09-26-2010, 09:52 PM
Hi Rainer,
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1285536433' post='3273']
I believe that this way produced the better results, when programs did the reduction in pixels by simple "resize" operations. But today most (if not all) programs at least give you the choice how the reduction is done. (IrfanView for instance (and because I mentioned it before) will let you choose between "resize" (quick but leading to somewhat dissatisfying results) and "resample ... along with a selection of resample functions" (MUCH better results, but takes noticably longer). Today I belive the cumbersome process of reducing the size in several small steps including a certain amount of sharpening can savely be skipped, if you select the resample-way (rather than the resize-way) to let your images "lose some weight". At least, in the few tests I did (when I heard of the method mentioned by Wim) I couldn't see a noticable difference to the result of IrfanView (with resample + the Lancos-function) or PS/PSE and its bicubic-functions. But ... to each his own ... you should certanly give it a try and see if it works for you.
Rainer
[/quote]
Thank you for the additional information.
I did my tests and checks in CS3 and CS4, haven't tried CS5 yet, so I can't speak for many other tools, other than DPP or DxO Optics Pro. The last time I used DPP to do resizing, I wasn't too happy, and the same is true with DxO, although in both cases I haven't tried to do this in the last versions either, but rather in last year versions <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
One thing, however: the difference only became obvious when viewing a file on the web, either through a site, flash or otherwise, a forum. or just plain with a browser, not when viewing it with any of the processing software applications. Using the above method fixed that for me. And maybe I am just a nitpicker <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1285536433' post='3273']
I believe that this way produced the better results, when programs did the reduction in pixels by simple "resize" operations. But today most (if not all) programs at least give you the choice how the reduction is done. (IrfanView for instance (and because I mentioned it before) will let you choose between "resize" (quick but leading to somewhat dissatisfying results) and "resample ... along with a selection of resample functions" (MUCH better results, but takes noticably longer). Today I belive the cumbersome process of reducing the size in several small steps including a certain amount of sharpening can savely be skipped, if you select the resample-way (rather than the resize-way) to let your images "lose some weight". At least, in the few tests I did (when I heard of the method mentioned by Wim) I couldn't see a noticable difference to the result of IrfanView (with resample + the Lancos-function) or PS/PSE and its bicubic-functions. But ... to each his own ... you should certanly give it a try and see if it works for you.
Rainer
[/quote]
Thank you for the additional information.
I did my tests and checks in CS3 and CS4, haven't tried CS5 yet, so I can't speak for many other tools, other than DPP or DxO Optics Pro. The last time I used DPP to do resizing, I wasn't too happy, and the same is true with DxO, although in both cases I haven't tried to do this in the last versions either, but rather in last year versions <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.One thing, however: the difference only became obvious when viewing a file on the web, either through a site, flash or otherwise, a forum. or just plain with a browser, not when viewing it with any of the processing software applications. Using the above method fixed that for me. And maybe I am just a nitpicker <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
