Are these the same [uprez in PS and Perfect Resize)
drcarl
Registered Users Posts: 104 Major grins
Greetings,
Should I decide to uprez an image's dpi/ppi from 180 to 300, I can do that in Photoshop (resample off) or in Perfect Resize 7 (<--while changing the document size in the same window)
Is there any difference in the results between utilizing these two methods?
TIA
drcarl
Should I decide to uprez an image's dpi/ppi from 180 to 300, I can do that in Photoshop (resample off) or in Perfect Resize 7 (<--while changing the document size in the same window)
Is there any difference in the results between utilizing these two methods?
TIA
drcarl
0
Comments
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Oh No! Lightroom? I've got it but have not started using it yet...there's yet another project to investigate and software learn about. lol -I suppose I should at least open it.
As you recall, (and thanks for your help on the other post), I am trying to sort-out "up-rezzing" and am deciding between using several methods reviewed on many sites. It's boiling down to:
I understand there is far more to up-rezzing than, um, meets the eye...especially what an eye can see on only a monitor with its limitations (even though I have the cool NEC display made with the ~amazing~ "IPS" panel - makes other displays look like comic books). I am still getting through articles on sharpening (including the one you mentioned).
All that said, and without having to drive many miles to a printer for a test (I'll do that in the future), I wonder one thing for now. Considering #'s 3 & 4, above. Just one question:
PS - How does one output an 8x10 sample? Open the up-rezzed file in Photoshop and set the crop tool at "8 in" and "10 in" and estimate what part of the up-rezzed image is equal to an 8x10?
There most certainly should be in PR and is in Photoshop assuming size AND resolution are locked down.
Work in pixels. Then divide them into the number per ‘inch’ you wish to output. So a 24x30@180 is considerably different than a 24x30@300. You can see this in Photoshop. Just make a new document at 24x30@180 and one at 24@30 at 300, then in Image Size, examine the total pixels. Big difference.
Resize the entire image both ways. Then you could either use the crop tool or the Rectangle Marquee and just insert 8x10 or actual pixels into the toolbar options. Crop away (or copy) an 8x10 section you want to output to examine. Try to get the same crop/area in both documents. Then just print those sections and examine the output. And in terms of working via pixels, using the Rectangle Marquee, 8x10@180 would be 1440x1800 pixels, the other would be 2400x3000 pixels (which you can again set in the options bar for this tool).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Now, I completely get it that 24x30@180 is totally different from 24x30@300.
What I am looking for an answer to is this single thing: >>change the 180 to 300 in PS, or in PR?<<
Any difference? does it matter?
(if it doesn't matter, I'll do it inside PR)
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Bay can work with other ppi data; I asked them what's the best to cover 24x30 and smaller and they said 300 is the best. So, I'll give them 300.
That said, (how do I say this?) ---the >>180 to 300<< part of the process, and ONLY that part, can be changed from within PS ~OR~ from within PR. The final image will be 24x30. The document size can also be changed from within PS ~OR~ PR, but, um, please forget about the doc size. It's just the 180>300 aspect that I am asking about; only that one aspect...that one small step, that part of the overall process.
I know the doc size and ppi are joined at the hip. I can change the ppi in PS ~before~ I take it to PR, ~or~ I can change the ppi from within PR AT THE SAME TIME as resizing the document size.
I am asking about changing 180>300 part only....do it first, then take it to PR, or do them both in PR....
You should be able to set this in either product. Frankly, I’d do everything in PS as I saw nothing useful in terms of PR.
FWIW, I’m not trying to sell anything, but I did a Webinar on resolution and resampling for Retouch Pro, and you can see the results (on screen obviously) from the testing:
http://www.retouchpro.com/index.php?page=arrentals2
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Indeed; I not only should be able to I ~am~ able to. I've tried it in both.
I know I've much to learn.
I'll take one last stab at this original and extremely literal question.
Making this a multiple choice. Only two possible answers:
Q: Is there ANY difference between changing the ppi in PS vs. changing it in PR?
thanks again for everything
drcarl
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
not at all .... in my experience... everything I ever used PS to uprez looked like crap.....
Genuine Fractals (Perfect Resize) has won for me hands down every time...
here is a side by side comparison: http://tinyurl.com/7q7head Perfect Resize7 wins
Let’s have a full rez crop to print out and then we can actually evaluate the two.
What looks like crap on screen can often look far better output on a printer. That’s so obviously true for output sharpening! What looks good on-screen is great when the output is on-screen. For a print, not at all.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
So then can this be a useful example? Do you disagree that without printing out such enlargements, the ‘test’ is pretty worthless? I have output such examples. Not that every image might show the same results. But the point is, I’m testing the process! Who would blow up such an image only to show it on-screen?
You said PR never let you down so presumably you have tried it and Photoshop side by side and output the data. If so, how about sharing a crop so the rest of us can do the ‘science’ you did?
I’ve got my files. I’d be happy to share them. Based on my testing, I’ve made up my mind based on my science. IF someone has similar files that show otherwise, I’d like to see them and print them.
And why the signature of Vinnie’s about his bias towards this product? If you have examples to prove the superiority of GF/PR, let’s see it.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
yes I have my files...simply put once the image is uprezed all but the original DNG is gone....Why do I VV quote in my Sig...because I respect his opinion..as to it being his bias, sir your opinion is also simply YOUR bias... I did my testing between PS and GF and i encourage each person that I give the recommendation to, to do the same...uprez take and 8x10 crop of a critical area and go to walmart or a trusted printer and print...or print at home if you have a quality printer......so i do not want anyone to just blindly jump on the GF wagon without comparing it them selves......as to what one sees on the screen being useless... for me that has not been the case..... for me if it looked like crap on screen it looks like crap printed... but you have your opinion and I have mine......not going to argue ....I am still at GF 6 and I only upgraded from 4 because i could not get 4 to run on Win7......I have no plans to upgrade until I absolutely need to due to incompatibility of software to OS......
I also recommend that all that are interested should do the 30 day trial......it used to be that one could uprez 20 images and save ...no watermarks from GF/OnOne...but I understand that has changed...no all trial uprezing get a watermark, I hear...don't know.
Have a good day...
The OP asked a specific question about upsize settings. You didn’t answer the question but instead provided a URL and said PR never let you down. Do you think that was helpful?
I asked how the URL was useful in light of it only being an on-screen example that has zero bearing on output. I asked if such an example, in light of what we know about on-screen representation of output sharpening looking ugly and printing nicely was useful. You didn’t reply. I asked if you have examples to share that illustrate that PR produces a superior result. You apparently don’t. I asked why you quote Versace in your signature with respect to this product and you tell us because you respect him (begging the question if this quote is about Vinnie or the product he’s pitching).
Sorry but it appears from the above facts that you have an interested in promoting GF/PR. That’s fine, just show us some proof!
I don’t understand. You don’t have any examples, TIFFs, PSD’s where you actually applied the same process with both GF/PR? You upsized and they are gone?
Indeed it is. Based on actual testing. Based on science albeit not science that defines results for all and every image as I said. I’m willing to share the images or explain the testing methodology used to produce this bias. You’ve done NONE of this and in fact, pointed to a web site as presumably proof (weak) to your bias. I consider this thus far pseudoscience at best (see: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html).
Can you explain your bias and how you might steer others to such bias using a useful testing methodology? That’s all I asked. If you can’t, just say so and I (perhaps others) will consider your bias in that light. If there are original, unresized data one can download and use to illustrate your bias, along with examples you processed, I’d very much like to see them. Because it IS possible this product has a benefit. But I’m not buying that until I see some proof. And there is an internet filled with people like yourself who state this product produces superior results with little example to back it up to a print. The proof is in the print! Otherwise why would we be using this product? To make an image that fits on a display on the side of a building in Times Square?
And have you ever seen the opposite? Because I and many others have. Do you believe that a screen representation is really a good indicator of the output and why not just let us examine the output? Even my 30” NEC is only 101ppi, a far cry from what I’ll end up with from my Epson 3880 or 4900.
We are in total agreement. Exactly what I did and glad I didn’t blindly shell out money for the product. But using the trail to evaluate the qualities of the product is what is key here! I submit that simply viewing images on screen is a poor way to evaluate the product. I can view the PR and PS enlargements side by side on a print and I can see the benefits or lack thereof of each, including the timing tests I did processing each image. My bias is a bias but it is based on some facts and real examples: It took 5 minutes and 32.9 seconds for Perfect Resize to process the data, 12 seconds to save it to disk (total 5:45). It took LR 13 seconds to render and save to disk. It took Photoshop 3 seconds! I also tested step intepolation which took considerable longer than BiCubic Smoother to get to the desired resize. I have each 8x10 print I can examine far closer than viewing distance. I can see that given the excessive time and cost, PR didn’t produce anything useful and in fact, with proper capture sharpening, LR was significantly better in terms of output quality.
I have the files, I have no problem providing them along with a step by step set of instructions. So, there is the work done to produce this bias. What about you? What can you provide other than a URL showing images you didn’t even process or a signature that claims GF/PR is the best solution for this task?
And what can you add to this series of posts to help the OP?
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Art, thank you for the simple, direct, complete and literal answer.
I found it amazing, no, I was baffled as to why it's so difficult to get an answer such a simple and literal, directly-asked and carefully-worded question (so that I could determine that changing the dpi/ppi setting from with PS or PR does or does not yield the same results).
Should I do that, I'll do it from within PR to save a couple of mouse clicks.
Thank you,
drcarl
Are you kidding? Are you OK? [joke about "Color Management" and maybe writing about "Anger Management" - and a red face goes here?]
I guess I should have said "difference in the final result if the ppi change is done either from within PS or from within PR".
Although sharpening has effects, as does the quality of the printer, the paper, the ink, the stars and what I had for breakfast ALL have effect, I was not asking about ANY other aspect than the ppi/dpi change. Sheesh.
And, you reference and cite a real quack to bolster your position??? Dr. Stephen Berret, MD, the originator of the disgusting site Quackwatch, is a shrink that had his license taken away. He appears to be a very bitter man. His reporting is biased, un-balanced and does not reflect good research. Referring to him is as idiotic as thinking The Cancer Society is actually interested in a cure, rather than managing patients as cash cows, or that the FDA or USDA can provide un-biased information even though the Revolving Door problem with Monsanto executives trading positions with governmental agencies continues. To the uninformed, he certainly seems to make sense.
Because Barrett can not grasp a plausible mechanism of action does not mean one does not exist. Just like the physics of anti-gravity devices. The Laws of physics cannot be broken; we just might not have discovered all of them yet!
I've been learning a lot from this site on logical fallacies. Perhaps you could, too. I foresee a problem, though. Once we learn these interesting concepts, who is there to talk to? Who else would understand when we refer to post hoc, ad hominem or gambler's fallacy?
I assume you know a LOT more about the real issues of print and photo quality than I do. Is it painful? I know the pain of being too smart (on SOME things)
Regardless of the difficulty in our communications, I appreciate and thank you for the time you shared. I make it my job to see what gems I might collect and understand that you certainly have tried to share a few.
I'll end with a joke you might appreciate.
Certain he will be a good interview subject, she goes down to the Wall, and introduces herself to the old man.
She asks, "You come every day to the Wall. Sir, how long have you done this and what are you praying for?"
The old man replies, "I have come here to pray every day for 25 years. In the morning I pray for world peace and for the brotherhood of man. I go home, have a cup of tea, and I come back and pray for the eradication of illness and disease from the earth."
"And very, very important, I pray for peace and understanding between the Israelis and Palestinians."
The journalist is impressed. "How does it make you feel to come here every day for 25 years and pray for these wonderful things?" she asks.
The old man replies, calmly, "Like I'm talking to a f#@k!n' wall."
Of course. As I said, if the two produced the same results, why would anyone use the 3rd party product?
So the points about psduoscience are to be totally dismissed?
I thought I was somewhat clear in terms of a testing methodology. If there are holes in it, I’m all ears. If there are examples and procedures someone cnd supply to me that shows PR produces a better result than Photoshop, that I can examine on a print, I’d like to see it.
If you are going to test to processes for upsizing an image, how will you do this and how will you evaluate the results? Do you believe that viewing an on-screen rendering from both products is sufficient to come to said conclusions? Especially if the final use of said product is output to a printer?
Forgive me if I didn’t understand your question. I tried to get clarification about what differences you were asking for. I still don’t understand how one could ask, if he were to upsize using two products with the same settings, if one should expect the results to be the same. If one were using Photoshop CS6 on a Mac versus a Windows machine, that would be one thing. But I assumed you were asking if there would be a difference between Photoshop and PR. There most certainly is a difference in the document data, the time it takes to process the data and the cost to do so. Again, I have samples. I think after this conversation you might get a better idea how to test each (and why).
Or you can just put your faith in a product and believe it creates a superior result. As my dear friend, the late Bruce Fraser would say, If you're happy with what you have, be happy that you're happy with what you have!
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I think the answer is not yes or no, but, ...... It depends. On the image, on the settings, on the printer even perhaps.
In my very limited experience, I find little difference between GF6 and PS when uprezzzing, but for some images, especially high frequency images with lots of fine detail, I find I do prefer the results I get from GF6. And this opinion does come from my prints, not screen observations. The downside like Andrew said is the cost of the software and the greatly increased time and file sizes via Perfect Resize/GF6. Like Art, I still use Genuine Fractals 6 occasionally, and have found no reason to upgrade at this time. Usually I just uprez in Lightroom today, as I do all my printing via LR now, unless I am sending a file to Bay Photo.
Also, whether you send a file with 180 ppi or 300ppi to an Epson printer, rarely makes a discernible difference, but again, it does depend on the image finally, and the viewing distance.
Uprezzzing works better with images of high initial quality, than with images of poor technical quality to begin with. Uprezzing never adds quality to the image.
I suggest the OP make a few test prints and draw his own conclusions about the significance of changes in the ppi.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Good thing the question had nothing to do with overall results or with usefullness of a product. It was only and solelly about any possible difference in performing the 180 to 300 ppi step, JUST THAT STEP, in either program
Touche. Truth is truth no matter the source, even if it's from a misleading slime-ball like Barrett {urp} I'll not go back and analyse all the diversions and derailments that had nothing to do with the one step the OP (me) was asking about - lol.
Indeed. And testing by printing is really the best final authority on what works. My question was kind of like this: I have a key that came with the car. I also had one made. Does it make any difference which one I use to change the door from a locked to unlocked state? (didn't need to read the entire owner's manual for that! <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/Laughing.gif" border="0" alt="" >)
I did the 180>300 ppi step in each program and do see a slight diffference between the two. The PR is a tad brighter, of all the silly observations I could make!
Forgiven. (I only asked about that one solitary solo isolated step about a gajillion different ways - lol - and since I was only interested in that isolated aspect, I even made a separate thread! - This one)...and my solid state drive processes data almost instantaneously...well...ok...it took maybe 10? seconds. I can spare 10 sec. (obviously - lol)
"Faith" and "belief" are for those who have a great need to answer something not answerable - to fill an empty hole of non-understanding - as is demonstrated by the folly of the Abrahamian religions. Personally, as a practicing Pastafarian, I believe in the FSM.
Thanks again, and have a great day! (<--whatever THAT means! <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/Laughing.gif" border="0" alt="" >!)
Thanks for your good suggestions. I'll do some testing some time in the future. I do zero printing locally because I want the quality a lab like Bay can provide without having to buy and maintain the kind of ~output devices~ (printers) they use....and I won't even mention stocking different paper.
I learned a lot about PR and PS and uprezzing here and on other posts and articles. My questions was far more simple (and is answered now)....ppi/dpi change in PS vs. PR...(answer is that it makes no difference)
Be well
No Andrew, I do not have any tifs, psds, or jpgs for comparison.....when I did my testing and was satisfied with the results...I tossed all the comparison crap ....I did not only run my tests on PS and GF but several other software's that were available at the times I did the testing....I did not just take the word of the Graphic Artist that recommended GF or the several GA and Photo mag articles screaming that GF was the greatest uprez software available, I tested it and I have tested each time I upgrade, which as I said above is only when a version is not compatible with my current OS......
I did not realize that I needed to keep it to prove anything to anyone......i like GF, I have been using it since before it became GF3 by Lizard Tech (Altamira Group) ( I ordered GF2XX but Lizard Tech told me to hold off for 3 as it was being released in a day or 2) and my clients have been thoroughly happy with the results it gives.
So no I do not need to prove anything any longer....I proved it to myself & my clients and that is all I needed...simply ... ... I am done testing until I have to upgrade again, then yes I will do it again ...
Then maybe I will remember to save all my image tests to PROVE what my findings are......
HAVE A WONDERFUL & SAFE HOLIDAY EVERYONE...................................
Jeff's article:
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/the-art-of-the-up-res.html?start=1
If time isn't money, and if you want to spend said money on 3rd party upsizing products, PR is really for you <g>. I suspect given enough futzing around (at 13 minutes a shot), the sharpening controls in that produce could aid here. Considering that side by side comparisons to a print between default PR upsizing and default (well just good old BiCubic Smoother in PS) show tiny and insignificant differences visually, I’d suggest people concentrate on the kinds of techniques Jeff outlines in his article and less time (and money) waiting on a 3rd party product to process the data.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I have only had one file in GF that took minutes to process and the final image was over 750MB ......it took 30 minutes and that was on a winXP machine with less than 1gb of ram......
Can’t find an FAQ there titled “My upsizing looks better in Photoshop”.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
So on top of it not doing such a good job, you’re telling me the software is a dog under OS X? I’m running 12 gigs of ram and was upsizing a 5DMII image in 16-bit.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I see a problem...never did I say anything was a dog or anything about OS X.........
Still ROFLMAO..... i had 500mb of ram on that old weary WinXP machine ... ... I am sorry you are not satisfied with the software... so follow the above link provided and ask for a full refund on their inferior product or sue them I guess.....
Andrew thank you wholeheartedly ... ... ... still trying to get off the floor from lmao .....
I didn’t pay for it, I used the demo.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Are you still on ADOBES payroll, as a Certified Adobe Photoshop Trainer??????
That doesn't make you just a tad biased?????
Andrew is permitted to have his opinions, as are you.
Let's have a happy 4th of July celebration starting now.
Andrew, the images you posted, which is which? To my eyes, the right images ( viewer's right ) is clearly softer than the left side image, but which came from PS and which from PerfectResize?
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin