Shrinking a picture — and it becomes blur !!

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE.

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1.              Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
                1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2.              Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

On Apr 29, 4:39 pm, wrote:

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

As advised, rendering to the size you want may be the best way.
Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

wrote:

On Apr 29, 4:39 pm, wrote:

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

As advised, rendering to the size you want may be the best way.

Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm

Since the downsize is an exact integer (factor of 8)
I’m not sure Lanczos (or anything "better" than bilinear) would help.

  BugBear

wrote in message
| Hello !
|
| I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of | stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put | them online, they become blurred !!

| 2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking | operation?

anything with the right algorithm, and the algoriothm makes all the difference

..and downsizing is quite, quite different from upsizing!

a basic primer on algorithm for resizing can be found here: (grr.. the web site’s gone!)
http://web.archive.org/web/20060409125805/http://www.interpo latethis.com/int erp.html

and some comparisons
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-resize-for- web.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-photo-enl argement.htm

snip

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:39:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

snip

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

IrfanView gives you a choice of 5 filters when resizing. Try each of these until you get the desired results.
http://www.irfanview.com

As advised, rendering to the size you want may be the best way.

Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm – eg in Irfanview. Also, downsizing in steps may work better, in other words, try reducing in steps of say 20% (or even less), and then experiment with light sharpening (USM) at each step – Irfanview has this function built in, but I can usually do a little better manually. I’ve found what works for some images, doesn’t work as well for others.. and I’ve never experimented with rendered images, so all this may be useless… (O:

The best you can hope for is one/two-pixel sharpness, so maybe you are expecting too much?

As advised, rendering to the size you want may be the best way.

Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm – eg in Irfanview. Also, downsizing in steps may work better, in other words, try reducing in steps of say 20% (or even less), and then experiment with light sharpening (USM) at each step – Irfanview has this function built in, but I can usually do a little better manually. I’ve found what works for some images, doesn’t work as well for others.. and I’ve never experimented with rendered images, so all this may be useless… (O:

The best you can hope for is one/two-pixel sharpness, so maybe you are expecting too much?

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1.              Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
                1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2.              Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm

Since the downsize is an exact integer (factor of 8)
I’m not sure Lanczos (or anything "better" than bilinear) would help.

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

In article
,
wrote:

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

Well, of course! What did you expect?

If you resize an image to make it smaller, you remove pixels. When you remove pixels, you remove detail.

On top of that, if you save as JPEG, you remove even more detail. JPEG compression is "lossy." It was invented for situations where file size is critical and image quality is not important. It makes files smaller by discarding image detail.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE.

On Apr 29, 8:13?pm, bugbear wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 29, 4:39 pm, wrote:

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

As advised, rendering to the size you want may be the best way.

Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm

Since the downsize is an exact integer (factor of 8)
I’m not sure Lanczos (or anything "better" than bilinear) would help.

? BugBear

But I did also refer to downsizing in much smaller steps – and Lanczos will possibly help there…

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

wrote:

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

What were expecting? If you remove seven eighths of the data then seven eighths of the data will be gone.

N wrote:

wrote:

…

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

…

What were expecting? If you remove seven eighths of the data then seven eighths of the data will be gone.

Much less than 1/8 of the data remains.

(1024 X 768) / (8192 X 6144) = fraction remaining
786432 / 50331648 = 0.015625

Beryl wrote:

N wrote:

wrote:

…

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

…

What were expecting? If you remove seven eighths of the data then seven eighths of the data will be gone.

Much less than 1/8 of the data remains.

(1024 X 768) / (8192 X 6144) = fraction remaining
786432 / 50331648 = 0.015625

One time when I was a child my mother sent me to the store to buy ten pounds of potatoes. The bag was too heavy, so I took out nine pounds and threw them away. When I got home I couldn’t believe it when I could find only one pound. I asked my mother how I could get them back, and she told me to go back to where I threw them away and bring them back; sadly, I couldn’t find them.
Allen

(Didn’t Steve Jobs’ R&D people have postscript display in their neXt OS?)

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.
If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it’s from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A … the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B … as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A. www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B. www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C. www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it’s from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A … the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

Any comment ??

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.
If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it’s from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A … the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B … as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

On May 1, 9:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it’s from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A … the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B … as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

Apparently the links are broken. Also, please, don’t post BMP, post small JPEG 100% crops of a problem area because I use a dial up modem.

Apparently the links are broken. Also, please, don’t post BMP, post small JPEG 100% crops of a problem area because I use a dial up modem.

All are PNG files. Yes, the links are damn broken !!

On May 1, 8:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it’s from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A … the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B … as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnE xpandedKe…
, to this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExp andedKern…
, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel.
Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing.  SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding the kernel.  This is undesirable for natural images.

On May 1, 9:24 am, pg wrote:

On May 1, 8:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it’s from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A … the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B … as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text — Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

In article , Pico wrote:

(Didn’t Steve Jobs’ R&D people have postscript display in their neXt OS?)

nextstep/openstep used display postscript and os x uses pdf.

On May 1, 2:49 pm, aruzinsky

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-

, to this,

http://www.general-

, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation

Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel

reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not

the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

Thank you for the info.

Would anyone kindly tell me which software provides the choice of "expanded" and "unexpanded" kernels of the Lanczos routine?
As I am not a pro in this, while I do own (LEGAL) copies of several commercial software, I do not recall, photoshop, for instant, offer the "expanded" and the "unexpanded" kernel versions of Lanczos.

Thank you again !!!

On May 1, 2:49 pm, aruzinsky

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-

, to this,

http://www.general-

, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation

Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel

reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not

the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

Thank you for the info.

Would anyone kindly tell me which software provides the choice of "expanded" and "unexpanded" kernels of the Lanczos routine?
As I am not a pro in this, while I do own (LEGAL) copies of several commercial software, I do not recall, photoshop, for instant, offer the "expanded" and the "unexpanded" kernel versions of Lanczos.

Thank you again !!!

On May 1, 2:49 pm, aruzinsky

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-

, to this,

http://www.general-

, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation

Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel

reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not

the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

Thank you for the info.

Would anyone kindly tell me which software provides the choice of "expanded" and "unexpanded" kernels of the Lanczos routine?
As I am not a pro in this, while I do own (LEGAL) copies of several commercial software, I do not recall, photoshop, for instant, offer the "expanded" and the "unexpanded" kernel versions of Lanczos.

Thank you again !!!

Thank you for the info.

Thank you for the info.

Thank you for the info.

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnE xpandedKe…
, to this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExp andedKern…
, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel.
Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.

On May 1, 9:24 am, pg wrote:

On May 1, 8:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it’s from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A … the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B … as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

Thank you for the info.

Would anyone kindly tell me which software provides the choice of "expanded" and "unexpanded" kernels of the Lanczos routine?
As I am not a pro in this, while I do own (LEGAL) copies of several commercial software, I do not recall, photoshop, for instant, offer the "expanded" and the "unexpanded" kernel versions of Lanczos.
Thank you again !!!

On May 1, 2:49 pm, aruzinsky wrote:

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnE xpandedKe…

, to this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExp andedKern…

, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel.

Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing.  SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding the kernel.  This is undesirable for natural images.

On May 1, 9:24 am, pg wrote:

On May 1, 8:12 am, wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it’s from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A … the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B … as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:

On Apr 29, 12:39�am, wrote:

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."- Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text — Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

wrote

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that’s the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it’s a JPG —> JPG shrink, or BMP —> JPG shrink, or TIFF —> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.
Now my questions to all you Gurus as below —

1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to
1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?
2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

wrote

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

Lee,
Post a cropped sample of an original size and a reduced sample, and the method you used. Maybe someone can do better (or not). In photoshop, the bicubic sharper option in the pull-down ought to be a tad sharper.

On May 5, 9:12 am, Paul Furman wrote:

wrote

Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !!

Lee,
Post a cropped sample of an original size and a reduced sample, and the method you used. Maybe someone can do better (or not). In photoshop, the bicubic sharper option in the pull-down ought to be a tad sharper.

The guy already did that …

A. www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B. www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C. www.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG