| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/15/2005 08:04:22 PM · #1 |
I have been having trouble stopping heavy pixelization from occurring in the detail areas when reducing a full 3000x2000 image down to 640x427 image. Seems to happen the most with heavy detailed shots (like my current Textures image).
I use RSE to covert from RAW with sharpening turned off and sliders for sharpening and detail extraction to -50. I then use DIP to boost levels and curves a bit and then resize. I do not add any sharpening but still get crappy results in details like fine plant material and the like.
Any ideas?
edit: sp
Message edited by author 2005-07-15 20:05:35. |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 08:15:17 PM · #2 |
Hard to say without examples. If you have examples that wouldn't give away your entry, please do post them for discussion.
It might just be that the detail is beyond what can be rendered at the 640px size. I've got plenty of shots that just don't work well at that size.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2005 08:18:57 PM · #3 |
hmm have you tried applying gaussian blur on the full size and then reduced it down to the dpc dimensions?
|
|
|
|
07/15/2005 08:27:37 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by art-inept:
hmm have you tried applying gaussian blur on the full size and then reduced it down to the dpc dimensions? |
No but I will give it a try tonight.
Fritz - let me try and find an old shot that has similar issues and I'll post it. It may be later tonight. I think that you are correct about not being able to render them down that far. It is frustrating though as they are normally the best shots, at least in full size. I printed this one and it is (excuse my self praise) gorgeous! |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 08:39:21 PM · #5 |
I have had similar issues with reducing size. Especially on macro shots and other high details pictures. I'll try the guassian blur and watch this thread to see what others come up with.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2005 09:07:12 PM · #6 |
| Yeah, I have the same problem, and I was just about to post the same idea in the forum till I saw this... |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 09:10:03 PM · #7 |
Shoot your entry with with a 2mp P&S like I do and your problem's solved! : )
Message edited by author 2005-07-15 21:10:22. |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 09:11:59 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Shoot your entry with with a 2mp P&S like I do and your problem's solved! : ) |
LOL! And I gave my old Fuji 4900 to my son, damn. |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 09:22:31 PM · #9 |
| I'm sure if you ask nice he'll share it with you, as long as you promise to not outscore him in the challenge. |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 10:23:27 PM · #10 |
In my experience, it helps to do no sharpening until after you have reduced the image size. Also, on highly detailed images if you reduce size 10% at a time pixelization is much less noticeable. Fred Miranda's "Resize Pro" can be bought in camera-specific versions and it supposedly is near-miraculous in downsampling without artifacts. I haven't tried it yet because they only provide it for dSLR parameters. I'll be buying it in the 20D version when my body comes in.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2005 10:27:24 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I'll be buying it in the 20D version when my body comes in.
Robt. |
ohhh where can i get one of those, i knew eventually we'd be able to buy the 'bodies' we always wanted, not sure about the 20D size... something around the C cup would be fine....
ohh and longer legs would make me happy too.... lol......
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 07:22:53 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by roadrunner:
ohh and longer legs would make me happy too.... lol...... |
Lol, I've never seen a roadrunner with short legs. Or do you just have a particularly fast coyote to deal with?
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 09:38:55 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by jaxter:
Originally posted by roadrunner:
ohh and longer legs would make me happy too.... lol...... |
Lol, I've never seen a roadrunner with short legs. Or do you just have a particularly fast coyote to deal with? |
lol.. yep that sounds good.... i like the fast coyote bit.... lol...
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 10:06:42 AM · #14 |
Unless you are poster sizing the prints, why use a 3000x2000 setting. Im just wondering if that was backed off a bit if it would help, you always have the option of going back and getting the 3000x2000 if you decide to cover an entire wall with the photo.
You know what I just went back and looked at some of my macro shots and it was happening to me to at somewhere around 2300x1700 to 640.
Message edited by author 2005-07-16 10:10:48. |
|
|
|
07/16/2005 10:12:34 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by sacredspirit:
Unless you are poster sizing the prints, why use a 3000x2000 setting. Im just wondering if that was backed off a bit if it would help, you always have the option of going back and getting the 3000x2000 if you decide to cover an entire wall with the photo. |
You always want to shoot your pictures at the highest possible resolution, to preserve your options for detail and acuity at the larger sizes of printing. This thread is about strategies to maintain fine detail when a complex image is displayed at low resolution and small size. There are strategies to do so, and they are more satisfactory than woulkd be the upsampling strategy required to make a large print of a smaller, less detailed original image.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 10:28:28 AM · #16 |
textYou always want to shoot your pictures at the highest possible resolution, to preserve your options for detail and acuity at the larger sizes of printing
Ok, Ok, yes I like to take my pictures at maximum overdrive too. But the digital world is getting better and better, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion to preserve 7000x4500, unless your in the billboard business. LOL.
I just threw out the most obvious answer that came to mind, so if it doesnt help I stay an idiot, but if it does Im a HHHHHEEEERRO. LOL. |
|
|
|
07/16/2005 11:03:15 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by sacredspirit:
textYou always want to shoot your pictures at the highest possible resolution, to preserve your options for detail and acuity at the larger sizes of printing
Ok, Ok, yes I like to take my pictures at maximum overdrive too. But the digital world is getting better and better, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion to preserve 7000x4500, unless your in the billboard business. LOL.
I just threw out the most obvious answer that came to mind, so if it doesnt help I stay an idiot, but if it does Im a HHHHHEEEERRO. LOL. |
Assuming your printer delivers best results with a file at 200dpi/ppi, then your putative 7000x4500 file will generate an image of 35x22.5 inches, hardly billboard-size. More typical image sizes with dSLR are in the 3500-4000 pixel range, generating a 200dpi image of 20 inches on the long side with no upsampling. My Epson archival printer will print 19 inches, meaning that a 4000-pixel (long dimension) capture is about right for my largest anticipated print size.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 11:09:04 AM · #18 |
yeah I don't know how to do it either!!! Look at the whiskers on this shot.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 11:59:04 AM · #19 |
Sorry I got sidetracked last night and never followed up with examples. Although not the best focus this shot demonstrates the problem well. The first is a 100% crop of the full 3000x2000 original showing the grass detail (I know a little out of focus). The second is the full size image down sampled to 640x427 in one step. If you blow them both up to 200% you will see marked deterioration of the detail in the grasses.
 
Bear - thanks for the lead on Miranda, I will go take a look. |
|
|
|
07/16/2005 12:01:57 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Sorry I got sidetracked last night and never followed up with examples. Although not the best focus this shot demonstrates the problem well. The first is a 100% crop of the full 3000x2000 original showing the grass detail (I know a little out of focus). The second is the full size image down sampled to 640x427 in one step. If you blow them both up to 200% you will see marked deterioration of the detail in the grasses.
Bear - thanks for the lead on Miranda, I will go take a look. |
Your picture is showing the same kinda thing as mine at least. Maybe if we can solve one we can solve both! Anybody got some idea what the problem is?
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 12:03:25 PM · #21 |
It looks like you are resampling using the "Nearest Neighbour" option. I would suggest using "Bicubic" instead, which should give much more pleasing results.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 12:05:14 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Konador:
It looks like you are resampling using the "Nearest Neighbour" option. I would suggest using "Bicubic" instead, which should give much more pleasing results. |
I tried all of the options for resizing, with similar results, this was the best.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 12:08:02 PM · #23 |
Using your example these are the results I got:
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 12:16:20 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Konador:
It looks like you are resampling using the "Nearest Neighbour" option. I would suggest using "Bicubic" instead, which should give much more pleasing results. |
Konador - you are getting better results than I am using bicubic. But I'm using Thumbsplus 7 to do the resampling. Maybe that is it. I'm looking at Bear's suggestion now on the Resize pro software.
edit: I have to find out if the plugin will work with DIP, I know many of the other PS plugins work.
Message edited by author 2005-07-16 12:18:02. |
|
|
|
07/16/2005 12:18:52 PM · #25 |
Try downloading the trial of Photoshop, or any other graphics program. I've never seen results as bad as yours even using free software such as Gimp. I wonder why Thumbsplus is giving such bad results?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/26/2025 06:35:33 AM EST.
