You seem to
> live, breathe, eat, and worship that God. Look it up.
>
> Keep digging and supporting the construction of those deep ditches, the ones in
> which you have permanently buried your crippled mind and any morsel of talent
> and creativity.
>
What I said is correct. I'm sorry it went wooshing over your head.
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:12:36 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> wrote:

>
>What I said is correct. I'm sorry it went wooshing over your head.

The only "wooshing" in any threads in which you reply are the convoluted
reasonings that you've invented to justify your own self-invented theories. I
understood what you said perfectly. I also saw the glaring errors in it. That's
why I replied with the perfect reply.

Now go troll someone else for attention. I'm surprised you've not used this
thread for your usual spam tactics. You know, all those photos that you can't
sell so you have to force them under everyone's noses. Another self-evident
proof of your lack of talent and ability to reason. Which the rest of us see
through clearly, no "wooshing" involved. It's just your own "wooshing" that
happens between your ears in all that cavernous space.

I forgot, you already did refer people to your spam-pages in this thread,
referring them to an outdated upsampling technique to support your favorite
editor based on last century technology. At least you are a consistent spamming
troll. I'll give you that much.
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

IggyZiggy wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:12:36 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>> What I said is correct. I'm sorry it went wooshing over your head.
>
> The only "wooshing" in any threads in which you reply are the convoluted
> reasonings that you've invented to justify your own self-invented theories. I
> understood what you said perfectly. I also saw the glaring errors in it. That's
> why I replied with the perfect reply.
>
> Now go troll someone else for attention. I'm surprised you've not used this
> thread for your usual spam tactics. You know, all those photos that you can't
> sell so you have to force them under everyone's noses. Another self-evident
> proof of your lack of talent and ability to reason. Which the rest of us see
> through clearly, no "wooshing" involved. It's just your own "wooshing" that
> happens between your ears in all that cavernous space.
>
> I forgot, you already did refer people to your spam-pages in this thread,
> referring them to an outdated upsampling technique to support your favorite
> editor based on last century technology. At least you are a consistent spamming
> troll. I'll give you that much.

Ignore the jealous hateful troll. It does not contribute to
the newsgroup except to pull threads into the mud like it is
trying to do now.
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:471D47AE.2040709@qwest.net...
> SS wrote:
> > I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent'
> > software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair
> > interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what
> > experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there
> > anything even better on the market now.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1
>
> Roger

Interesting!

Is this software available to the public? If so where?

Thanks
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

"Roger N. Clark" wrote:
> SS asked:
>> I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent'
>> software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair
>> interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what
>> experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there
>> anything even better on the market now.
>
> Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1

I think Qimage from ddisoftware.com
and SAR from general-cathexis.com
produce the best upsampling results.
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:49:42 GMT, "SS" <xsx2000x.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent'
>software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair
>interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what
>experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there
>anything even better on the market now.
>
>Thanks
>

I'm so glad you started this thread. It's been years since I've checked into
updates for S-Spline. I just tried that new PhotoZoom Pro with their new
"S-Spline XL" extrapolation (interpolation) methods. Amazing. I could swear it's
pulling factual details out of photos that I know shouldn't be there. You really
can't tell the difference between "invented" detail and real detail. That's some
amazing programming. Even tiny unreadable lettering becomes clearly legible.

Again, thanks for starting this thread. I had no idea they've advanced these
algorithms that far. Between PhotoZoom and using Focus Magic (for soft edges and
motion blur mistakes) there's many favorite near-miss photos that I know I can
salvage for larger prints now.

Any of you who have never tried some specialty upsampling software, check out
that PhotoZoom program. I think it's much better than Genuine Fractals. GF
always left huge plasticky details that reminded me of a bad posterization job.
The extra detail created in PhotoZoom looks about as real as anything I've ever
seen before.
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

IggyZiggy wrote:

> The extra detail created in PhotoZoom looks about as real as anything I've ever
> seen before.

Yes, software that creates extra detail is indeed 'real'.

Snorfle.

--
lsmft
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution? 

IggyZiggy wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:12:36 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark)" <username RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>
>> What I said is correct. I'm sorry it went wooshing over your head.
>
> The only "wooshing" in any threads in which you reply are the convoluted
> reasonings that you've invented to justify your own self-invented theories. I
> understood what you said perfectly. I also saw the glaring errors in it. That's
> why I replied with the perfect reply.
>
> Now go troll someone else for attention. I'm surprised you've not used this
> thread for your usual spam tactics. You know, all those photos that you can't
> sell so you have to force them under everyone's noses. Another self-evident
> proof of your lack of talent and ability to reason. Which the rest of us see
> through clearly, no "wooshing" involved. It's just your own "wooshing" that
> happens between your ears in all that cavernous space.
>
> I forgot, you already did refer people to your spam-pages in this thread,
> referring them to an outdated upsampling technique to support your favorite
> editor based on last century technology. At least you are a consistent spamming
> troll. I'll give you that much.
> If you have trouble understanding Roger's post, then the problem is
obviously with you. Of course you claim to understand them, but you keep
proving conclusively that you don't. Spend less time trolling and much
more time trying to improve your sixth-grade education. You might also
find a better use for your time than in creating an unending list of
aliases.
Allen
 >> Stay informed about: Best software for increasing resolution?