I didn't pixel-peep (well, not too much), but I did scrutinize the prints fairly carefully. All files were printed at 300 ppi on my Epson 9800 on glossy paper. I tried to be fair in how I looked at the results. It's a good thing my Macbook Pro has 4 GB of RAM!īut that's an incidental. It also consumed prodigious amounts of memory. It ran 2–12 times slower than BlowUp and 20–60 times slower than Bicubic. Bicubic is by far the fastest and least memory-intensive choice. I did find one consistent difference between the three approaches.
I upsized an assortment of different files by 1.67X, 4X, and 10X. Normally my columns are spaced 10 days apart, but we're running these on three-four day intervals so you'll have the whole story in one week instead of three. Many hours, 20+ gigabytes of images, and a hundred square feet of prints later, I'm writing this as a three-parter for Mike. This was hardly what I expected, and it killed my notion that this would be a quick report.
It depended upon the particular file I was upsizing and how much I was upsizing it. If I were keeping score, I would say BlowUp was the best more often and Genuine Fractals best less often that either BlowUp or Bicubic. Bicubic, BlowUp, and Genuine Fractals produce very different looking results, but each produced superior enlargements in different cases. But which one was the truly superior program? The fine folks at Alien Skin and OnOne Software provided me with evaluation copies to satisfy my itch. Two competing and expensive (over $200) plug-ins? I was sure they would blow Photoshop Bicubic interpolation away. When Alien Skin came out with BlowUp, my curiosity got piqued. Obviously huge scans (or original camera files) are best, but sometimes one has to upsize an existing file.įor years I'd been hearing about how superior Genuine Fractals was. Now that I have a giant printer (Epson 9800) I've been getting interested in what it takes to get really good, really large prints.
0 kommentar(er)
