tedster
msg:3479346 | 11:46 pm on Oct 16, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Thanks for posting about this, Demaestro - it's quite amazing to see this technique in action. It seems to accomplish what we intuitively want to do, but can't easily do with blocked out crops or aspect changes. The way "unimportant" and "important" pixels are selected to create visually seamless resizes is extremely well thought out. I've read some upset by photographic professionals that this is just one more tool that can" destroy their art". What rubbish. They sound like musicians who complained about sampling technology. They should just get over it - the same way painters had to adapt when photography hit the world. This is sweet stuff, and I hope Adobe can find a way to integrate this functionality into CS, or at least offer it as a stand-alone application.
|
outrun
msg:3479355 | 12:04 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
If you use the Gimp there is a Plugin an open source application of the White Paper found here [liquidrescale.wikidot.com...]
|
rehabguy
msg:3479357 | 12:08 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Boy - real estate agents will love this one - or hate it My huge yard is now tiny... This is really cool, but really useless in my opinion!
|
Demaestro
msg:3479362 | 12:13 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| This is really cool, but really useless in my opinion! |
|
Then you have never had to make 600 x 200 banner ad from a 1200 X 1800 photo
|
vincevincevince
msg:3479394 | 1:19 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Really impressive. I can see this upsetting a lot of professional photo editors! <edit>I've just been using the GIMP plugin linked to above. Very easy, very fast, and very impressive.</edit> [edited by: vincevincevince at 1:59 am (utc) on Oct. 17, 2007]
|
docbird
msg:3479396 | 1:25 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
This isn't simply comparable to encoding music, maybe worsening quality.
More like being able to change music tempo but not pitch, take out instruments you don't like. Some years ago, Nat Geo had some trouble over shifting a pyramid so a photo of (three) pyramids fit the cover. Maybe took time and effort; this new technique to make it easy. Seen couple of photos from China, from years back, where a government guy who fell from favour vanished in later version: but still a gap. More than ever, "seeing is believing" to be untrue with images. Various transformations won't be restricted to Photoshop smarty pants. In time, who knows. Maybe as step from this, pretty simple to add to photos.
|
physics
msg:3479435 | 2:26 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Wow, that is really amazing to watch! Downloading gimp plugin now...
|
rehabguy
msg:3479436 | 2:35 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| Then you have never had to make 600 x 200 banner ad from a 1200 X 1800 photo |
|
That is a true statement. However, I prefer text ads anyway!
|
cmarshall
msg:3479449 | 3:05 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Pro Photographers would be aghast if you did this to their photos. It is an interesting technique, but I don't see its relevance to Web sites, as the plugin is not built into browsers. IMNSHO, It would really only be good for backgrounds.
|
vincevincevince
msg:3479456 | 3:10 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| IMNSHO, It would really only be good for backgrounds. |
|
Backgrounds don't do very well with this, you need something with defined features.
|
ronin
msg:3479508 | 5:33 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
This is awesome. If I get my hands on a piece of software that uses this algorithm I will be very happy indeed. | Boy - real estate agents will love this one |
|
No kidding. This could make a box kitchen or bedroom look very spacious. | [...] I don't see its relevance to Web sites |
|
Eh? It's simple. If I have a 300x250 space on my page for a photograph (ie. 6:5 ratio) and my digital photo is 4:3 ratio (as most digital photos would be) and there are some vital details in the photo at the far top left corner and the far bottom right corner... this software means I don't have to crop and compromise.
|
tedster
msg:3479517 | 5:44 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| If you use the Gimp there is a Plugin... |
|
I wasn't using Gimp before - but I am now! Thanks very much for the information.
|
rocknbil
msg:3479599 | 8:55 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| This is really cool, but really useless in my opinion! |
|
All the glitzy object enhancement aside, the most amazing contribution this will have for graphics is the ordinary enlargement from a small image to a proportionately larger one without pixelating. Instead of interpolation, a more complex algorithm that comprehensively redistributes pixels, this is a major breakthrough. This has been the bane of rasterized graphics since the beginning, resolution dependence. If this works the way it appears to, it changes everything - an amazing development.
|
thecoalman
msg:3479610 | 9:07 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
That is quite interesting, it would work quite nice in some of my DVD projects for slideshows. | the most amazing contribution this will have for graphics is the ordinary enlargement from a small image to a larger one without pixelating. |
|
I've never had trouble with pixelation using bi-cubic resizing. However you end up with a very soft image. There's already software for that which has been around for quite a while, it's a photoshop plug-in called genuine fractals. Basically it preserves the edges and sharpness of contrasting color.
|
rocknbil
msg:3479612 | 9:13 am on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
We used genuine fractals before it was incorporated into mainstream software, when it was just a standalone for DTP. It's core limitation was the original had to be originally input at high enough resolution. Then when it was vectored it could be resized back up without artifact. The softness you describe is still due to interpolation, and it's distinctly identifiable as an image enlarged from a smaller resolution image. This could change all that.
|
cmarshall
msg:3479742 | 1:11 pm on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| IMNSHO, It would really only be good for backgrounds. |
|
Backgrounds don't do very well with this, you need something with defined features. |
|
I was thinking a photo background that is made very faint, and resized to fit the window. One of the examples they gave would make photographers freak out. This was the one that made an Appalachian bump into a Rocky Mountain High.
|
zulu_dude
msg:3479756 | 1:34 pm on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Great idea and seems to work wonders in the demos! Tried it via the Gimp plugin and it doesn't work very well for photos with straight lines (such as houses), as the straight lines become rather jagged and visibly distorted. I'm going to carry on experimenting with various types of images, but at first glance, while it keeps all the vital elements of a photo, the result is quite clearly a manipulated image.
|
ergophobe
msg:3479914 | 4:18 pm on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Pro Photographers would be aghast if you did this to their photos.
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if pros end up using it a lot. In a photo portfolio you always have the problem of thumbnails that are small enough to show many on the page, yet still give some idea what the subject is. Sometimes cropping works. Sometimes scaling works. Often neither works, and this could fill that gap. I bet once this becomes part of CS4 and LR3, pros begin to use it on their own photos frequently to show teaser images, and then properly scale the higher res versions.
|
Zamboni
msg:3479945 | 4:38 pm on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0) |
It looks like another reason never to believe anything you see on the web. That long expanse of whitesand beach in front of the resort you're booking on the interweb just might be a sandbox. ;)
|
vincevincevince
msg:3480349 | 12:23 am on Oct 18, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| doesn't work very well for photos with straight lines |
|
Those items work really well if you create the second layer to identify them to be protected. Press help in the pop-up dialogue.
|
Rosalind
msg:3480744 | 11:54 am on Oct 18, 2007 (gmt 0) |
This looks like a fantastic feature which I could see myself using often.
|
jimbeetle
msg:3481014 | 4:17 pm on Oct 18, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Sheesh! Why didn't I know their was a Windows version of Gimp? I always assumed it was for gearheads on *nix boxes. Gimp is great, and I've already worked through a couple of folders worth of images using the liquid scaling plug-in. Nice to have photos a uniform size.
|
|
