Upsizing to print Qimage vs OnOne Resize

[Phil Indeblanc]

Now that I have Qimage, and I have had OneOne. I do prefer to upsize the file just for the print vs keeping the large file size...BUT, which does a better job?
I also notice after OnOne, I get some things that I cleanup with Simplify(Topaz).

I haven't checked the close up of Qimage "upres", as I am new and can't see a preview. I see the Preview window with a section I can't move or change, but I don't see much if any difference when I move the sharpening sliders.
I watched a few videos, but still not sure what I'm doing in the Edit Image window.

Regardless, I'd like some feedback on the differences in upsizing, if anyone has tried it.

I also have BlowUp, but I think they are close to being the same(?).

[Phil Indeblanc]

I take it OnOne is not so popular? or....

[davidh202]

I have Photoshop CS6, OnOne Suite 8, and do all my printing and uprezzing in Qimage Ult exclusively ! it rocks!

[Phil Indeblanc]

Im getting the hang of that Edit tool. I watched the video 2 x before, but unless you watch and "do" as you watch, it just goes over my head.

YES... I am seeing some good stuff!

Great thing is I don't have to save the file! The OnOne, made the images a bit blotchy. Maybe ok for canvas textures, and it has a handr wrap around feature for stretching. But this is superior just from 1 print I tried so far.

[elolaugesen]

what do you mean blotchy.   please explain....  what are the measurements that you are working with ie form what size to???

thank you

[Phil Indeblanc]

Im going double. From 12x18 to 24x36
It is at the limit.  I actually need one to do 30x40, but cant.

When OnOne does the upres, the fine details gets clumpy, bunched up, rather than fine detail.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Im going double. From 12x18 to 24x36
It is at the limit.  I actually need one to do 30x40, but cant.

When OnOne does the upres, the fine details gets clumpy, bunched up, rather than fine detail.

Hi Phil,

Perfect Resize can produce a great upsampled result, but you do need to use the proper settings for the particular image you are upsampling. The benefit is that it can actually add some detail to sharp edges beyond which is available in the source image. But one needs to fine tune the settings.

Qimage has a different purpose, it's intended for creating great (printed) output at just about any size you need without having to specify and specifics other than output size. It uses very good interpolation algorithms to match the required upsampling for the specific output device one wishes to use, and can automatically add smart output sharpening after the automatic upsampling to match the output device/medium/size. However, it does not add resolution, it just optimizes the use of what the original image data has to offer.

At a modest doubling of the linear pixel resolution, there will not be too much difference in output regardless of which of these applications you use. In that case, also because you do not need to store a huge intermediate file, it may be more efficient to let Qimage do its on-the-fly magic based on the original output.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

I take it OnOne is not so popular? or....

I never found it to do anything useful after inspecting output to a print compared to other faster, less expensive methods (my favorite now upsizing from raw in Lightroom).

[Phil Indeblanc]

Interesting.

Yes, I think depending on the image and the number of tweaks to work out on Perfect Resize, I might be able to get something nice, but each tweak is waiting time and eventually a larger file.

I have not tried it in LR, How do you go about doing it? At which point?

[digitaldog]

I have not tried it in LR, How do you go about doing it? At which point?

Just before rendering (using the Export dialog). You can set a higher than native resolution. Same in ACR. I did not see a compelling difference doing this or upsizing in Photoshop or using Step Interpolation there but there were tiny differences (and improvements) upsizing from the raw data and very important, with proper capture sharpening. That produced the biggest differences in the tests I did.

I found Perfect Resize to be VERY slow in comparison with no benefit I could see on the print compared to using tools I already own. That said, I think Bart is spot on that the settings in these products will make a big difference IF you want to go through the trouble of wading through what can be a vast amount of options. I didn't go down that route as far as I could. I just didn't see anything compelling on the print that convinced me it was worth the effort. And I'm sure image content, output device (even the paper) would play a role here. Forget viewing distance, the differences I saw needed a loupe to see and considering the time and cost for the 3rd party products, I just decided it wasn't worth it (for me).

That said, these products may be useful in some cases. For example, Mac Holbert, formally of Nash Editions who's opinion I greatly respect told me he found these products very useful when he had to take a really tiny file and blow it up massively. In my tests, I think I only sized the 5DMII images 300% or 400%. For that kind of work, the tests I did convinced me it wasn't worth the extra effort but of course, everyone should run their own test and most importantly NOT make decisions about the quality based on what they see on-screen but rather to an output device.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Drew, are you saying you can take your 22mp files up 400% with good results? (maybe viewing distance is in the equation?).

I have this one image that needs to be 30x40 or so from the 22mp (5d2 file).

I tried PerfectResize, which didn't look very good. I admit I have no extensive experience with the tweaking in Perfect Resize. But maybe I should give Qimage a shot with it?

But first, I need to test why my dark grays are showing up too dark/black. (issue in another thread)