1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Substitute for Genuine Fractals

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by aquinas50, Dec 11, 2003.

  1. aquinas50

    aquinas50
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I am new to digital photography, but I understand there are programs that allow increasing files sizes to allow larger prints. I have heard that Genuine Fractals is good, but expensive. Are there any similar programs that are less expensive?
     
  2. T0MAT01

    T0MAT01
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,383
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Devon, Sussex or somewhere inbetween.
    Ratings:
    +566
    bump!

    I was just wonderring the same thing.
     
  3. Ultima

    Ultima
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    9,469
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,139
  4. richard plumb

    richard plumb
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,340
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Windsor
    Ratings:
    +1,026
    If you're sending it off to be printed, the software they use may do the same job as effectively.
     
  5. tomson

    tomson
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    1,918
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Berk'amsted
    Ratings:
    +187
    If you aren't upscaling by massive amounts the you can get pretty good results just from using photoshop - i've had 20x16 inch prints from a 3mp camera (D30 dslr) and they look great.

    I've not used Genuine Fractals for a while now - I prefer to upscale from the raw file as I convert it.
     
  6. T0MAT01

    T0MAT01
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,383
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Devon, Sussex or somewhere inbetween.
    Ratings:
    +566
    Good point, I'll check that out.




    I've been given some A1 Picture frames! :eek:
    I think I'll need around 10,000 pixels along the longest edge for top quality. I'm not too sure how close to that figure I can get before the image is distorted.


    I hadn't thought about doing it that way, sadly I don't have the RAW data as I only shot it in jpeg but it's worth bearing in mind for next time. Thanks.
     
  7. richard plumb

    richard plumb
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,340
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Windsor
    Ratings:
    +1,026
    Wouldn't worry about it for A1. I did some test poster prints from photobox at 30"x20", and they came out amazingly well just uploading standard large Jpegs from my 350d.
     
  8. T0MAT01

    T0MAT01
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,383
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Devon, Sussex or somewhere inbetween.
    Ratings:
    +566
    The mount aperature is 29"x19" so I'll be getting 30"x20" prints.

    I guess I'll just go for it then! :smashin:
     
  9. Paul Shirley

    Paul Shirley
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,354
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +174
    A printer might need at least 300DPI (you're 10K pixels) to make a decent stab at showing true colour, its only working with 3,4 or a few more colours in 2 levels - there or not there. Your camera already has 16.7m colour choices in each pixel and doesn't have to blend dozens of ink dots to approximate true colour. You really don't need anything like the DPI to get the same results.

    As far as I can guess the 300DPI rule of thumb equates to simulating 75DPI of 'good enough' colour dots. A 6mp image is 85DPI at A1, more than good enough for most things you'll photograph.
     
  10. MancMale

    MancMale
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Proberly already mentioned but have you tried the free programme irfanview

    http://www.irfanview.com/

    Only my suggestion not sure if its upto what you want ..
     
  11. HCking

    HCking
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2002
    Messages:
    826
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Sheffield.
    Ratings:
    +18
    If you are having them printed at a specialist large photo printers its most likly they will be using a rip for processing to print, if they are just give them your file and dont upscale it the rip will do all the scaling etc for the printer.
     
  12. Duffers0

    Duffers0
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sure I have read somewhere that you can upsample using PS.

    Best results are achieved by only going up in 10% increases at a time.

    I am led to believe small increments in this way are as good as genuine fractals :confused:

    Not sure on this never used GF :devil:
     
  13. wabbitt

    wabbitt
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    656
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Location:
    Sunderland, UK
    Ratings:
    +114
    Just saw this thread.

    I raised this question with myself about a year back, and here is what I found.

    I loaned a copy of Genuine Fractals 2.0 from a pro photographer friend and then compared it to incremental sizing in PS (as mentioned by Duffers0). To make it easier I set up a couple of actions in photoshop that did the incremental sizing in steps of 10%, so a click of a button and a few moments later I had my result.

    Here is what I found. Bear in mind back then I was working from a 6MP image from a Canon 10D.

    I increased a photo by 200% using both methods and compared the result. To be honest there was very little difference between Genuine Fractals (GF) and step sizing (SS).

    I then decided to try a 400% increase, and only then could I start to notice very small differences between the two. GF seemed to keep hold of a little more detail... but only just.

    Then I tried a 600% increase (this was GF's max for reliable results at the time). Again GF was better but not perfect.

    In the end I weighed up the benefits of forking out $160 for GF and using PS's sizing. I decided to save my money.

    ------------------

    This allowed me to buy another piece of software that I really had my eye on.

    FocusFixer by Fixerlabs. In fact I opted for the FixerBundle which gave Focus Fixer and Noise Fixer and a few others. I wanted Foxus Fixer because I had a small problem with my old camera (the 10D), in that it had a small front focusing concern.

    FixerLabs product size fixer http://www.fixerlabs.com/New_Website/pages/sizefixerxl.htm

    Edit: Fixerlabs also have a program called 'SizeFixer' which is supposed to do the same as GF, but I didn't find it very good, and guess what... it's more expensive at $185!
     
  14. richard plumb

    richard plumb
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,340
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Windsor
    Ratings:
    +1,026
    oh, and just to add even more...newer versions of PS have 'bicubic sharper' and 'bicubic smoother' as options when you resize. Apparantly doing a one-hit resize with one or other of those options is as good as previous incremental resizing.
     
  15. Kaoshan

    Kaoshan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    210
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Renfrewshire
    Ratings:
    +18
    Yep, I use this feature of CS2 quite a bit. It seems almost as good as GF which I'm using less frequently now.
     
  16. Kaoshan

    Kaoshan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    210
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Renfrewshire
    Ratings:
    +18
    I tried the demo version of FocusFixer and it is pretty good. However, if USM does not do it for me I use Photokit Sharpener which gives me more control.
     
  17. T0MAT01

    T0MAT01
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,383
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Devon, Sussex or somewhere inbetween.
    Ratings:
    +566

    You're not wrong!

    I just used the image straight out of the camera with no editing or cropping necessary (for once ;) ) and they arrived this morning, quality is very good indeed, far better than I expected. Cheers. :thumbsup:
     

Share This Page

Loading...