the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / Technical / Resampling for printing, revisited

Resampling for printing, revisited

June 21, 2011 JimK Leave a Comment

Four or five months ago, I did a series of posts on resampling for printing. You can read the summary here. Since then, a new version of Qimage has been introduced. It has a new algorithm, called “Fusion”, which is supposed to give better results than the “hybrid” algorithm. Also, there is been a new release of Perfect Resize introduced, version 7. I didn’t test Perfect Resize last time, but I thought I’d throw it into the mix while I was testing the new version of Qimage.

I use the same test target as before; you can see it here. The basic testing operation is to take the image, resize it without resampling to some pixel pitch that’s not the same as the printer pixel pitch, resize it with resampling using the algorithm under test to the printer pixel pitch, print it (I used an Epson 4900 and Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper), scan it at high resolution, and look at the results.

I’ll be getting to other resolutions, but in this post I’m going to concentrate on what happens when the source image is 145 ppi and it’s resampled to 360 ppi. The four algorithms are Photoshop bicubic smoother, Perfect Resize default, except the texturing was turned off, Qimage Hybrid and Fusion. Sharpening was turned off in all cases.

Here are the results:

 

Photoshop BiCubic Smoother (above)

Perfect Resize (above)

Qimage Hybrid (above)

Qimage Fusion (above)

Analysis (From the high-resolution scans; I hope most of what I’m talking about is visible in the JPEGs that I’m putting into this post):

As you would expect, the radial gradient is smoothest using bicubic smoother, but there are no objectionable textures in any of the radial gradients. The letters are best in the Perfect Resize image, with Qimage Fusion coming in second, Qimage Hybrid third, with Photoshop bicubic bringing up the rear by a large margin.

Photoshop bicubic smoother if the smoothness rendition of the 45° lines, but can’t quite resolve the white space between the two closest ones. Perfect Resize does a fair job separating the two closest lines, but doesn’t antialias the jaggies very well (you could reasonably ask should the jaggies be smoothed out, since they’re readily apparent in the source image). Q image hybrid provides smooth lines with better separation than Photoshop bicubic. Qimage Fusion provides even better separation without giving up smoothness, but has one little anomaly as the lowest line changes from a 45° to a 30° angle and shows a dropout.

The sky is smoothest in Photoshop bicubic, with perfect resize very close behind. QI hybrid is next, and QI fusion shows the most patterning, although no image has really objectionable patterning. The branches are really soft and the bicubic image, crispest in the QI fusion image, followed closely by QI hybrid, perfect resize, and QI fusion, approximately in that order, very close together.

My bottom line? I’d take either of the Qimage results or the Perfect Resize results. They are all superior to Photoshop bicubic, which, as we have seen earlier, is superior to letting Lightroom do resizing.

 

 

Technical, The Last Word

← Messing with your own privacy Resampling for printing, revisited 2 →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

January 2023
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Dec    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality
  • JimK on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • Darrel Crilley on Fuji 100-200/5.6 on GFX, Nikon 70-200/@2.8E, Apo-Sonnar 135 on Z7, revisited

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.