Photoshop: Uprezzing CS5 vs Plug ins

[Tony W]

After downloading a trial of Perfect Resize 7 (Originally Genuine Fractals) I have been playing with upsizing image - admittedly to silly sizes!

At first sight I have come to the conclusion that I can see that "the King is not wearing any clothes!". That is to say that so far I cannot see any advantages using this plugin over CS5's standard features. So in this case my further conclusion is that (a) I am either doing something so stupid to make my observations irrelevant or (b) that CS5 really is the 'Bees Knees' in this case and cannot be improved upon.

Therefore I would appreciate others expertise and insight into this.

Background.
First image jpeg (res. cannot remember) but made it pretty big using Perfect Resize (PR) then using same parameters did the same using CS5. The result was a little 'blocky' and more contrast in the PR. The CS5 version to me looked better although slightly softer - increasing the contrast just a touch using levels brought it on a par with PR but still seemed to be sharper/more accurate.

My second test I documented more carefully. Started with a RAW image (approx 4000x3000pix) I duplicated the image and cropped both to 800x600. Then applied PR to one set for 9000x12000pixels at 300 ppi which yielded a print size of 30"x40". Then applied image this took a long time to complete (cup of tea and biscuit!)

CS5 applied the same size crop, pixel count and ppi to end up with the same print size of 30"x40" (Bicubic smoother). The processing time for this so much faster than PR!! Both images ending up around 618Mb.

Examined side by side on screen both images looked very similar. PS version just a little softer which was brought back with a modest application of levels layer. My feeling was/is that there was very little difference, and although I have not tried it yet perhaps there would be some further improvement in PS by trying an incremental increase of image size.

To be fair to PR I have not studied the manual but relied on previous experience of the older versions.

I have to say that I suspect that somewhere my logic and or understanding may have failed me and the fact is that I would have thought by the number of advocates for this product that it must be my failings rather than the application.
I wonder if anyone here with more practical experience of both programs would care to comment and advise on a fair side by side comparison and their own conclusion.

Sorry for such a rambling post

Regards
Tony

[mistermonday]

Tony, PS resizing algorithms have been refined and improved over the years. When you compare performance against Genuine Fractals it is difficult to see a difference especially if you begin with a high res image that already has lots of pixels. GF has been tradionally used to generate huge images - typically measuring many feet on a side. It has been a while since I looked at comparisons but the only visible differences where on huge images and only when you zoomed in 1600%. The results also depended on the image content.
Regards, Murray

[creativeretouch]

I use Genuine Fractals 6 together with CS3 and GF is slightly better than Photoshop. Images from Photoshop are softer and noisy and less sharp compare to GF 6. I checked a changelog for new GF (Perfect Resize 7) and there are just a few "cosmetic changes" and one more slider in normal mode but I use GF express anyway.

In my opinion Photoshop CS3 is the last good Photoshop and Snow Leopard is the last good system To be honest I am afraid of the future for professional users ... This is just my feeling and please take it easy

[Tony W]

Murray thanks, I can see your point. I used to use an earlier vs of Genuine Fractals and PS (numbers escape me but I think it may have been even prior to CS) and frankly the difference between PS upsizing and GF was quite marked - GF being much better. Therefore I was a little surprised and somewhat dissappointed that the current Perfect Resize did not have a similar edge. As stated the images from PS marginally better imo (a tiny contrast tweak needed). I think I may have a further play with different image content and massive scaling just to see before I consigned it to the recycle bin.

creativeretouch thank you for your insights. This is interesting as you are using PSCS3 and getting better results with GF than PSCS3. Which is pretty much opposite of what I have found with my limited tests with CS5 - while a little softer in CS5 as I said with a tiny tweak of levels the softness dissapears and I am left with an image sharper than GF with no increase in noise and less blocky/pixelated.

And how very dare you suggest that CS3 and even worse a Mac OS is better than my beloved PC and CS5. I am a PC user through and through and would never bow to the shackles of Apple i.e. unless I can build my own Mac and hack it. Carry on in this manner and I will send my Dad around to sort you out

[creativeretouch]

Originally Posted by Tony W

And how very dare you suggest that CS3 and even worse a Mac OS is better than my beloved PC and CS5. I am a PC user through and through and would never bow to the shackles of Apple i.e. unless I can build my own Mac and hack it. Carry on in this manner and I will send my Dad around to sort you out

I have CS3 together with GF and MaskPro - is CS5 really better in the way you will cry you do not have it ???

OK Mac is better than PC as Mac is running on UNIX (or FreeBSD or whatever) based system - I am talking about the "fast food future" - everything is fast and easy ... but who cares about the quality anymore?

I was thinking Photoshop is basically for photographers and 2D artists. If you need video editing software you can choose FinalCut or Avid. If you need 3D software the market is overcrowded as well. Why do I need this within Photoshop if it is not better than dedicated software?

This is the first time I hear that CS5 is better than GF ... but I trust you

[Wolfman]

Check out this article and specifically the method on this page: http://www.digitalphotopro.com/techn...s.html?start=3

I have seen a 40 X 60 print from a Canon 5D ( not the 5D2) using this method and it was very impressive.

[Tony W]

I suspect that the post rhetorical - however still want to pass an opinion

Originally Posted by creativeretouch

I have CS3 together with GF and MaskPro - is CS5 really better in the way you will cry you do not have it ???
I think not. While CS5 does have some very appealing features/upgrades to previous versions which may speed up/improve? editing it does not mean that the final results will be any better than any other editing program. Thankfully for Adobe and other developers users tend to suffer from Upgradeitis

OK Mac is better than PC as Mac is running on UNIX (or FreeBSD or whatever) based system
Oh no its not! I suspect you and I both do not want to be drawn into the Mac vs PC wars/debate as it leads nowhere. [Rant on]FFS, both PC and Mac are merely tools - a means to an end. If one was more capable of producing a finer image than the other then any argument would gain weight.[Rant off]
[Pedant on] Anyway, surely a Mac is actually a PC from the original meaning (Personal Computer) so I rest my case [Pedant off]
- I am talking about the "fast food future" - everything is fast and easy ... but who cares about the quality anymore?
I sincerely hope and believe that quality will win through - in the end!

I was thinking Photoshop is basically for photographers and 2D artists. If you need video editing software you can choose FinalCut or Avid. If you need 3D software the market is overcrowded as well. Why do I need this within Photoshop if it is not better than dedicated software?
Seems to me that a lot of software and hardware gets bloated with features that are of little benefit to many users. I have a DSLR which for me has the useless feature of video - if I wanted a video camera I would buy a unit made specifically for the purpose. Similarly dedicated software is usually the best route.

This is the first time I hear that CS5 is better than GF ... but I trust you
Well you should not trust me - just yet! As I said my first conclusions based on very few 'plays' therefore it should be taken with a pinch of salt at this time. I intend to try a few other images just to satisfy myself that first impressions correct. I am open to any suggestions on better test criteria

[Tony W]

Wolfman, thanks for the link. When I saw the author was Jeff Schewe I knew that this would be worth a read - long article have saved it for later viewing

[creativeretouch]

Tony, of course PC is a shortcut for PERSONAL COMPUTER

I use to work on LINUX, WINDOWS and MAC platforms so I think I know what I am talking about.

I work with medium sized files (135 Mb scan for example) and I am still faster than CS3 - depend what you are doing of course ... I think it is up to your workflow and how you are able to organise everything ... I am not running anywhere

[creativeretouch]

Sorry, I wanted to say that CS3 is still fast enough to work with me together (English is not my first language) and I do not have to wait too much ... compare to the computer with 64 Mb of RAM in the ancient time ...

[Tony W]

Originally Posted by creativeretouch

Tony, of course PC is a shortcut for PERSONAL COMPUTER

I use to work on LINUX, WINDOWS and MAC platforms so I think I know what I am talking about.....

Hi creativeretouch, do I detect a hint of annoyance in your response?

Please understand that my replies relating to the Mac were largely made 'tongue in cheek' the reference to it being a PC a particular point (guaranteed to upset Mac users ) and no offence intended to either you or others - hopefully the number of smilies should have hinted at this.

There is no reason for me to doubt that you know what you are talking about. Like you I have worked with Unix and Windows platforms and have been employed in the analogue and digital imaging industry even to the extent of advising IT depts on use of digital imaging products over WAN.

Sorry, I wanted to say that CS3 is still fast enough to work with me together (English is not my first language) and I do not have to wait too much ... compare to the computer with 64 Mb of RAM in the ancient time ...

I am sure that CS3 does the job you want it to with the speed you need and in that case why waste time and money for an uneccessary upgrade. My first home computer was fitted with 2 KB of RAM and 8 KB of ROM which I upgraded to the maximum of 12 KB (buying at the time individual and expensive chips) - needless to say graphics capability were the stuff of wild imagination and dreams at that time (only the early 80's). Amazing how far we have come in such a relatively short time.

I had no idea from your writing that English is not your first language so maybe if my post did upset you a little I had failed to convey strongly enough the joking nature of my reply to your post. It is too easy to hide behind the anonymity of the net and be rude and obnoxious, something I have no time for and will always try and avoid.

So hopefully this will have cleared up any misunderstanding between us

Regards
Tony

[creativeretouch]

Hi Tony, this is the example when you can see that if you are not using your native language you can not say exactly what you wish. Personally I do not mind if anyone is using Windows or Mac. It is a tool and you can choose which you like more. In my first post I wrote that this is my personal feeling - I ment I do not wish to push anyone to agree with me. And to be honest I was thinking if I should use term PC as I am aware of the shortcut but 90% of people use this when talking about Windows so I decided "to go with the main stream" and you see what happened - perhaps is better to follow my own voice next time

Thank you for your post regarding GF & CS5 ...

And hopefully guys in charge will decide to create "a fast & stable core version" for professional users and extended version for others (I mean guys from Adobe & Apple). Or someone new is coming to destroy the picture of the Big Brother?

[andrewrodney]

For the tests to be really meaningful, you have to actually print out both versions (PS and 3rd party) even if its only an 8x11 crop of the identical area. There’s stuff you see in PS at high magnification you can see that you can’t on the print. There’s stuff you can’t see that requires a print. I suspect when the rubber meets the road, Photoshop will done the job just fine, especially if the data is properly treated (sharpened etc).
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/techn...he-up-res.html

[Tony W]

Andrew, thanks for your input on this. The reminder that for the results to be truly meaningful needs comparison prints made is something that until now I had overlooked and intend to remedy

One thing I have not done yet is 'treat the data properly' as you suggest and so far have not either applied noise reduction or any sharpening (I tend to have a tendency to go OTT with sharpening!). My latest play I cropped a section of an image to 1234x840 @ 240ppi =5.14"x3.5" =5.93MB. Then upsized to 14,400x 9,800 @ 240ppi = 60"x40" = around 800MB (I think). I was very surprised at the time differenc to complete the image adjustment approx. 9 minutes for PR and only about 15 seconds for CS5! Once again the image quality difference was minor CS5 a little softer but easily corrected. Other than that I could discern no particular benefit between images. In addition I suspect that at the correct viewing distance then there would be very likely no difference.

I have to admit that I am one of those 'dreadful photographers' that cannot resist 'pixel peeping' whatever the size of the displayed print . I used to do this in the old days (and even got into an argument with Kodak about display prints once!) - what is it about a leopard not being able to change its spots!

BTW I am not trying to prove or disprove anything about the applications - I merely want to get the best I possibly can out of my images

[creativeretouch]

Originally Posted by Tony W

BTW I am not trying to prove or disprove anything about the applications - I merely want to get the best I possibly can out of my images

I agree ... If GIMP would give me better results than Photoshop, I would use GIMP (I like GIMP - but for small files only ...) Or PhotoLine ...

I am sure many people are looking for the best possible result