Re: Picture scaling in Photoshop
Re: Picture scaling in Photoshop
- Subject: Re: Picture scaling in Photoshop
- From: David Gaudet <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:09:42 -0400
In prepraring all of the digitally supplied content for both the US
Open and this year's Super Bowl program, I have done a huge amount of
testing of both PixelSmart and GF, and to tell you the truth, I have to
side 100% with Andrew. I could see NO difference between the bicubic
algorithm and anything either of the 3rd parties could produce--and I'd
be willing to bet a dollar and a dozen donuts that anyone who picks up
this year's SB program wouldn't be able to tell either. Some are
PixelSmart, some are GF, and most (of the full page blowups) are
Photoshop. What I can tell you is that after I gave up on the third
party plugins, I got my work done A LOT faster. :-)
-Dave
David Gaudet
PixelGlow Studios
www.pixelglowstudios.com
On Apr 16, 2004, at 1:38 PM, email@hidden
wrote:
I've done similar tests with Photoshop's older Bicubic algorithm and
the
newer algorithms in CS. I didn't see anything either GF or PPS brought
to
the table other than agonizingly slow processing of images. If anyone
wants
to do a test, be sure to use both these 3rd party products AND
Photoshop and
output the files (or sections of a high rez file) and view the output.
On
screen viewing isn't going to cut it. I've seen in best case, tiny
advantages with GF but at anything other than putting the print an
inch from
your eye, you'd never see it at viewing distances. Photoshop always
processed the data at blazingly fast speeds compared to these other
products
and in many cases, the new Bicubic algorithm (smoother for upsizing)
did a
better job.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.