Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: woof75 on November 03, 2008, 11:31:39 am
-
With all these super high MP backs coming out are people testing what happens when you down res 200 percent or whatever is needed to make the files correctly sized for 95 percent of all applications. Are there any IQ losses involved doing this?
-
With all these super high MP backs coming out are people testing what happens when you down res 200 percent or whatever is needed to make the files correctly sized for 95 percent of all applications. Are there any IQ losses involved doing this?
yes it can damage a file.
i use photozoom for uprezzing and its great for this. for downrezzing it isnt good at all i.m.o.
therefor i use ps "bikubic sharper". huge difference to photozoom. just as example.
-
I agree completely.
PhotoZoom Pro is one hell of a program for upsizing (S-Spline engine), but downsizing can create jagged edges. Use Photoshop for downrezzing (Bicubic sharper), and apply correct sharpening.
-
yeah, it's tough to show a web image from high res camera. Hard to mash a 39mp PhaseOne image into a 600x400 pixel image.
Of course it's pretty easy to print a really big image, without even uprezzing
I just use Photoshop's bicubic sharper as well, with a quick Smart Sharpen. Not always happy but not sure if there is a good way.
-
Same here. PS with bicubic sharper. I mostly have no need to sharpen afterwards. I would like to know what sharpening others apply when they do sharpen again after downsizing? Not necessarily image quality loss but sure you do lose a lot of the nice details you have which was one of the things you started using a 39MP file
-
I use Bicubic in PsCs3... It works very well and you don't need to unsharpen the image. It still have very good smooth passages, if you use USM You'll have an oversharpened image...
-
Well, I just use Lightroom's export, to whatever size I want, and it even add copyright mark automatically...so, I'm sure I'm just lazy, but the result seems no problem for me. Just my 2 cents.
-
I tested bicubic vs bicubic (sharper) in PSCs3 and actually acheived by far the best results with Bicubic for down-rezzing. The key to me was using a very light smart sharpen:
80%
0.3 radius
after the down-rez.
Thats going from a 33mpx file down to web display...
Murray
-
With all these super high MP backs coming out are people testing what happens when you down res 200 percent or whatever is needed to make the files correctly sized for 95 percent of all applications. Are there any IQ losses involved doing this?
You might to ask this guy what technique he uses... the downsizing problem he is facing is much tougher...
http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/ (http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/)
As far as I am concerned, CS3 bi-cubic + Smart sharpen radius 0.2 and strenght 200+% does the trick between 12 and 200 MP.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You might to ask this guy what technique he uses... the downsizing problem he is facing is much tougher...
http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/ (http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/)
As far as I am concerned, CS3 bi-cubic + Smart sharpen radius 0.2 and strenght 200+% does the trick between 12 and 200 MP.
Cheers,
Bernard
Promises are a plenty prior to Nov4th.
-
Bicubic is actually a very poor downsampling filter. I'm bemused at why Photoshop doesn't offer proper ones. Going down a large percentage from a large image you're likely to run into all kinds of aliassing issues with Bicubic. The "old hack" work-around is to gaussian blur the image a bit first to make up for the poor anti-aliassing properties of Bicubic.
That said, there is no one perfect downsampling filter. That's why it's best to have a number of options to choose from.
Graeme
-
You might to ask this guy what technique he uses... the downsizing problem he is facing is much tougher...
http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/ (http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/)
As far as I am concerned, CS3 bi-cubic + Smart sharpen radius 0.2 and strenght 200+% does the trick between 12 and 200 MP.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
The Barraca Hussein, paying you for that?
BlasR
-
Bernard,
The Barraca Hussein, paying you for that?
BlasR
Sorry to correct your spelling, but it is spelled Borat. Both have same amount of experience.
-
Sorry to correct your spelling, but it is spelled Borat. Both have same amount of experience.
Surely this means that you should match sensor resolution to output size/resolution for highest image quality (baring cropping/artifacts)?
For most work that is appearing in a magazine this would make ideal resolution (including a bit extra for cropping) to be around 18mpx?
-
Surely this means that you should match sensor resolution to output size/resolution for highest image quality (baring cropping/artifacts)?
For most work that is appearing in a magazine this would make ideal resolution (including a bit extra for cropping) to be around 18mpx?
Yes, that's what I meant & don't call me Shirley!!
-
Okay - going to set you to ignore from now on. No point in reading your posts anymore. I'll bet you didn't even vote or read up on the issues anyhow.
Bernard,
The Barraca Hussein, paying you for that?
BlasR
-
Okay - going to set you to ignore from now on. No point in reading your posts anymore. I'll bet you didn't even vote or read up on the issues anyhow.
It's working, Cup of Tea?
-
Okay - going to set you to ignore from now on. No point in reading your posts anymore. I'll bet you didn't even vote or read up on the issues anyhow.
I make a remark you don't like, so you ignore me thereafter. Democracy in action!
Oh dear.
Jeremy
-
Thread time of death: 11:09 AM MST
-
Thread time of death: 11:09 AM MST
Its death throes began good few hours earlier than that, I fear.
Jeremy
-
deleted (sorry, wrote something about the original subject then saw all the other stuff and hated myself for reviving the thread, but couldn't delete the post and let it remain dead.
-
Bernard,
The Barraca Hussein, paying you for that?
BlasR
Michael, probably time to have a word with BlasR!
-
Michael, probably time to have a word with BlasR!
David,
I have a question?
What in the hell i say?
He have a flash promote a political figure, I as a question about if he get pay for that,
in now the world is mad about that? (good) As Jeremy say ,Democracy in action
BTW my second name is Antonio, if you wish to call me Antonio,it will be your worst nightmare
Nothing else to say about it.
BlasR
A photo for you.
I give UP
-
You might to ask this guy what technique he uses... the downsizing problem he is facing is much tougher...
http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/ (http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/)
This is actually pretty funny, I had completely forgotten about the Obama short flash section after the link, and was referring to the 17 GB pano images of Yosemite that lie behind... and that is very relevant from the point of view of downsizing.
Sorry folks, I had no intention whatsoever to start a political discussion in this thread. I would have a lot to say, but not here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
David,
I have a question?
What in the hell i say?
He have a flash promote a political figure, I as a question about if he get pay for that,
in now the world is mad about that? (good) As Jeremy say ,Democracy in action
BTW my second name is Antonio, if you wish to call me Antonio,it will be your worst nightmare
Nothing else to say about it.
BlasR
A photo for you.
I give UP
Man, your mad about something, is business not going well?
-
This is actually pretty funny, I had completely forgotten about the Obama short flash section after the link, and was referring to the 17 GB pano images of Yosemite that lie behind... and that is very relevant from the point of view of downsizing.
Sorry folks, I had no intention whatsoever to start a political discussion in this thread. I would have a lot to say, but not here.
Cheers,
Bernard
the 17gig pano downrezzing was what I was commenting on, but felt bad about reviving a thread that somehow got so far off topic ... I wish I knew how he did that ... much better results that I get.
-
I have always used imagemagick with the lanczos filter to downsample after being unimpressed with photoshop's results.
-
I have always used imagemagick with the lanczos filter to downsample after being unimpressed with photoshop's results.
My point in all of this is that if there is quality loss when down-sampling why are companies developing backs that have to be dow-rezzed 99 percent of the time for most users. Why aren't they perfecting a 20-30mpx back for less money?
-
Aside from the clearly poor situations, is anyone willing to post samples of the "good" and "bad" down-rezzing?
In my experience, if the colors and tonality are intact, all that's left is a level of sharpening and detail. I have yet to find a down-sampled image that just plain looked horrible from Photoshop, LR, etc. It would seem a lot of this thread is just splitting hairs on comparing a 39mp original to a 0.5mp web image and clamoring for more detail. It's the web. And if you post an image on the web, more than half the folks that see it won't even be on a color corrected monitor or anything... a little variation in detail will be a moot point, only important to you and no one else. It doesn't seem nearly worth the effort of using special programs to clutter up the workflow.
That said, I am not pleased at all with C1 Pro's JPEG output at small resolutions, they aren't anti-aliased or something, very strange with pixel mosaic patterns kind of. But if you use the special "web contact sheet" output option, the JPEGs are great. I've talked with Doug at CI, no real explanation or answer, other than definitely to use the web contact sheet option to output for web.
-
Aside from the clearly poor situations, is anyone willing to post samples of the "good" and "bad" down-rezzing?
In my experience, if the colors and tonality are intact, all that's left is a level of sharpening and detail. I have yet to find a down-sampled image that just plain looked horrible from Photoshop, LR, etc. It would seem a lot of this thread is just splitting hairs on comparing a 39mp original to a 0.5mp web image and clamoring for more detail. It's the web. And if you post an image on the web, more than half the folks that see it won't even be on a color corrected monitor or anything... a little variation in detail will be a moot point, only important to you and no one else. It doesn't seem nearly worth the effort of using special programs to clutter up the workflow.
That said, I am not pleased at all with C1 Pro's JPEG output at small resolutions, they aren't anti-aliased or something, very strange with pixel mosaic patterns kind of. But if you use the special "web contact sheet" output option, the JPEGs are great. I've talked with Doug at CI, no real explanation or answer, other than definitely to use the web contact sheet option to output for web.
I don't mean down ressing for web use, a 60mpx file is about 3 times bigger than a magazine page so you have to down res 300 % just for editorial.
-
I still say my response stands. Without a an obviously terrible processing job, no one will notice or ever know the difference except you. Care to post good and bad examples?
-
I still say my response stands. Without a an obviously terrible processing job, no one will notice or ever know the difference except you. Care to post good and bad examples?
really reaching for the high ground, unless you do an obviously terrible job no one will notice the difference. I can imagine that being the tagline for a new 40K camera back, "Unless you do a terrible processing job no one will notice the difference except you!!"
It's more of a theoretical position that no-one seems to have thought of, is too much resolution actually a drawback?
-
My point is that most down-rezzed images don't look "bad" at all. The balance between hard-edged details and a nice smooth image is one of aesthetics and one that only you will be able to directly compare to your original image. As far as "too much res"... everything you photograph has way more detail than you can capture any day. So even with 100mp, you're still down sizing what you see. It's just a compromise on what aesthetics choices and the "look" you're going for.
-
My point is that most down-rezzed images don't look "bad" at all. The balance between hard-edged details and a nice smooth image is one of aesthetics and one that only you will be able to directly compare to your original image. As far as "too much res"... everything you photograph has way more detail than you can capture any day. So even with 100mp, you're still down sizing what you see. It's just a compromise on what aesthetics choices and the "look" you're going for.
I'm not saying down rezzed images look bad but if they don't look quite as good then why develop high res' chips?
-
It all depends on the use you have for the image. For simple web presentation, or online portfolio, I have been using Lightroom's export with a redefined size and profile. Then, I open on CS3 just to add copyright data. This far, I haven't noticed loss of image quality. But a web browser isn't the best viewer for any image, on my book.
Never had to "shrink" an image to send to a client tho, so, I'm really finding this debate very interesting
-
I'm not saying down rezzed images look bad but if they don't look quite as good then why develop high res' chips?
Perhaps then for magazine use, you don't actually need anything more than say 12mp. In that respect, a 60mp back for your type of work is totally meaningless and pointless. Of course, many folks will say it gives you "cropping room." Aside from that, you're simply wasting your money. Now, most folks buy big backs to make big prints. If one only does newspaper or editorial work, it makes little sense to shoot at those high resolutions. This is a more of a discussion about practical equipment needs, not about the ability to down size an image.
-
Perhaps then for magazine use, you don't actually need anything more than say 12mp. In that respect, a 60mp back for your type of work is totally meaningless and pointless. Of course, many folks will say it gives you "cropping room." Aside from that, you're simply wasting your money. Now, most folks buy big backs to make big prints. If one only does newspaper or editorial work, it makes little sense to shoot at those high resolutions. This is a more of a discussion about practical equipment needs, not about the ability to down size an image.
Surely 95 percent of what photographers do appears in magazines though, I'd love to know who these backs are aimed at.
-
Surely 95 percent of what photographers do appears in magazines though, I'd love to know who these backs are aimed at.
Well, I for one, don't shoot anything specifically for magazines. I shoot for personal fine art work, and like I said, to print big. I can't speak for what users of the 60mp+ backs use it for, but I imagine it's for fashion, studio, and fine art work where large, finely detailed prints are at least one of the destined applications for a photo. Fashion and studio shooters may see their work used for a multitude of things, including newspaper, magazine, and billboards. Again, this thread isn't about why or what people shoot with high megapixel backs. Even so, you'll read many threads around where many shooters just want higher quality 25-39 megapixels that we already have, not XXX more megapixels, so who really knows where the 60+ mp back shooters are coming from.
-
I think one of the best solutions is to own 2 backs 1 lower rez and 1 higher rez. With the lower rez backs coming down somewhat in price (16 17 18mp) It makes sense.
-
I think one of the best solutions is to own 2 backs 1 lower rez and 1 higher rez. With the lower rez backs coming down somewhat in price (16 17 18mp) It makes sense.
Personally everything I shoot goes into a magazine so I own a P21, if someone needs something for an in store big something that a P21 file couldn't be uprezzed for I guess I'll just rent.