upsampling in Photoshop

C
Posted By
Conrad
Feb 13, 2005
Views
595
Replies
17
Status
Closed
Hi,

I have been very impressed with the printed results from upsampling i PSE 3 and PS 8.

Starting with relatively small files, upsampling, and then printin enlargements – the programs execute very well with pixel additions.

Has anybody else been impressed with upsampling results (and usin choices like ‘bicubic smoother)?

I know upsampling is frowned upon in some quarters – but I tried it an continue to be surprised at the results.

Best,

Conra

—
Conrad
Related Tags
upsampling

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

J
jjs
Feb 13, 2005
"Conrad" wrote in message

Has anybody else been impressed with upsampling results (and using choices like ‘bicubic smoother)?

Of course. And I like my wine heavily watered, steaks stuffed with soy-bean substitute, and looking at life through rose colored glasses.
C
Conrad
Feb 14, 2005
Hi jjs,

When using PSE 2 or 3, the active screen cursor takes the appearance of the tool selected from the array of tools in the tool box.
Is there any way to change this to a simple pointer, arrow, or other form?

Yes. You can use the Preferences command to tell Photoshop to use
"precise" or "brush size" cursors, or you can just hit the CAPS LOCK key
on your keyboard.<<

OK. But have you actually tried it?

:rolleyes:

—
Conrad
H
Hecate
Feb 14, 2005
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:41:38 GMT, Conrad
wrote:

Hi,

I have been very impressed with the printed results from upsampling in PSE 3 and PS 8.

Starting with relatively small files, upsampling, and then printing enlargements – the programs execute very well with pixel additions.
Has anybody else been impressed with upsampling results (and using choices like ‘bicubic smoother)?

I know upsampling is frowned upon in some quarters – but I tried it and continue to be surprised at the results.

Best,

Conrad

Yes, it’s wonderful how you can manage to add information that the camera never recorded in the first place isn’t it…

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
U
Uni
Feb 14, 2005
Conrad wrote:
Hi,

I have been very impressed with the printed results from upsampling in PSE 3 and PS 8.

Starting with relatively small files, upsampling, and then printing enlargements – the programs execute very well with pixel additions.
Has anybody else been impressed with upsampling results (and using choices like ‘bicubic smoother)?

I know upsampling is frowned upon in some quarters – but I tried it and continue to be surprised at the results.

To me, upsizing/sampling is, at the most, a best guess what to add to make the image larger. However, I was impressed with a third party plug-in, that created my (80 pel to 800 pel magnification) example:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/47515893EPZDBe

Uni

Best,

Conrad

MR
Michael Riddle
Feb 14, 2005
I wouldn’t use the term "impressed", but I get better results when using bicubic smooth than from bicubic. I must confess I don’t use upsampleing within Photoshop very much as I get noticeably better results when using Genuine Fractals, a Photoshop plug-in.

I hope this helps,

Mike

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:41:38 GMT, Conrad
wrote:

Hi,

I have been very impressed with the printed results from upsampling in PSE 3 and PS 8.

Starting with relatively small files, upsampling, and then printing enlargements – the programs execute very well with pixel additions.
Has anybody else been impressed with upsampling results (and using choices like ‘bicubic smoother)?

I know upsampling is frowned upon in some quarters – but I tried it and continue to be surprised at the results.

Best,

Conrad
U
Uni
Feb 14, 2005
Hecate wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:41:38 GMT, Conrad
wrote:

Hi,

I have been very impressed with the printed results from upsampling in PSE 3 and PS 8.

Starting with relatively small files, upsampling, and then printing enlargements – the programs execute very well with pixel additions.
Has anybody else been impressed with upsampling results (and using choices like ‘bicubic smoother)?

I know upsampling is frowned upon in some quarters – but I tried it and continue to be surprised at the results.

Best,

Conrad

Yes, it’s wonderful how you can manage to add information that the camera never recorded in the first place isn’t it…

Sharpening also adds artificial information. So does color correction, etc..

Uni
B
Brian
Feb 14, 2005
Conrad wrote:
Hi,

I have been very impressed with the printed results from upsampling in PSE 3 and PS 8.

Starting with relatively small files, upsampling, and then printing enlargements – the programs execute very well with pixel additions.
Has anybody else been impressed with upsampling results (and using choices like ‘bicubic smoother)?

I know upsampling is frowned upon in some quarters – but I tried it and continue to be surprised at the results.

Best,

Conrad
Geez, attack Conread everyone. He only made a passing comment that "he" was impressed by PS’s upsampling…..probably just meaning it is better than he expected it to be. We are all impressed by different things and to different degrees. If you are not impressed yourself, you can say so without ridiculing the guy!
LOL.
Brian
U
Uni
Feb 15, 2005
Brian wrote:
Conrad wrote:

Hi,

I have been very impressed with the printed results from upsampling in PSE 3 and PS 8.

Starting with relatively small files, upsampling, and then printing enlargements – the programs execute very well with pixel additions.
Has anybody else been impressed with upsampling results (and using choices like ‘bicubic smoother)?

I know upsampling is frowned upon in some quarters – but I tried it and continue to be surprised at the results.

Best,

Conrad
Geez, attack Conread everyone. He only made a passing comment that "he" was impressed by PS’s upsampling…..probably just meaning it is better than he expected it to be. We are all impressed by different things and to different degrees. If you are not impressed yourself, you can say so without ridiculing the guy!

Yeah, but what fun is that?

🙂

Uni

LOL.
Brian
H
Hecate
Feb 15, 2005
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:40:12 -0500, Michael Riddle
wrote:

I wouldn’t use the term "impressed", but I get better results when using bicubic smooth than from bicubic. I must confess I don’t use upsampleing within Photoshop very much as I get noticeably better results when using Genuine Fractals, a Photoshop plug-in.
I hope this helps,
I was rather more impressed with Fred Miranda’s Stair Interpolation plug in which costs a fraction of the price GF charges ($19.99 last time I looked). <g>

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Feb 15, 2005
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:16:21 +1100, Brian
wrote:

Geez, attack Conread everyone. He only made a passing comment that "he" was impressed by PS’s upsampling…..probably just meaning it is better than he expected it to be. We are all impressed by different things and to different degrees. If you are not impressed yourself, you can say so without ridiculing the guy!
LOL.
Brian

Hey, if we can’t have a little fun to relieve the frustrations here where can we go?

(I’m sure you can think of few a places… <g>)

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
J
jjs
Feb 15, 2005
"Hecate" wrote in message

Hey, if we can’t have a little fun to relieve the frustrations here where can we go?

Darn, but the pub nearest work is over a mile away, and I’m a pedestrian. 🙂
BV
Bart van der Wolf
Feb 15, 2005
"Hecate" wrote in message
SNIP
I was rather more impressed with Fred Miranda’s Stair
Interpolation plug in which costs a fraction of the price GF charges ($19.99 last time I looked). <g>

Why waste $19.99 if you can get it for free? 😉
http://www.imphotography.com/downloads/ssimagesize.htm

Bart
N
Noexcuseforanick
Feb 15, 2005
This is pretty cool( he said, before installing it)- I tried the stair-step thing, manually, from a digital photography book and it’s pretty ok….I was going to learn how to write actions by doing one for this but now I don’t have to!

I love it when others do my work for me……
HP
helmut.p.einfaltNOSPAM
Feb 15, 2005
Uni wrote:
Sharpening also adds artificial information. So does color correction, etc..

No.

Both of your examples *modify* existing information, but do not introduce something that wasn’t there to start with.

Helmut
—
All typos © My Knotty Fingers Ltd. Capacity Dept.
H
Hecate
Feb 16, 2005
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:36:31 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message
SNIP
I was rather more impressed with Fred Miranda’s Stair
Interpolation plug in which costs a fraction of the price GF charges ($19.99 last time I looked). <g>

Why waste $19.99 if you can get it for free? 😉
http://www.imphotography.com/downloads/ssimagesize.htm
Hi Bart,

Nice to see you over here 🙂

Thanks for the link 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Feb 16, 2005
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:36:31 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message
SNIP
I was rather more impressed with Fred Miranda’s Stair
Interpolation plug in which costs a fraction of the price GF charges ($19.99 last time I looked). <g>

Why waste $19.99 if you can get it for free? 😉
http://www.imphotography.com/downloads/ssimagesize.htm
P.S. Looks interesting as does the site which I’ve bookmarked…

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Feb 16, 2005
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:04:18 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Hey, if we can’t have a little fun to relieve the frustrations here where can we go?

Darn, but the pub nearest work is over a mile away, and I’m a pedestrian. 🙂
Hmmm, pedestrian. ISTM that’s what my images were called when I first started out 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections