Just out of curiosity, what method of interpolation do you use when printing from Qimage? I had been using "Fusion" or "Hybrid" but the Help file says that Hybrid SE bests Hybrid by being smoother and having fewer artifacts. I am printing on an Epson 4900 at up to 16 x 24" on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper from files from a 5DIII and a 1DII.
Hi Walter,
It depends on how much magnification is required, and if you are going to work on the output file (e.g. adding text at highest resolution, or enhance sharpening) or not.
I use Hybrid SE (because it doesn't introduce any halo) if I subsequently want to apply deconvolution sharpening to the upsampled result. On the other hand, if the file is the end product (e.g. for off-site printing) already, and the magnification is no more than 2x or 3x the number of pixels in the original, I'd use Fusion for a good compromise.
For the very best results I use Photozoom Pro to do the upsampling, and then take the resulting file through Qimage for it's consistent handling of the settings for specific media, and its layout features.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart - what software gave you halos by doing a resolution up-sample? I've never seen that with the different flavors of bi-cubic in Photoshop. I do all my image editing and sharpening once the image is at my printer's native resolution.
It seems it's USP is convenience, simplicity and price. Not that there's anything wrong with that! :) Sal
Thanks for doing the test Bart. It did make me go back and test the different BiCubic options. BiCubic smooth does do the best at enlarging an image, as Adobe recommends.
These tests are good to show extreme limits of different technology but are of little to no value, at least to me, in real world printmaking. I'm sure that viewing maximum contrast images in geometrically perfect edges will show many problems when viewed at 400% after a 300% enlargement. I guess QI gets bragging rights in that situation, but barely. I only up-sample from 50% to 100-ish% (20x30 prints), and views of 100% are already pretty extreme as related to a final print. I tried a quick duplication of the test at 100% up-sampling, and viewed it at a size that I care about (50%) and there are no visible halos. That's probably why I've never had issues with BiCubic I suppose.
I went to the QI website to see if their sharpening algorithm was indeed revolutionary. I found that their comparison test shows PS unsharp mask at a radius of 10 (!) and strength of 100. Of course it looked like garbage. They mention that the QI example had the same settings, but who can say that the settings of their new technology are anywhere close to the settings for USM. They then show a "more modest" comparison but don't mention any settings.
QI is a great product and has loyal fans, but IMO it doesn't offer anything new to experienced users who know how to use existing tools (like PS) properly. It seems it's USP is convenience, simplicity and price. Not that there's anything wrong with that! :)
Sal
You really need to take some time to use Deep Focus Sharpening rather than just making guesses based on web examples. It really is revolutionary! The only reason you think a radius of 10 is ridiculous is because you can't do it with USM without ruining the image! With DFS, you can get the same level of sharpening as USM but you don't have to handicap yourself with tiny radii just because of the halo artifacts. That opens the door to new levels of sharpening (and de-fogging) because you are not so limited in what you can do.
BTW, the second example (of the rose) is at radius 4.
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/tech-dfs.htm
P.S. You really have to run a lot of (real) images through an interpolator to get an idea of how well it works: running a single edge through it is really not going to tell you a lot about it. All the methods have their pros and cons. Some work better on hard edges. Some are better at rendering fine "random" detail like leaves or grass at a distance. Some have problems with circular patterns. You really have to interpolate a lot of images and pick the interpolator with the best overall balance. FWIW, the ones that make the sharpest edges often produce results that can look a little "fake" because they break the relationship between sharpness and detail, making some edges much sharper than they really should be. Finally (sorry, I keep editing to add more because there's a lot involved)... keep in mind that with today's digital cameras, interpolation by super large amounts is less common and nearly all of the interpolation algorithms can do a good job up to about 2x which is likely all you'll ever use. What is more important is to match the printer's native resolution and to have a sharpening algorithm that can produce the best final output sharpening. With the high resolution photos of today's cameras, a good sharpening algorithm is more useful than interpolation algorithms, hence the importance of something like DFS that can sharpen without halo artifacts.
Mike
I don't need to. I've spent a lot of time (many years) sharpening prints without QI, and I have no halos in the final prints, they are sharp and not artificial looking. If QI makes it easier for folks to get the same results great.
This really seems more like a case of one guitar amplifier volume knob goes to 10 and the other 11. :) In the QI sample the deep focus sample looks exactly like USM if USM was set to a radius of .6 and and amount of 80. If anything the USM requires much less aggressive setting to get the same result if we really think the settings mean anything.
Also, my output is ALWAYS for large prints. A radius/strength with USM that shows what you would call small halos at 100% views are not visible in the inkjet print. That's what's most important. I always edit my image at full resolution (native for my printer) and carefully sharpen images selectively and soft proof the effects before printing. For me QI would be an unneeded addition to my workflow that offers no real image improvement. But for users who find this confusing or actually think setting up for a print in PS or Lightroom is complicated, QI seems to be a very good option.
Cheers.
Sal
I don't need to. I've spent a lot of time (many years) sharpening prints without QI, and I have no halos in the final prints, they are sharp and not artificial looking. If QI makes it easier for folks to get the same results great.
This really seems more like a case of one guitar amplifier volume knob goes to 10 and the other 11. :) In the QI sample the deep focus sample looks exactly like USM if USM was set to a radius of .6 and and amount of 80. If anything the USM requires much less aggressive setting to get the same result if we really think the settings mean anything.
Also, my output is ALWAYS for large prints. A radius/strength with USM that shows what you would call small halos at 100% views are not visible in the inkjet print. That's what's most important. I always edit my image at full resolution (native for my printer) and carefully sharpen images selectively and soft proof the effects before printing. For me QI would be an unneeded addition to my workflow that offers no real image improvement. But for users who find this confusing or actually think setting up for a print in PS or Lightroom is complicated, QI seems to be a very good option.
Cheers.
Sal
Good analogy, but completely wrong. Let's follow that analogy. It's more like one guitar amp that, internally, is connected to a phone speaker. Another one that is connected to a 100 watt high fidelity audio speaker. On the former, you can only turn up the volume to about 1 before it starts to crackle. On the latter, you can turn the volume all the way up to 10 without distortion. This analogy is EXACTLY what we are talking about here! And... you would say "I don't need to hear it... I've been working with an amp connected to a phone speaker for years". The QU example also had the exact same radius 10, strength 100 and no: it looks nothing like USM at radius .6 and strength 80. The reason it looks sharp without halos is that the algorithm itself does not produce halos: you can see that in the example because both versions have the same level of sharpening (USM and DFS) with the only difference being the USM version is ruined by halos. DFS simply does as good a job as USM, but with NO halos whatsoever. If you prefer halos in your work, then there's not much I can say to convince you. If you want a much higher quality sharpening algorithm that can sharpen much farther into the details without artifacts, QU has the solution. Granted, not every photo will need higher levels of sharpening but for those that do, you can do the job without worrying about halos.
Mike
Mike, I have no halos and I sharpen as much as I ever need. Your analogy is even goofier than mine. Sorry, I just don't buy it.
Cheers.
Sal,
I am glad your workflow works for you.
One restrictions of your method is that you must work at "full resolution" for each size print you do. Redoing it if you change size.
I believe, one of the primary benefits of Lightroom and Qimage printing is that you sharpen for the screen, until it looks the way you want. Then, when printing, LR and Qimage interpolate and sharpen to the size selected and resolution need by the printer. If needed, I can even change cropping and it will be handled.
While LR and Qimage both do it, Qimage does it better.
While I am sure you are an expert at PS output, I did it for years and it is not difficult....just tedious...and really not necessary to get equivalent...maybe better...output with Qimage.
John
You really need to take some time to use Deep Focus Sharpening rather than just making guesses based on web examples. It really is revolutionary! The only reason you think a radius of 10 is ridiculous is because you can't do it with USM without ruining the image! With DFS, you can get the same level of sharpening as USM but you don't have to handicap yourself with tiny radii just because of the halo artifacts. That opens the door to new levels of sharpening (and de-fogging) because you are not so limited in what you can do.
P.S. You really have to run a lot of (real) images through an interpolator to get an idea of how well it works: running a single edge through it is really not going to tell you a lot about it. All the methods have their pros and cons. Some work better on hard edges. Some are better at rendering fine "random" detail like leaves or grass at a distance. Some have problems with circular patterns. You really have to interpolate a lot of images and pick the interpolator with the best overall balance.
FWIW, the ones that make the sharpest edges often produce results that can look a little "fake" because they break the relationship between sharpness and detail, making some edges much sharper than they really should be.
Finally (sorry, I keep editing to add more because there's a lot involved)... keep in mind that with today's digital cameras, interpolation by super large amounts is less common and nearly all of the interpolation algorithms can do a good job up to about 2x which is likely all you'll ever use. What is more important is to match the printer's native resolution and to have a sharpening algorithm that can produce the best final output sharpening. With the high resolution photos of today's cameras, a good sharpening algorithm is more useful than interpolation algorithms, hence the importance of something like DFS that can sharpen without halo artifacts.
John, that's not a restriction at all, I choose to work at full resolution. I do a great deal of work on my art prints and use a wide variety of editing tools and plug-ins. I prefer to have all these editing changes made with real pixels at full resolution rather than editing and up-sampling many layers of work. I don't want someone else's algorithm deciding how much sharpening I want, in which part of the image, and changing it based on arbitrary print size parameters. I keep my original RAW files and make my edits at full-res at the largest size I would ever print. Any thing smaller get's down-sampled (slightly) with no loss of IQ. All of your examples, again, speak to convenience rather than ultimate print quality assuming knowledgeable printmakers. If QI can guess better than a specific user's result would be without it, then it's well worth the money for them. One person's "tedious" might be another person's passion, fun, and ultimate control over the medium. Thanks.
Sal
Mike, I have no halos and I sharpen as much as I ever need so this is all moot.
Your analogy is even goofier than mine. :)
Sorry, I just don't buy it, but I'm glad it's helpful for you.
Cheers.
Sal
We all make compromises. One of yours is to down sample rather than redo at specific output size.....I guess for "convenience". I assume you are satisfied with this "guess" vs specific results.John, you're making a lot of assumptions. Of course I guess at getting optimum quality, this is an art not a science. I only sharpen at the last stage before printing, after downsampling if I need an occasional small print. I save my selection mask which follows any size change. We all learn as we go along but I don't want a software guessing for me. I rarely need to print smaller, but if the size change is dramatic I'll sometimes make completely different decisions on the which areas receive sharpening, not just the amount. Why would I not want this flexibility?
Look....I have no doubt you are an excellent printer, with years of experience behind you. You guess....with an experienced eye....at how much sharpening is needed for a given print at a given print size. But, I am sure, even you are not absolutely sure until you actually print...every "knowledgeable printmaker" I know has said this.
Many, such as you, seem to love the process as much, maybe more, than the result. I do not think, however, that you should look down at those who can get just as good (maybe, maybe not, better) results, but with a much easier process. Just because we don't love your process does not mean we want any less in ultimate print quality.
John