Most Intelligent Interpolation Software
T. Parker
What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
resolution. Of course we can't extract more details
than the original but the software eliminating all the
jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
I need at will.
Parker
David J. Littleboy
"T. Parker" <tompa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
> you have encountered or heard of?
It's interesting that I'm not hearing this question more often. I suppose
that in this age of 12, 15, and 21MP cameras, there's not that much use for
it any more.
Qimage offers a lot of different algorithms and seems to get a lot of
respect. But it's only for making prints, it doesn't give you the files to
play with (in normal use, anyway). And it's Windows only.
Genuie Fractals is the "usual suspect". I was never impressed, but lots of
people were.
Here, I find Photoshop perfectly adequate, but I'm usually downsampling, not
upsampling.
> One that can make
> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
> resolution.
More than a tad unreasonable, that...
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Chris Malcolm
I'm not sure what you mean by "come alive". As far as good upsampling
of size with good intelligent interpolation is concerned, I don't know
what is considered the best, and there may well be debate about that,
but Irfanview is often considered to be among the best, and a lot
better than Photoshop. Note that it provides you with a list of many
different upsampling algorithms which you can use, and which is the
best may vary with the particular photograph. This is a particular
concern of Irfan's, and the list gets updated as good new algorithms
are published, so make sure you're using a current version.
If this is an ongoing serious concern of yours you should probably
stop thinking in terms of programs and study the discussions and
comparative reviews of the different algorithms, and then find out
which programs feature those you prefer.
If the original already has jagged edges due to oversharpening etc.,
then you may need to do something about that first before trying to
upsample it, because software can't tell the difference between real
image detail and artefacts.
--
Chris Malcolm
bugbear
> Hi,
>
> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
> you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
> resolution. Of course we can't extract more details
> than the original but the software eliminating all the
> jagged edges, etc.
This may help you
http://www.general-cathexis.com/interpolation/index.html
> Does this software cost thousands
> of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
> I need at will.
You're a thief?
BugBear
Don Stauffer
I don't know if it still does, but several versions ago Paint Shop Pro
used to let you add your own algorithm. I never tried this, so I don't
know how easy it was. Again, I do not know if the latest version allows
this, but I know it it gives you a choice of two or three canned ones.
HEMI-Powered
Parker, what you want is something out of Fantasy Land. You correctly
observe that one cannot invent pixels that don't exist and the
various schemes developed over recent years can do amazing things but
what NO software can do is turn a 0.3 mega pixel image into a 10 MP
one.
I am curious, though, on why you'd even want to enlarge your images
that much. If your purpose is to get high quality prints, it simply
won't work, although they would clearly look better in larger paper
sizes than printing from what you have.
The best of luck to you. I have an interest in this same thing and
have researched a number of technologies over the years but have NOT
found anything that works truly well.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
Florida billboard
Ockham's Razor
<43a5c3ff-5772-4230...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
"T. Parker" <tompa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't know if this is what you want, but check out Kelby's book for PS
Elements 3 page 102.
He gives a technique for increasing the useful size of small pictures
without pixelating or loss of quality.
I tried it on an old family photo and it worked fine thru six
manipulations.
Even Kelby did not know how this worked.
--
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
Stephen F. Roberts
Marco Tedaldi
> Hi,
>
> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
> you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
> resolution.
You're not serious, are you?
> Of course we can't extract more details
> than the original but the software eliminating all the
> jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
> of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
> I need at will.
>
This can be done by almost any scaling algorithm. You migh want to take
a look at GreyCstoration.
Demo under: http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycstoration/demonstration.shtml
Go to the bottom of the page. Maybe this is what you want.
kruemi
--
Agfa isolette, EOS 40D
http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
And a cool timekiller: http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708
T. Parker
wrote:
> T. Parker schrieb:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
> > and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
> > you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
> > old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
> > resolution.
>
> You're not serious, are you?
>
> > Of course we can't extract more details
> > than the original but the software eliminating all the
> > jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
> > of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
> > I need at will.
>
> This can be done by almost any scaling algorithm. You migh want to take
> a look at GreyCstoration.
> Demo under:http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycstoration/demonstration.shtml
> Go to the bottom of the page. Maybe this is what you want.
>
> kruemi
>
> --
> And a cool timekiller:http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708
I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
like the image processor to make the text
darker turning it into 300 dpi. This is possible
because in texts and fonts, the letters have
absolute contrasts against the background.
Any idea what program I need? Also what
other newsgroup that specifically attend to
image editing besides this which seems to
be photo related only. Thanks
Parker
Jürgen Exner
>On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <news0309.kru...@spamgourmet.com>
>like the image processor to make the text
>darker turning it into 300 dpi.
That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
5000DPI nowadays.
Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
a JPEG.
jue
T. Parker
Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
from google books. When printing on a
8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
72. If I can find a program that can make
the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
Get the idea?
Parker
Bob Larter
What you're saying makes no sense. Changing the density of the text will
make no difference whatever to the DPI of the image.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
T. Parker
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
You print it at 300 dpi.
Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
72 dpi.
However, if you scan a book at 72 dpi, and you
can image process the text or fonts to make it
increase in density. Then it's like upgrading
the image to become 300 dpi equivalently
speaking. This won't work in photos because
you can't add information that is not there,
but in texts or fonts, you can add information
by giving more density to it. Then the final
print of it would match the one scanned at
300 dpi (because after you get the 72 dpi
book image, you add information to the
texts or fonts making it look like you scanned
it at 300 dpi).
Of course, one can just scan it at 300 dpi
in the first place, but in the google books
where the final image is only 72 dpi, you
can add post image processing to improve
the quality and density of the texts or fonts
to make it equal to a 300 dpi scanned image
(sorta).
Parker
John McWilliams
You really need to grok the diff. between pixels and dots.
You scan at a dot rate, and 72-300 are extremely low. What you end up
with is something in pixels, with 300 ppi being high quality if the
underlying input is also HQ. When you send to a printer, the driver
thereof converts the ppi info into how many dpi's to lay down. Again,
300 dpi is a low res. print, regardless of the quality of the input.
But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.
--
john mcwilliams
Jürgen Exner
>It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
>You print it at 300 dpi.
So you are printing on an older inkjet printer, fine. Modern printers
have a significant higher resolution.
>Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
>72 dpi.
Are you printing on an ancient dot matrix printer? Those had about
72DPI. If you are not printing on one of those, then you are not
printing at 72DPI.
jue
Jürgen Exner
PS: you really, really should read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch#DPI_or_PPI_in_digital_image_files
jue
TheRealSteve
>
>"T. Parker" <tompa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
>> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
>> you have encountered or heard of?
>
>It's interesting that I'm not hearing this question more often. I suppose
>that in this age of 12, 15, and 21MP cameras, there's not that much use for
>it any more.
>
>Qimage offers a lot of different algorithms and seems to get a lot of
>respect. But it's only for making prints, it doesn't give you the files to
>play with (in normal use, anyway). And it's Windows only.
>
>Genuie Fractals is the "usual suspect". I was never impressed, but lots of
>people were.
>
>Here, I find Photoshop perfectly adequate, but I'm usually downsampling, not
>upsampling.
Downsampling requires interpolation also if you're not going by
factors of 2. Rotate requires interpolation if you're not going by
multiples of 90 degrees.
Programs that can use sinc/lanczos interpolation will give the best
results. The ones I use that use it are GIMP and XnView. I'm sure
there's others.
>> One that can make
>> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
>> resolution.
>
>More than a tad unreasonable, that...
Any can do that if you're standing far enough away.
Steve
T. Parker
Well. Google books use text in jpegs. There are
millions of pages of them.. jpegs of text. This
is because they got their books from scanning
them with scanners. See www.books.google.com
> --
> john mcwilliams- Hide quoted text -
T. Parker
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:04:25 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"T. Parker" <tomparke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
> >> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
> >> you have encountered or heard of?
>
> >It's interesting that I'm not hearing this question more often. I suppose
> >that in this age of 12, 15, and 21MP cameras, there's not that much use for
> >it any more.
>
> >Qimage offers a lot of different algorithms and seems to get a lot of
> >respect. But it's only for making prints, it doesn't give you the files to
> >play with (in normal use, anyway). And it's Windows only.
>
> >Genuie Fractals is the "usual suspect". I was never impressed, but lots of
> >people were.
>
> >Here, I find Photoshop perfectly adequate, but I'm usually downsampling, not
> >upsampling.
>
> Downsampling requires interpolation also if you're not going by
> factors of 2. Rotate requires interpolation if you're not going by
> multiples of 90 degrees.
>
> Programs that can use sinc/lanczos interpolation will give the best
> results. The ones I use that use it are GIMP and XnView. I'm sure
> there's others.
>
I downloaded and tried GIMP and XnView
as you mentioned. But Lanczos can only
be used during image resizing. In IrFanview,
Lanczos is engaged everytime you press
Zoom. So IrFanview, if there is none else
like is, is the best in zooming software
that automatically use Lanczos.
Parker
> >> One that can make
> >> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
> >> resolution.
>
> >More than a tad unreasonable, that...
>
> Any can do that if you're standing far enough away.
>
> Steve- Hide quoted text -
Floyd L. Davidson
>> But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.
Well, JPEGs of text for *printing* is stupid...
>Well. Google books use text in jpegs. There are
>millions of pages of them.. jpegs of text. This
>is because they got their books from scanning
>them with scanners. See www.books.google.com
Scanners do not directly produce JPEG images. They
almost all produce TIFF (or something similar), which
can then be converted to JPEG. No doubt Google converts
to JPEG because the intention is to provide a readable
copy, but not necessarily a copy that can be printed.
Note that JPEG also creates the smallest file size for a
readable copy, so it best accomplishes Google's goal at
minimum cost.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
John McWilliams
> "T. Parker" <tompa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.
>
> Well, JPEGs of text for *printing* is stupid...
>
>> Well. Google books use text in jpegs. There are
>> millions of pages of them.. jpegs of text. This
>> is because they got their books from scanning
>> them with scanners. See www.books.google.com
>
> Scanners do not directly produce JPEG images. They
> almost all produce TIFF (or something similar), which
> can then be converted to JPEG. No doubt Google converts
> to JPEG because the intention is to provide a readable
> copy, but not necessarily a copy that can be printed.
> Note that JPEG also creates the smallest file size for a
> readable copy, so it best accomplishes Google's goal at
> minimum cost.
I'm rather sure Google uses this method to prevent HQ copies of either
print or electronic use, don't you?
As for readable at minimum cost, you can't beat text in HTML or other
formats that scale. Smaller, too. So, Google has clearly got additional
goals than cost and readability.
Mr. Parker: What is your ultimate goal here??
--
John McWilliams
T. Parker
> "T. Parker" <tomparke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.
>
> Well, JPEGs of text for *printing* is stupid...
>
> >Well. Google books use text in jpegs. There are
> >millions of pages of them.. jpegs of text. This
> >is because they got their books from scanning
> >them with scanners. Seewww.books.google.com
>
> Scanners do not directly produce JPEG images. They
> almost all produce TIFF (or something similar), which
> can then be converted to JPEG. No doubt Google converts
> to JPEG because the intention is to provide a readable
> copy, but not necessarily a copy that can be printed.
> Note that JPEG also creates the smallest file size for a
> readable copy, so it best accomplishes Google's goal at
> minimum cost.
>
So is there a program or software that can
increase the density of the characters or
alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
characters deeper and blacker and print
at much better quality? What functions in
software are available that is close to that
goal?
parker
Jürgen Exner
>So is there a program or software that can
>increase the density of the characters or
>alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
>characters deeper and blacker
Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
contrast. That should do it.
>and print at much better quality?
That is a different question, and no, I don't have an answer.
jue
T. Parker
> "T. Parker" <tomparke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >So is there a program or software that can
> >increase the density of the characters or
> >alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
> >characters deeper and blacker
>
> Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
> contrast. That should do it.
Is increasing the contrast the same as sharpening
it? There is a sharpen button and the printing indeed
improve :) I can't find the contrast button.
Parker
T. Parker
> "T. Parker" <tomparke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >So is there a program or software that can
> >increase the density of the characters or
> >alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
> >characters deeper and blacker
>
> Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
> contrast. That should do it.
>
I found out that in sharpening it, white boundary
lines are added to the black image to make it
more distinct but how do you actually make
the black part more black and not just putting
a white line around it??
Parker
Bob Larter
> So is there a program or software that can
> increase the density of the characters or
> alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
> characters deeper and blacker and print
> at much better quality? What functions in
> software are available that is close to that
> goal?
Increasing the constrast & tweaking the brightness to taste should give
you that result.
Jürgen Exner
>On Apr 6, 6:50 am, Jürgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "T. Parker" <tomparke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >So is there a program or software that can
>> >increase the density of the characters or
>> >alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
>> >characters deeper and blacker
>>
>> Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
>> contrast. That should do it.
>
>I found out that in sharpening it, white boundary
>lines are added to the black image to make it
>more distinct
It is great that you are experimenting on your own. But why are you
replying with your not so satisfactory results to my suggestion of
increasing the contrast?
>but how do you actually make
>the black part more black and not just putting
>a white line around it??
<Tibetian prayer wheel mode>
Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
contrast.
</Tibetian prayer wheel mode>
jue
David J. Littleboy
>>the black part more black and not just putting
>>a white line around it??
>
> <Tibetian prayer wheel mode>
> Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
> contrast.
> </Tibetian prayer wheel mode>
Better answer: learn how to "set the black and white points", and, slightly
more generally, learn how to use the Levels operation in Photoshop.
Try this site for some basics: http://scantips.com
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
T. Parker
> "Jürgen Exner" <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>but how do you actually make
> >>the black part more black and not just putting
> >>a white line around it??
>
> > <Tibetian prayer wheel mode>
> > Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
> > contrast.
> > </Tibetian prayer wheel mode>
>
> Better answer: learn how to "set the black and white points", and, slightly
> more generally, learn how to use the Levels operation in Photoshop.
>
> Try this site for some basics:http://scantips.com
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
I found out that setting the Brightness and Contrast to
Minimum, -150 and -50 can make the printing much
darker.. even better than merely Sharpening it. Also
by setting both brightness and contrast to the lowest,
sharpening doesn't seem to have any effect of further
blacking the texts. Now how come setting brightness
and contrast to minimum do the trick?
About "set the black and white points". What option
is that located in Photoshop? Can't find it. And
what levels are you talking about? Where is it? Thanks.
Parker
Chris Malcolm
> On Apr 6, 6:50?am, J?rgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "T. Parker" <tomparke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >So is there a program or software that can
>> >increase the density of the characters or
>> >alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
>> >characters deeper and blacker
>>
>> Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
>> contrast. That should do it.
> I found out that in sharpening it, white boundary
> lines are added to the black image to make it
> more distinct but how do you actually make
> the black part more black and not just putting
> a white line around it??
The more sophisticated sharpeners give you independent control of how
much and in what way dark edge sharpening affects adjacent white and
vice versa.
If what you want is to take a photographic image of text and make the
blackish bits solid black and the whitish bits solid white there are
many ways of doing this depending on the state of the original image.
You seem to be asking the people in this newsgroup to teach you the
basics of photo editing from step by step paragraph by paragraph in
question and answer mode. You might get along a lot faster if you
consulted the kind of textbook your local photography courses
recommends to their new students.
--
Chris Malcolm
Bob Larter
> I found out that in sharpening it, white boundary
> lines are added to the black image to make it
> more distinct but how do you actually make
> the black part more black and not just putting
> a white line around it??
I've already explained to you how to do that.
T. Parker
Here's how I was finally able to print the lousy jpeg texts at
crystal clear black printing. I first resize the image from
800 width to 1600% or 12800 pixels width using Lanczos
Interpolation. Then I used Photoshop CS to set the right
contrast and then print it that way. But each page needs
convertion work of 5 minute. Anyway. I'd just like to
understand something. I won't read a 500 page photoshop
book because I had accomplished my simple goal of able
to print at good quality using lousy jpegs. I just want to
know the following only. How come Photoshop CS4
Contrast and Brightness levels don't work. If I set
contrast to maximum, the text doesn't change much
but with Photoshop CS, it works perfectly. I
wonder what default in CS4 that disables the
function. Second. From the jpeg original size of
128k at 800 width, it becomes 6Meg at 12800 width.
If I resize the image back to 800 widge, the text loses
the quality again. Is there a way or program to integrate it
into Word or PDF Text so it would become part of PDF
Text or sorta just like having normal PDF Text with
great quality even if it's just a few kilobytes in size?
Some OCR to PDF converters (or sorta)?
Thanks.
Parker
Bob Larter
> On Apr 6, 6:27 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> T. Parker wrote:
>>> I found out that in sharpening it, white boundary
>>> lines are added to the black image to make it
>>> more distinct but how do you actually make
>>> the black part more black and not just putting
>>> a white line around it??
>> I've already explained to you how to do that.
>
> crystal clear black printing. I first resize the image from
> 800 width to 1600% or 12800 pixels width using Lanczos
> Interpolation. Then I used Photoshop CS to set the right
> contrast and then print it that way. But each page needs
> convertion work of 5 minute. Anyway. I'd just like to
> understand something. I won't read a 500 page photoshop
> book because I had accomplished my simple goal of able
> to print at good quality using lousy jpegs. I just want to
> know the following only. How come Photoshop CS4
> Contrast and Brightness levels don't work. If I set
> contrast to maximum, the text doesn't change much
> but with Photoshop CS, it works perfectly. I
> wonder what default in CS4 that disables the
> function. Second. From the jpeg original size of
> 128k at 800 width, it becomes 6Meg at 12800 width.
> If I resize the image back to 800 widge, the text loses
> the quality again. Is there a way or program to integrate it
> into Word or PDF Text so it would become part of PDF
> Text or sorta just like having normal PDF Text with
> great quality even if it's just a few kilobytes in size?
> Some OCR to PDF converters (or sorta)?
Look, this is nothing personal, but I just don't have the time or the
inclination to provide free lessons about basic Photoshop operations on
Usenet. Buy yourself one of the many books about Photoshop, or figure it
out for yourself from the Help function that's built into Photoshop.
David J. Littleboy
"T. Parker" <tompa...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:24 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> Better answer: learn how to "set the black and white points", and,
> slightly
> more generally, learn how to use the Levels operation in Photoshop.
>
> Try this site for some basics:http://scantips.com
About "set the black and white points". What option
is that located in Photoshop? Can't find it. And
what levels are you talking about? Where is it? Thanks.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Levels" is the levels control in Photoshop. <Ctrl>+L opens it.
The "black and white points" are the controls at the left and right (that
start out at 0 and 255, respectively) in that dialog box.
"Levels" itself is a simplified "Curves" control, which is accessed by
<Ctrl>+M.