If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How do you make small pixel photos better on printout?
I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print
them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on it? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Herring wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:31:58 GMT, wrote: I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on it? Can't add information that is not there. Your file size equates to ~70-80 PPI for 8X10. Good prints need more like 200-300. you CAN use the un-sharp mask in Photoshop---or some other sharpening SW to make them look a bit sharper. Also, make sure the contrast is as high as possible without losing highlight or shadow detail. I've got an unusual suggestion. Print out the picture at its natural size on photo paper. Using good lighting, take a hi-res picture of the picture. A 3.4 megapixel or greater camera, possibly using a closeup lens. Print that out at a larger size, a size that still seems to have all the detail. Repeat until you get the size you want. I'm not sure why this works, but it does. It's critical to take good pictures each time. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Carrie Lyons" wrote in message ...
I've got an unusual suggestion. Print out the picture at its natural size on photo paper. Using good lighting, take a hi-res picture of the picture. A 3.4 megapixel or greater camera, possibly using a closeup lens. Print that out at a larger size, a size that still seems to have all the detail. Repeat until you get the size you want. I'm not sure why this works, but it does. If you have PhotoShop or something similar, you can achieve the same effect with various filters, much faster. For instance, Gaussian blur with a radius of 1-2 pixels (experiment: undo, redo to get the right figure); (that achieves the smoothing out that printing and photographing does) or descreening; then sharpening and adjusting contrast. After all, the idea of PhotoShop is to provide digital methods to do all the photo manipulation in seconds that would have taken hours in the lab. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Alan wrote:
wrote: Print out the picture at its natural size on photo paper. Using good lighting, take a hi-res picture of the picture. A 3.4 megapixel or greater camera, possibly using a closeup lens. Print that out at a larger size, a size that still seems to have all the detail. Repeat until you get the size you want. If you have PhotoShop or something similar, you can achieve the same effect with various filters, much faster. For instance, Gaussian blur with a radius of 1-2 pixels (experiment: undo, redo to get the right figure); (that achieves the smoothing out that printing and photographing does) or descreening; then sharpening and adjusting contrast. After all, the idea of PhotoShop is to provide digital methods to do all the photo manipulation in seconds that would have taken hours in the lab. I'll give it a try sometime, thanks. Brian Lehen wrote: so u propose to introduce the distortion of the printer, of the lens, CCD chip, jpg compression to IMPROVE the original??? Hi-res pics on my Nikon are TIFF format, and despite your laughter, it works. maybe u should try upsampling the original image in Photoshop first? I'll check that out too, thanks. -- $20 mil from Nike: http://miscstuff.org/~cypherpunk/Tiger_Woods_Swoosh.jpg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Carrie Lyons" Organization: Kook Terminators, Inc Newsgroups: comp.periphs.printers Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:13:40 -0600 Subject: How do you make small pixel photos better on printout? Mark Herring wrote: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:31:58 GMT, wrote: I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on it? Can't add information that is not there. Your file size equates to ~70-80 PPI for 8X10. Good prints need more like 200-300. you CAN use the un-sharp mask in Photoshop---or some other sharpening SW to make them look a bit sharper. Also, make sure the contrast is as high as possible without losing highlight or shadow detail. I've got an unusual suggestion. Print out the picture at its natural size on photo paper. Using good lighting, take a hi-res picture of the picture. A 3.4 megapixel or greater camera, possibly using a closeup lens. Print that out at a larger size, a size that still seems to have all the detail. Repeat until you get the size you want. I'm not sure why this works, but it does. It's critical to take good pictures each time. Hahahahahahaha, this is the funniest thing ever... so u propose to introduce the distortion of the printer, of the lens, CCD chip, jpg compression to IMPROVE the original??? lol lol maybe u should try upsampling the original image in Photoshop first? hehe, can't stop laughing.. lol Brian |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know what the software is but there are software that do simulations
to accomplish virtual image enhancement. You see this kind of thing in the movies all the time .. basically the software does a bunch of trials and errors in an iterative mode until you start seeing what you wanted. Call the CIA and ask them. Forget what I said earlier about using ImageIn. It would work fine going the other way. The way you want to go you have to add pixels and create psuedo resolution. ImageIn would allow you to add pixels but it would be so tedious that you would quickly abandon the approach. I suppose you could start by sharpening the image in Photoshop or the like and then taking it to ImageIn and removing the noise manually. This would yield a modest improvement given the time to do the pixel by pixel editing you would have to do. You need a kind of high tech pixel editor/enhancer. When I have time I will search for such things, just for fun. You should do this too. wrote in message ... wrote: I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on it? Any decent photo processing software should be able to get rid of the pixelization if that's what you mean by "not very fine". Unfortunately, nothing will actually add detail that's not there. Bryan --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/20/2004 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message . ..
I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on it? 560x700 pixel is not much information to print at the size 8 x11 inch and the data must be upsampled. Normally the printer driver does this. This is convenient, but you cannot control the result. There are differnt methods to upsample or interpolate. They differ in speed and quality. Pixel replication is a verry fast method, but the results are poor. Normally bicubic interpolation is a good trade off between speed and quality. But there are better methods availably. Some are implemented as photoshop plugins, others are standalone. The tool I use for printing is Qimage. It can be use free for 30 days. so you can find out whether you like the results. http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/ But of cause there are other products in that market. Winfried |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon S820 print quality | Dru | Printers | 2 | September 26th 03 03:21 PM |