| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2003 06:04:58 PM · #1 |
I just installed Genuine Fractals this morning. I tried it on one image and it seems to upsize with better quality than the Step method so frequently discussed. Are there any GF users out there who have an opinion? I'd like to hear what you think before I invest a great deal of time and effort into this new software.
Thanks,
JD Anderson
|
|
|
|
08/13/2003 06:17:18 PM · #2 |
It has a reputation for being very good, but on the expensive side for most hobbyist-level users. I'd check for reviews in Cnet.com, MacWorld. Electronic Publishing, dpreview.com.
I don't think there's been much upgrading, so the reviews might all be old.
Be sure to let us know (or better yet, post examples of) the results of your testing! I bet if you write it up as a tutorial or how-to article they'll upload and example photos to the site's space instead of your portfolio. |
|
|
|
08/13/2003 06:17:36 PM · #3 |
I suggest you download the demo version of pxl SmartScale located at Extensis software
I had the GF at no charge and went ahead and bought the extensis software after using the demo for 30 days. Even though it was kind of expensive (for me, anyway) I thought it much more user friendly and also that it produced a better print. It doesn't cost anything to try the demo anyhow...unless you get hooked like I did.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2003 06:26:21 PM · #4 |
I bought GF 3.0 and I've been happy so far.
I convert from the Canon RAW to a 16-bit TIF. I then convert that to 8-bit and save as a JPEG (GF does not handle 16-bit TIF files). I do my levels, coloring, etc in PS 7. I then save a copy as my final JPEG and immediately save it as a STN file (GF's proprietary format). When I open the image I've had no trouble interpolating it many multiples of its original size. My worst problem has been my soft focusing skills. I need to either get lenses that magically obtain better, crisper focus or I need to learn to focus manually better. At 50+ MB, you begin to see just how shallow a depth of field I captured. Often what I notice is that I didn't deepen my depth of field enough to truly get everything I wanted in clean focus.
I love the software though. I tried Extensis' software and GF and I decided to use GF. It just fit me better.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2003 07:14:52 PM · #5 |
pxl smartscale is great. And I had it for 30 days then... well don't ask unless you really wanna know what I did. lol
If you are into kazaa, napster and the rest, holler at me for help using pxl smartscale. ;)
M
|
|
|
|
08/13/2003 07:25:02 PM · #6 |
I have GF as well and have used it quite a bit with past images and thought it was pretty good. But as I studied the enlargements (up to 20 x 30 at 240 dpi from 5 mp) I noticed many areas that were too plasticky looking. Some edges were too razor sharp while some details were smoothed out of existence. I began experimenting with scaling first in 10% increments, then in 5% increments until the desired size was reached. I started first by slightly sharpening my original size image with an action that involves the High Pass filter and some other processes (I created several custom sharpening actions for different applications). I ended up creating custom actions for the scaling processes too so now it is just a matter of selecting which actions to use for a particular photo and a particular enlargement. I believe that my sharpening methods combined with the 5% scaling produces better enlargements then from GF because all of the original detail is maintained while keeping everything looking very consistent, very close to filmlike. I think GF is very good for logos, text, or images that are very graphic in nature were you would want extremely sharp edges and smooth transitions, the plastic look. Some portraits could even benefit from GF but I just feel that most images that contain lots of detail enlarge better with a scaling method. Of course that just my opinion and everyone should probably do there own tests to see what they like better. Remember when you are viewing your enlargements on screen view them at 100% to see the actual detail in the image.
T
|
|
|
|
08/13/2003 07:41:43 PM · #7 |
See my post below from another thread.
Since posting that I have tested both S-Spline 2 and Genuine Fractals 3.0 and have found them to be roughly the same in image quality. S-Spline 2 however is less than half the price of GF3. It would be worth trying s-spline out as well before making your purchase.
"Up until today I wasn't aware of the benefits of stair interpolation (downsizing or upsizing in small increments). I received some very useful advice on this from ScottK and EddyG in another post today which has opened my eyes to improving my methods of image resizing......thanks guys:)
I have also discovered better interpolation algorithms than the lanczos & bicubic algorithms that I have used in the past. This site //www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm lists the most popular and has sample images where you can compare for yourself the results of various interpolation methods. IMO I think the Genuine Fractals ver 3.0 method to be the best which is easily seen in the bottom rose samples. Now when used with the stair interpolation method of upsizing in small increments say of about 10% or so should produce excellent results.
Note: the Stair Interpolation method mentioned on this site //www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm just uses photoshop's bicubic interpolation algorithm and automatically does the incremental upsizing. You would be better using your chosen algorithm (in my case Genuine Fractals) and manually upsizing incrementally yourself."
Message edited by author 2003-08-13 19:50:26. |
|
|
|
08/13/2003 09:31:01 PM · #8 |
I use Genuine Fractals and consider it to be a superior product. I can recommend it to all who may be interested in its many benefits.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2003 10:46:49 PM · #9 |
| Let me put a plug in for one of my favorite programs -- Qimage. It has a hobbiest-friendly price, produces the best printed output of just about any program out there, has a terrific interpolation method called Vector that readily compares to Genuine Fractals, and in the newer versions, you can "print to a file" to produce up-sampled JPEGs or TIFFs using any of the included interpolation algorithms. Also check out the Quality Challenge for some interesting interpolation comparisons. |
|
|
|
08/13/2003 11:09:00 PM · #10 |
Thank you all for posting some really great information here. Now my work is cut out for me to try these softwares if possible and see what works for me.
Timj351... I'd be interested in hearing more about your custom workflow... I work a lot in Photoshop and find it interesting that you came up with your own methods.
Thanks,
JD Anderson
|
|
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: 08/29/2025 10:18:17 AM EDT.
