 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MaxSouthOz
|
I'm not sure if this will work, but here's a shot I've taken after resizing . . . Attachment: iii.jpg (Downloaded 32 times) |
|||||||||
MaxSouthOz
|
Nope it's not going to work. The file size is too big for the forum, but it starts out as a beautiful clear, crisp image and then when its resized, it loses clarity as above. FYI, it's a shot of the underneath of my model railway layout. My forum is the same as this one. UlraBB. Intuitively if the image is reduced in size, the clarity shouldn't be affected - or should it? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Well it depends on the parameters you use for the resize. With what software and how are you doing the resizing? How big is the original file? |
|||||||||
MaxSouthOz
|
Typically 4928 x 3264 6.04 mb, Jonathon. I resize to 800 x 600 400 kb I've been doing some Googling. Apparently the image suffers quality loss no matter whether you up size or down size. Counter-intuitive? |
|||||||||
jk
|
If you resize to 1024 x 800 or what I do is constrain Long side to 1000 and then resize it then it comes down to a very small size. Here is an image from my Fuji XE1 16MP and the orginal jpg is 13.2Mb so the resulting resized image is 227kb which is 1/60 Attachment: XP1-1-4149aa-pp-web.jpg (Downloaded 30 times) |
|||||||||
MaxSouthOz
|
Excellent. So instead of selecting 800 x 600 from the options, I make the long side 1000 and let the software work the rest out? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Conventional wisdom would say that you never down or up sample in one go. I have always avocated restricting sampling to no more than 50% in each step. 20mb > 11mb > 5.5mb > 3mb > 1.7mb > 1mb You give the algorithm less of a challenge in deciding what to dump or dither. It might be tedious doing this manually but I have a CS Action that does this sequentially in a few seconds. |
|||||||||
MaxSouthOz
|
Thanks, Eric. I tried going to 1000 as Jonathon suggested and it made an improvement. I'm going to re-visit it tomorrow and do as you suggested. Is it necessary to save the image between steps - or can I just step it down inside the editing software? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote: Conventional wisdom would say that you never down or up sample in one go. Hmm.. Didnt know that but the logic is good. |
|||||||||
richw
|
I don't really do much resizing but I do own perfect resize - which one software bought from genuine fractals - meant to be the best. |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
richw wrote: I don't really do much resizing but I do own perfect resize - which one software bought from genuine fractals - meant to be the best.Onone is now the owner and distributor of genuine fractals software. |
|||||||||
MaxSouthOz
|
That's going to be a big help, Ed. I typically take up to 15 batches of up to 20 shots per day. The batches are run through Helicon focus and then resized for my forum gallery. Faststone allows me to resize with a few clicks, so if I don't have to save the image between steps, it shouldn't be too onerous. Thanks again. |
|||||||||
MaxSouthOz
|
Well, I and a couple of others have run some tests with my original shot. Starting at 4928 x 3264, we started down sizing to 3000 2000 1000 and 800 long side measurements. We could see no improvement between stepping it down and going straight to 1000 or 800. I then tried sharpening the image by the tiniest amount which would show a change and it looks 'orrible - very grainy. I'm beginning to think that the D 7000 won't produce an image good enough to cope with any downsizing. My wife has a D 90. I might give that a go and see if it's any better. Attachment: Sharpened.jpg (Downloaded 19 times) |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
The problem isn't your D7100, but the software. Different programs use different algorithms to reduce the image. Taking a D600 native 6016x4016 @ 300DPI, 20.05x13.39 inches, 24.16 MP, and reducing it to 6x4 1800x1202 2.1MP @300DPI louses over 90% of the pixels. If this 6x4 is printed at 6x4 it will look as good as the original printed at 20x 13.39 on the same printer with the same settings. If the reduced 6x4 pic is printed or displayed on screen, at a larger size it will show loses. |
|||||||||
MaxSouthOz
|
Thanks. |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
jk wrote: If you resize to 1024 x 800 or what I do is constrain Long side to 1000 and then resize it then it comes down to a very small size.Amazing how much detail is still visible with only 1/60 of the pixels. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |