[saby]

I'd like to know if PhotoZoomPro the best choice to enlarge a pict, or what?

if Mr Grissom won't answer, I'll accept anybody's opinion

[geezer]

Other than myself, I have no idea who uses it. I have used it for some time and am (generally) satisfied with the results. I also like a program called Reshade from a British software company. To my eye (admittedly, not the best) results using Reshade seem to have more detail. Hope this helps.

[pixelzombie]

i've used BlowUp and it works quite well:

http://www.alienskin.com/blowup/index.html

[cricket1961]

I have found that at the moment, any of the mentioned and other 3rd party software for resizing does not do anything that much better than Photoshop's built in sizing algorithm's. And I say that after being on both Lizard Tech (Mr. Sid) and Altima's ( Genuine Fractals) development teams with their respective softwares. Both of which were adapted by most of the other software releases.

The new "Liquid" resizing is showing some good promise however and I can't wait to see how onOne handles that.

Chris

[saby]

Thanx for all Ur replies,

I'll try what U suggest pixelzombie,(that blow up stuff) because I've never heared before, and Chris U mean if I make enlargement by photoshop (action: imagesize:101% played multipe times) that gives the same good result, when I use any of the photozoompro's several function?

[secretagents]

Good starting point for choosing an image enlargment solution :

http://www.general-cathexis.com/inte...ion/index.html

[DiamondsDr47]

Hi, you can try in photoshop, increase document size in 5-10% increments, works pretty
well.
Best regards,

[Dewcal]

If using Photoshop to enlarge, I find that a series of 108% enlargements works very well. Always assumign you have some detail to start with....

Dave

[saby]

how do U like an action incerase size to 101% and play it multiple time?

[Dewcal]

I am happy with the 108% enlargement running it several times to get the size I need. Forgot to say that I set the interpolation (resample image) to "bicubic smoother".

I have set this up as an action and I find this very easy to use.

HTH
Dave

[Markzebra]

I agree with Chris if you need to upsample, and probably 98 times out of 100 if you think you should then you probably shouldn't … then photoshops bicubicworks as good as anything ( 'smoother' if you must I suppose - Genuine Fractals and all the other baloney has some VERY minor advantages on CERTAIN images, but frankly its all hokum in practical terms and in my opinion not really worth the spend.

Progressive upsampling as Dewcal has suggested is a pretty foolish thing to do, and was generally recommended a few years ago by people who had disappeared so far up their own rear ends as to forget completely what they were doing.

[Dewcal]

Have been in habit of progressive upsampling @ 108% since going to a talk by Adobe (Photoshop CS I think) and they said they recomended it. As I seldom upsample, have seen little need to experiment with the different methods.

Always wondered how this compares with enlarging size in a RIP in terms of final sharpness / detail etc.

Dave

[pixelzombie]

resampling in the RIP never looks as good compared to photoshop...

[Dewcal]

Originally Posted by pixelzombie

resampling in the RIP never looks as good compared to photoshop...

Thanks - another experiment I needn't do!