best upsizing technique?

[epines]

I'm about to shoot a job where I need to upsize my H3DII-39 files by about 70 percent. What do you people recommend? Here are the options I'm aware of:

- Doing it when I output from Phocus.
- Using third-party software. I used Genuine Fractals long ago, but I'm sure the software options have evolved dramatically. What's the best option now?
- Upsizing in Photoshop. If you recommend this, do you suggest a particular technique, such as, say, doing it in 10-percent increments?
- Rent an IQ280 and an H4x for the day. (Most expensive, least preferable.)

If there's anything I'm not thinking of, let me know.

Thanks
ethan

[Doug Peterson]

I'm about to shoot a job where I need to upsize my H3DII-39 files by about 70 percent. What do you people recommend? Here are the options I'm aware of:

- Doing it when I output from Phocus.
- Using third-party software. I used Genuine Fractals long ago, but I'm sure the software options have evolved dramatically. What's the best option now?
- Upsizing in Photoshop. If you recommend this, do you suggest a particular technique, such as, say, doing it in 10-percent increments?
- Rent an IQ280 and an H4x for the day. (Most expensive, least preferable.)

If there's anything I'm not thinking of, let me know.

Thanks
ethan

Can you give the forum some idea of the subject matter and type of printing or use?

The best way to up sample a portrait is often quite different than the best way to up sample an architectural image.

After you get some input Id recommend doing a dry run test to see if you and the client are sufficiently pleased by the result. Depending on the context, the content, and the scrutiny/technical-knowledge of the client 70% up sampling is anywhere from "no big deal" to "complete mush".

If it's not acceptable you could also stitch depending on if that approach works for the kind of shoot you're doing.

Nothing beats higher native resolution but depending on the situation you may or may be able to get away without it.

[SZRitter]

There was a good discussion on this earlier: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=77949.0

My take away was to go up in 2x increments, then down sample to the final resolution.

Of course, I bet Doug and many others are much more knowledgable than me on this.

[digitaldog]

70% is nothing for a clean capture, you can probably use Photoshop or ACR as outlined in Jeff Schewe's article:
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/the-art-of-the-up-res.html?start=1#.U5nXUxYZovg

[Doug Peterson]

70% is nothing for a clean capture, you can probably use Photoshop or ACR as outlined in Jeff Schewe's article:
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/the-art-of-the-up-res.html?start=1#.U5nXUxYZovg

Respectfully I disagree that you can say this without knowing more about the application.

If the need to upres is being driven by an non-technical art director who wants "70mp" without knowing or understanding what that even means, and the subject matter is a soft shallow DOF portrait then 70% is less than nothing.

But on the other end of the spectrum imagine a laminate manufacturer who makes flooring with textures sample from highly-detailed real-world objects, for instance a faux-wood made by taking photos of actual wood. Now say that manufacturer wants to put their laminate directly alongside the original piece of wood in their trade-show booth for high-end cliental to scrutinize. In such a case 70% up sampling is quite possibly problematic.

As an even more extreme example, not directly relevant to the OP, the Cultural Heritage community has guidelines which require at least 93% sampling efficiency (in other words "very very sharp") which would preclude up sampling any file more than 7% regardless of how clean/sharp it is to start. Often they have internal or external auditing of the final image to measure whether they are compliant with these standards (see e.g. this FADGI Compliancy Evaluation).

Like I said earlier, depending on context, content, and cliental uprezing 70% it may be absolutely no problem at all. Or it may not be good enough. In many (probably most) instances it will be on the "no problem" side. But without knowing the context, content, and cliental you cannot be sure where it falls.

[digitaldog]

Respectfully I disagree that you can say this without knowing more about the application.

That's fine. I've yet to output resized files from decent digital capture to any number of output devices, dating back to LVT film recorders where a mere 70% upsizing produced any issues if done correctly, as outlined by Jeff in his article. Even 200% isn't at all an issue with proper handling of quality digital capture. If I can't see any issues going out to a good contone output device, a high quality Epson ink jet at photographer’s viewing distance (one's nose just touching the print), I doubt there's anything at all to worry about upsizing this small amount. KISS.

[epines]

Can you give the forum some idea of the subject matter and type of printing or use?

The best way to up sample a portrait is often quite different than the best way to up sample an architectural image.

Thanks so much for the replies -- keep them coming! I'll check out the earlier LuLa discussion and Jeff Schewe's article.

Doug: It's a person / portrait with a dish of food, for an ad. Upsizing is required for billboards and bus shelters. (I realize these are often printed at very low ppi, but I have the exact printing specs, and the 70% upsize is required.) No stitching possible here.

thanks again
ethan

[Paul2660]

That application sounds like a perfect fit for either Blow Up or Perfect Resize.  For the output you mentioned I personally would just run one process.

Paul

[Doug Peterson]

Id guess you have nothing at all to worry about. Any manner of upsizing will likely be fine. Try each mentioned here and if possible make a sample print to compare for the bus shelter application. But even that is probably more work than necessary. That's not an especially demanding situation.

[Ken R]

Thanks so much for the replies -- keep them coming! I'll check out the earlier LuLa discussion and Jeff Schewe's article.

Doug: It's a person / portrait with a dish of food, for an ad. Upsizing is required for billboards and bus shelters. (I realize these are often printed at very low ppi, but I have the exact printing specs, and the 70% upsize is required.) No stitching possible here.

thanks again
ethan

Back in the early days of digital I used a 6mp digital camera for a lot jobs like that. Id worry more about getting the originally sized image as good as can be and then upsize using some of the software mentioned in this thread. Any sharpening should be applied at the very end of the post production process and is usually dependant on the final output size and media.

[Phil Indeblanc]

I would agree with Dougs approach not knowing the subject and VIEWING DISTANCE.
But now knowing that it is a billboard, and I have done 10 myself(great feeling, btw)...Ya, they are rather low resolution and Blowup, Fractals, or the manual/incremental method all will be fine for a portrait and food shot.

Don't expect to use it for a trade show/Duratran with closer audience on any high contrast, or the like images.