Using Genuine Fractals 3.0

[Vin_Manalo@adobeforums.com]

I'm working on a series of posters for my graphic media production class.
The final output will be for press (offset-litho) 20" x 30" @ 300 DPI. Orignally, we
were only suppose to have it press ready at 4" x 6" @ 300 DPI, but the project
changed on us. So now I have to rebuild all my imagery and do my photo shoots
over, along with my whole class. Even, with my 6.3M digital SLR, it is still difficult to
get my images to the right size without horrible bitmapping, ugh. I asked around
and did some research and found a promising Plug-In for Photoshop CS, known as
"Genuine Fractals 3.0." Never used it before, so I have a few questions for the Pros
out there who have used it.

1. How big can I increase a 6" x 9" image @ 300 DPI without horibble bitmapping?
2. Are their better plug-ins?
3. I hear Genuine Fractals uses Chaos theory, is that true and what is that?

Thanks,
Vin

[Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com]

Vin,

Genuine Fractals is very good at what it does -- but it is not perfect. I've used it to up-res digital camera files from sub-8 MB to 100 MB for some packaging projects. If the original image is very sharp and detailed, you will maintain that. But you can't add detail (e.g., texture) that isn't in the original, so the images may have a slight fake look when grossly enlarged. Also, I often have to go in and fix straight lines that are not absolutely vertical or horizontal. They tend to pick up a wavy edge. That said, GF has saved my hide. Be aware that you should use a fast computer with a fair amount of hard drive space.

See: <http://www.lizardtech.com/solutions/gf/> for more info.

Neil

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Vin,

If you have Photoshop 8 (CS), you won't see a huge difference between Photoshop's bicubic resampling and Genuine Fractals.

Images from a digital camera, when shooting and saving in RAW mode, can be upsampled to an astonishing degree, much more than scanned film images.

How big can I increase a 6" x 9" image @ 300 DPI




First of all, images don't have "DPI", it's "ppi" (pixels per inch) but even that's irrelevant. What counts is the dimensions of the image, how many pixels wide by how many pixels high. "PPI" doesn't come into play until you print.

In your example, you have an image that is 1,800 pixels by 2,700 pixels, which is less than 4.9 megapixels and far below your camera's capabilities. That means either you cropped the image or you were shooting at a lower resolution than the maximum allowed by your camera.

For images that are going to be upsampled, it is imperative to shoot at maximum resolution and NOT save in JPEG format but as a RAW or TIFF file. If you save as JPEG, the resampled image will magnify the deficiencies of the lossy compression, regardless of whether you use Genuine Fractals or Photoshop's bicubic resampling.

There are no better resampling plug-ins or utilities.

GF is not cheap, so before you buy it, try shooting at the maximum resolution in RAW format and using Photoshop's bicubic resampling. If that's not enough, hopefully there's a GF demo you can test.

[Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com]

Vin,

Genuine Fractals, trial download:

<http://www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_options.php?page=trials>

Note that if your interest is CMYK print reproduction and you decide to purchase, go for the "Print Pro" version of GF.

I haven't done any testing or comparison between GF and PS CS in upsampling, so I can't comment on that part of Ramón's post. GF uses fractal technology, which Photoshop does not. But, the better the source image (sharpness, detail, resolution), the better the end result.

Neil

[David_Dietrick@adobeforums.com]

Vin,

Go to:

<http://www.interpolatethis.com/phpBB2/index.php>

for a thorough and comparitive evaluation of the best available interpolation programs. You'll find your questions answered there and you'll find the forum very responsive. Reps of some of the programs often monitor the questions and respond themselves.

regards,

Dave