If you prefer this,
http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnExpandedKernel.pn=
g
, to this,
http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_Lanczo***pandedKernel.png
, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel.
Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for
reductions because such expansion automatically provides
antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding
the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images.
On May 1, 9:24=C2=A0am, pg <pen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 1, 8:12 am, hsyq...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > Sorry for this late reply.
>
> > 3 example online:
>
> > A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG
>
> > B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG
>
> > C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG
>
> Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG
>
>
>
> > The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen
> > produced just a few days ago.
>
> > All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.
>
> > If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original
> > drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP
> > format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly,
> > arising from the brown wall.
>
> > Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my
> > desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B,
> > although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are
> > still separated from the brown wall.
>
> > However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves
> > kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a
> > fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the
> > original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality,
> > with the "Lanczos" option.
>
> > The most im****tant thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture
> > B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained
> > from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different
> > pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly
> > seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed
> > up.
>
> > Any comment ??
>
> > aruzinsky wrote:
> > > On Apr 29, 12:39=EF=BF=BDam, hsyq...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > > Hello !
>
> > > > I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a
number =
of
> > > > stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to
p=
ut
> > > > them online, they become blurred !!
>
> > > > I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual
> > > > landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from
photosh=
op
> > > > to terragen to povray.
>
> > > > When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master
> > > > copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size?
Becaus=
e
> > > > that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU
running=
> > > > XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give
or=
> > > > take 8 hours for rendering).
>
> > > > As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to
3=
0+
> > > > MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768,
> > > > filesize about 800 KB or so.
>
> > > > However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute
detail=
s
> > > > that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my
> > > > 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG
files=
,
> > > > all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG
> > > > shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those
> > > > details are GONE !!
>
> > > > I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares
in=
> > > > the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring"
effec=
t.
>
> > > > Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---
>
> > > > 1. =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD
=EF=
=BF=BDCan you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic
> > > > to
> > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD
=EF=BF=
=BD =EF=BF=BD 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting
details?
>
> > > > 2. =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD
=EF=
=BF=BDWhich software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking
> > > > operation?
>
> > > > Thank you all in advance !!!
>
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Lee
>
> > > Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of
before
> > > and after images showing the problem areas.
>
> > > You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is
worth=
> > > a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
