#1 Oleg Kikin

You call that a "review"? The guy didn't show a single sample, nothing, just his thoughts. The whole review looks like an ad. (well, maybe it is)

3:06 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#2 Stephen

Might have been nice to see some samples of the differences between upsizing with say Photoshop. Is there a noticeable difference in your opinion. Does it downsize without loss of quality too?

3:12 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#3 Richard Earney

Hi have you tried Opening RAW files in Photoshop CS's Camera RAW 2 plugin. You can open files to sizes of 144Mb in 16bit with the integrated uprez.

There is little loss of quality from what I can see.

3:42 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#4 Mark Goldstein

As requested, I've added a few sample screenshots.

Oleg - I can assure you that my review is not an "ad". All of the reviews on PhotographyBLOG are 100% independent.

Richard - unfortunately I only have Photoshop 6 so I can't test that Camera RAW 2 plugin feature.

4:22 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#5 Stephen

Thanks for that Mark, I have to say though that I'm struggling to see a significant difference with the samples you have posted. I expect a full size print may show up the difference better

4:59 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#6 Oleg Kikin

Mark, people rarely upsize by 200% and i must note that at 200% any product (GF, S-Spline, lanczos,...) won't be much different from bicubic in photoshop. To really see the difference you must scale 800% or more. Also, pick some photos with lots of details and thin lines and not as dark. You can start with small original image 64x64 and end up with 512x512, for example.

5:03 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#7 Oleg Kikin

Also, you might look at this thread over at the DPReview forums:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=7485725

5:05 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#8 Mark Goldstein

I've now added some more sample shots, as provided by Shortcut.

I'll also be adding some more of my own samples with greater amounts of resizing shortly.

5:55 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#9 Adjuster

I think that Qimage will do the job as well for about $40. Have you compared your results with Qimage?

6:58 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#10 andre

Would be nice to compare with a simple 10% stair interpolation in Photoshop. Then, we would know what we get for $200.00

Fred Miranda's SI 1.0 (Stair Interpolation, freeware) does this easely. Version 1.1 Pro is no longer a freeware, but sells for only $19.90

Cheers,
Andre

7:08 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#11 Andre

And then there is Irfanview which does Lanczos interpolation for free!

www.irfanview.com

Cheers,
Andre

7:16 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#12 Mark Goldstein

Looks like there is demand for a comparative test of all the different tools :)

7:18 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#13 Oleg Kikin

10% step interpolation must be done ONLY in 16 bits/channel. As a porgrammer I must assure you that if you do it in 8 bits, you lose lots of information, because even when you upscale you lose some information, and if you have many steps, you might lose alot. In 16 bits it won't be as noticable, but still, some data gets lost. I think curently Genuine Fractals, vector and S-spline are the best, and i doubt that there will be a breakthorough in this field. Image recognition tecnhiques might improve the situation, but by the time these methods work fast and well, the resolution of digital cameras will increase, and interpolation won't be that important.

8:25 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#14 Andre

Stairs Interpolation in Photoshop has been shown to be a lot better then Genuine Fractals, which used to be about the only serious software in its class. But its now bettered by just about anything on the market, including SI.

Do a google search, you'll find lots of examples. Most adopters of GF have now switched to something better.
Cheers,
Andre

8:30 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#15 Oleg Kikin

>Stairs Interpolation in Photoshop has been
>shown to be a lot better then Genuine Fractals

I don't think so. Give an example.

8:45 pm - Tuesday, February 3, 2004

#16 Andre

Haven't you done a Google search yet ?
Here, I'll help you: +"genuine fractals" +lanczos

Andre

1:16 am - Thursday, February 5, 2004

#17 Sean

Did you figure out how to save to a particular file format? I couldn't find a single line in the documentation about how to specify the format to be saved to.

9:34 pm - Monday, March 8, 2004

#18 Mark Goldstein

When you click the Resize button, it prompts you to save the file.

You can then choose the format from the Save as type: drop-down list.

11:13 pm - Monday, March 8, 2004

#19 Poona

I wonder how photozoom pro compares with Photoshop CS using bicubic smoother.

1:48 am - Thursday, March 18, 2004

#20 Mark Goldstein

I don't own Photoshop CS at the moment, but I may be in a position to test this out soon.

2:33 pm - Friday, March 19, 2004

#21 remko

When comparing the up-sized examples of Photozoom and Photoshop, I see a very distinctive difference in colors.

What causes this?
One surely do not want this. Can you say which one is closest to the original - as this is hard to see as the original is a bit small.

12:48 pm - Tuesday, November 16, 2004

#22 Mark Goldstein

Not sure what causes it, but I would say that Shortcut PhotoZoom Pro is the most accurate

4:46 pm - Tuesday, November 16, 2004