The quality of the interpolation minilab / Photoshop or other software.

Pages: 1

18.06.2009 13:36:00
Previously, about 5 years ago when I was with the parties fotomylnitsa 4 * 3, had to make adjustment to the print size 20x30 in Photoshop. Since there were problems with a crop and a resolution of machine do it myself and output quality neustraivaet.
Currently having Fuji S5 he takes the correct aspect ratio 2 * 3 for output to 20 * 30. if nekadrirovat.
if the resulting jpeg attributed to the minilab printing they do naturally sprinkle nebudut. But it will be interpolated to the resolution of the machine. And when you bring
already with the right sizes for the format 20 * 30 and put 300 dpi where the result will be better?
as more correctly? I can, and the difference is negligible. . but some notice.
say frontier fuji machine. . or the machines themselves are doing good and resize interpolation?
advise how best to get out of this camera very best print 20 * 30. provided that after jpeg equal to the max. Quality is very good and then read the article confused. Printed before this is rare. Who'll often.
 

18.06.2009 13:46:00
Perhaps you can put in order of size as follows: the best of me is well-known in fotoprintrah Epson, in the labs is strongly dependent on the model and configuration of the machine, and Photoshop do not advise to do it - well done for a long time, and you can resize blunt significantly degrade the quality. It's better not photoshop, and specialized software. What - I think, tell someone. . .

18.06.2009 14:24:00


I do is more important to know: is it worth it (resize and interpolation.) To do at home or modern minilabs already make their own fun. their algorithms enough.
provided max. quality jpeg on hand already under skodrirovannogo format.
just before I had to do everything at home. resize quality was sometimes no kchёrtu.

18.06.2009 15:41:00
In one familiar minilab swore, swore that they have no notion of dpi and print another approach. What
- refused to disclose. .

18.06.2009 15:59:00


something like optical zoom

18.06.2009 16:08:00

on the same machine with print and film, and with a number.
meet the description that shine through the filter 3 on the paper.
House interpolate anything not necessary. This issue has already been discussed, you can search to find.

18.06.2009 16:16:00


House did not need to interpolate. This issue has already been discussed, you can search to find.

on the same machine with print and film, and with a number.

strange. . always read everywhere that we should better to put the size in pixels. than curves hands minilab. may already be behind the times?

18.06.2009 16:34:00

My opinion: it is better trust minilab, unless of course he takes neresayznutye files.


must be better to set the size in pixels
It is not a linear scale, and an interpolation.

18.06.2009 16:45:00


It is not a linear scale, and an interpolation.

and I about it (just put razmery6 + interpolation). by lanscoz or bikubik and so. n. always believed that it is better than minilabovskaya. .
razve netak?

18.06.2009 17:03:00

strange. . always read everywhere that we should better to put the size in pixels. than curves hands minilab.
argued that there is no such thing as a resolution. No permission - no "interpolation".

18.06.2009 17:54:00
Try again to find out from them the secret parameter, that is. .
only afraid soldering required. .

18.06.2009 19:20:00

razve netak?
I do not know what algorithms uses the processor fotomashiny in the lab, but in recent years the quality of any complaints in this regard have not. It used. As they now do not know how much they need dpi in the file, it is better not to argue and just give according to their requirements. Will be fewer misunderstandings.
And here at Epson drivers struynikov some his signature algorithm accurately effective than fotoshopnye bikubiki (I've printed on a plotter with a very strong stretching images, a miracle how it works).
In addition, the requirements for the quality of the photo at the customer is very subjective. For example, less than experience the greater demand and saturation field pictures.
Perhaps the best there will be some specialized programs interpolation, but not photoshop.

18.06.2009 22:21:00
if there is any density, then IMHO training image should come with the expectation significance insertion effects. E. If Sharpe is not 1 pixel - they are at 300 dpi 11-12 of 1 mm is obtained. I mean - if there is special training - it does not decrease in a certain smoothing due to the decrease in size.
20 * 15 - 4. 5 megapixel image at 300 dpi.
 

19.06.2009 8:52:00


Since they now do not know how much they need dpi in the file, it is better not to argue and just give according to their requirements. Will be fewer misunderstandings.

here I think. . if they don `t know exactly resolution and so on. n. is making the house fit yourself, then the risk of getting another interpolation process in the minilab.
if I understand correctly from a mismatch Kotya would 20dpi or linear dimensions in pixels, the machine will automatically scan the file for compliance and interpolates it down to her.
now ligika begs atkaya- If you know 100% pixel dimensions which takes minilab and its resolution in dpi you can do at home. The quality could be better, because you can posharpit correctly + interpolation algorithms, and so on. N.
if unknown then give the file in the original without the initial interpolation. Toe st nestavit dpi and resampling nonconductive. Only under the crop size.
right?

19.06.2009 9:55:00

quality could be better, because you can posharpit correctly
IMHO not see the difference. IMHO Sharpe must be on the basis of the significance of (apparently) the effect on the final print of known size. E. Range - as the ratio of the width to the frame. And such Sharpe, by the way, nice going through a reduction in size.
Another most important Trouble that shines - get the lab to take the file to print in the real size. If the operator is confident that there is no real size (or is it hidden somewhere in management) - Make sure the return is not easy.
We take "no correction" - aerobatics. . .

19.06.2009 10:17:00


IMHO not see the difference.

more as I see it.
when resizing with 12MP to 8 parts zamylyatsya. and depending on the algorithm of resizing and sharpening algorithm and the choice of these items to be returned.
here that sits question and who better to do it, or do modern labs in the old house?
because before the result was better than homemade.
want myself to understand today's labs do resize itself, or what is happening there?

19.06.2009 11:58:00

when resizing with 12MP to 8 parts zamylyatsya.
Once again I want to repeat his main thesis. If you print all 12 MT in the same size (density & gt; = 300 dpi), then there is no blurring when printing 8 You probably will not see. You vryatli shoot checkerboards pixel-to-pixel basis, as in the article.
If you need podsharpit image to look sharper on the print, Sharpe must be based on the size of the actual print. If excessive megapixels - Sharp radius must take more. More precisely - the radius must be considered in mm and translate them into pixels based on the size of the picture. After
not even very direct consequences Sharp will resize. See
. Enclosure - Sharp made to resize. From 10 to 4. 5 megapixel.

19.06.2009 17:29:00
quote:
:
More precisely - the radius must be considered in mm and translate them into pixels based on the size of the picture.
And that is a linear relationship? It can be described?

20.06.2009 14:32:00

Sharpe - value is somewhat subjective, so accurate "Sharpe" can not be.
So write that.
For example, there are two pictures. One was prepared for printing 300 dpi, the other - to 600 dpi. But both otsharpleny with one radius. After printing, the effect on the Sharp 600 dpi will be less noticeable. That it was also expressed as 300 dpi - Sharp Pictures radius 600 should be increased. How - difficult to answer, it gauss - it is non-linear, without thinking - in 1. 5-2 times.
e. You can decide for yourself radius Sharpe when he noticed on the print. In the picture it will take longer millimeters. Knowing his resolution images - you can calculate its density and counted how many should take the radius from millimeters to pixels.

20.06.2009 22:32:00
In frontierki 2 modes - 300 and 600dpi, the last operators are silent as fish, so there was no hassle Yes and it is clear there (600dpi) virtually no adjustments available.

21.06.2009 0:38:00

there (600dpi) virtually no adjustments available.
Perhaps this is necessary for fans to print "without any adjustments." .

21.06.2009 1:05:00
When I want to change the size usually used photozoom. In my opinion resize it better than Photoshop. The main thing that was version 2. 2. But this is my opinion. I advise you to try.

21.06.2009 10:38:00
quote:
:

there (600dpi) virtually no adjustments available.
Perhaps this is necessary for fans to print "without any adjustments." .

have already written - does not happen in the labs without adjustments. Before you come to print your photos, there porylos pretty people and who knows what namutil, so do not dream of printing without correction, it is always there, just somewhere to regulate car with knowledge of the case, but in other places as horrible. I would resize all the same house. About the software Labov says for example that the most common conversion ravov scanner frontierki much better at irfanviva than that of native hardware converter.

21.06.2009 18:04:00

Yasnenko, thank you. What do you think, does it make sense as it processes the image (resize, Sharpe) for printing everyday photo printer? For example, Stylus Photo R295.
 

21.06.2009 21:16:00

whether it makes sense as it processes the image (resize, Sharpe) for printing everyday photo printer? For example, Stylus Photo R295
likely the printer driver to make it better.
Pages: 1

The quality of the interpolation minilab / Photoshop or other software.

info@www.about-digital-photo.com