Drastically Change Size of Photo + Keep Quality

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John Doe 57, Dec 30, 2008.

  1. John Doe 57 macrumors 65816

    John Doe 57

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #1
    This has probably been asked many times before but...


    How can I increase the size of a photograph while keeping the quality. I have tried Preview, but the quality decreases after a massive size change. I have also tried AKVIS Magnifier, but it was weird.

    I have not tried iPhoto or Aperture - If someone can guide me how, that would be great!

    I have 1000s of photos I would like to change the size of, so if there is a program that can do a batch list of photos, that would be great too!

    Thanks!
     
  2. cr2sh macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #2
    There may be a few smart filters out there that enlarge the image and use some sort of algorithm to de-pixelate the image... but really it's going to be just hocus-pocus.

    If you want to take a freeware program like infranview (windows) you can batch resize hundreds of photos and make them larger then you need... then batch them again to add a slight blurring effect, then batch them one more time to decrease size to what you want. This blurring would at least make the images appear smooth and not all pixelated.... but you're going to lose detail as a result.
     
  3. John Doe 57 thread starter macrumors 65816

    John Doe 57

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #3
    Understood. Thanks for the info!
     
  4. Cliff3 macrumors 65816

    Cliff3

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #4
    1000's? OK...

    Genuine Fractals will enlarge an image without substantially degrading image quality.
     
  5. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #5
    In Photoshop, you can incrementally increase the size by 10% in the Image--->Image Size Dialog.

    I have an action that repeats the 110% command multiple times to achieve this effect. Scott Kelby mentions it in his Photoshop book.
     
  6. -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #6
    Is doing it in 10% increments somehow better than doing it all in one shot?


    FWIW, there's also some other tools, such as the "Genuine Fractals" plug-in for Photoshop. The manufacturer's website is here, and it looks like they offer a free demo version to try.


    -hh
     
  7. John Doe 57 thread starter macrumors 65816

    John Doe 57

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #7
    LOL! I love your avatar! Great movie bro!
     
  8. djbahdow01 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Location:
    Northeast, CT
    #8
    Yes it is better to do it in increments as you are not trying to create a large amount of pixels in a short period of time, with the increments you are blending much smaller "created" pixels. You will need to sharpen as well between steps.

    Genuine Fractals is a great program it basically does the same as the step method but has a very advanced algorithm to increase the size.

    If I may ask the OP, why do you want to increase the size of 1000+ images? What size are you looking for? I for one see no need in increasing the size and therefore increasing the "physical" size (MBs, GBs, etc.) of a photo. I am very happy with my 12MP images.
     
  9. John Doe 57 thread starter macrumors 65816

    John Doe 57

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #9
    I said 1000s - I didn't really mean it.

    I actually have like 180 photos that I would like to format to fit my desktop screen. Thats all.

    But thank you all for the info.
     
  10. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #10
    That's it?

    I thought you were interested in making big prints or something. Ok...

    Your photographs should already be big enough for your desktop screen. If you have to enlarge, I assume it would be only marginally.... maybe a few extra hundred pixels or so.
     
  11. John Doe 57 thread starter macrumors 65816

    John Doe 57

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #11
    What about pictures that are a half inch by a quarter inch? That will not fit a 17-inch display.
     
  12. jaseone macrumors 65816

    jaseone

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    Houston, USA
    #12
    Please tell me that was a joke...

    There is no way to add image data to a picture so it can be enlarged without losing detail, you do any sort of zooming on any picture then you lose detail. It isn't like on CSI where you can enhance, enhance, enhance on something like a capture from a CCTV and magically reveal a high resolution picture!

    Now don't get me wrong there is some level of enhancement you can do and it is possible for some programs to guess at adding detail plus there are also some content aware tools that will let you resize pics without distorting certain areas but you certainly can't take a tiny pic like you mentioned and have it display nicely on a 17inch display, that will just look horrid no matter what.
     
  13. John Doe 57 thread starter macrumors 65816

    John Doe 57

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #13
    Yes it was a joke! I'm talking about doubling or nearly doubling the size of pictures that are about 850x566 pixels. Forget that half inch thing!
     
  14. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #14
    Low-res images just don't upsize well because there aren't enough pixels to grab data from. When you've got a 5000x3000 pixel image, a program like genuine fractals can create an excellent uprez using available data. With an 800 pixel wide max, it just can't be done.
     
  15. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #15
    The problem is that it's doing exactly what you ask. It is "keeping the quality". In other words objects have exactl the same amont of detail in the blown up image as in what you started with and what you'd like is to add more and more detail as you enlarge the image. This can' be done.

    The best you can hope for a is good smooth kind of interpolation. Use Photoshop and set the interpolation type to bi-cubic. This will hide any pixelation effects but of course can't make up detail that is not in the file. For that you would have to draw it in by hand. Drawing sometimes does work, if you are good and use it very sparingly. I've done it to fix details in and around eyes

    Oh that 10% at a time trick would work but it is the same thing as applying a blur filter and blurring is quicker. But try bi-qubic first
     
  16. John Doe 57 thread starter macrumors 65816

    John Doe 57

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #16
    I'll give it a go. Thanks bro!
     
  17. ajpl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #17
    Upresing by 10% increments is an old technique that is pointless nowadays. Jeff Schewe recomended against that 4 years ago in one article I found to back up this statement.

    "Photoshop CS's resampling is much improved over version 7 and before. The Bicubic Smoother has tested out as being superior to standard bicubic in steps. The Bicubic Sharper is considerable better for retaining improved sharpness when downsizing for the web.
    While there is no longer any benifit to step interpolation for uprezing, there is still a benefit to downsizing in steps of no more than 50% per step."


    Jeff really knows what he is talking about in this area, so worth paying attention.
     

Share This Page