| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2007 10:51:02 PM · #1 |
Does anybody know what method the Size function uses when it enlarges a RAW file during conversion? Just curious if it's the standard bicubic option or not. In addition has anybody tested out the differences between doing your enlargements in ACR vs doing it in Photoshop? Is there a difference?
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 12:23:06 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/02/2007 01:06:18 AM · #3 |
| I've sorta learned that questions like this are best asked outside 1:00AM Eastern Time... ;) |
|
|
|
04/02/2007 01:12:17 AM · #4 |
Come on there's got to be some other smart people up besides me.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 01:13:42 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
04/02/2007 01:37:33 AM · #6 |
ARgh. You overnight people are so dumb! :P
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 01:42:14 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by yanko:
ARgh. You overnight people are so dumb! :P |
Should you not be sleeping by now? :))) |
|
|
|
04/02/2007 02:03:38 AM · #8 |
Honestly whateevr the method is i think its not publicly disclosed.
BUT, upsize it save to tiff.
Then do a standard size save to tiff. The rescale that tiff to the same size once for each possible method. Save them all and do a pixel analysis.
Im sure it will reveal itself to you.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 02:06:00 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Honestly whateevr the method is i think its not publicly disclosed.
BUT, upsize it save to tiff.
Then do a standard size save to tiff. The rescale that tiff to the same size once for each possible method. Save them all and do a pixel analysis.
Im sure it will reveal itself to you. |
Well someone pointed it out to me that even if it were better it would be a pain to process afterwards given the larger file. Probably not even worth it but was just curious if anybody was actively using it.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 08:53:10 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Honestly whateevr the method is i think its not publicly disclosed.
BUT, upsize it save to tiff.
Then do a standard size save to tiff. The rescale that tiff to the same size once for each possible method. Save them all and do a pixel analysis.
Im sure it will reveal itself to you. |
Well someone pointed it out to me that even if it were better it would be a pain to process afterwards given the larger file. Probably not even worth it but was just curious if anybody was actively using it. |
A pain due to size? What file size.
You want a pain try editing an 8 x 10 scanned @ 2400 DPI.
Thats 1.6 GB uncompressed and no mater what format you save it in when its in photoshop its uncompressed. At first its a bit slow like things with using transform to rotate but once u get started it speeds up a bit.
Why scan it at such a high dpi? Why not. When your done editing you can downsize it to a resonable size, but i see nothign wrong with working with a high quality original.
So if you think some 10 Megapixel shot interpolated to 20 is gonna slow down photoshop you have nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
04/02/2007 09:01:52 AM · #11 |
| I see no advantage at all to upsampling during conversion, as compared to doing it later. Since you have more control over how it's done later, I would see that as a major advantage. |
|
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: 08/31/2025 03:23:05 PM EDT.
