Re: Genuine Fractals
- From: Dave <d@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:51:13 +0200
"Cryptopix"
After the hysteria dies down...
GF is now at version 5 and very, very sophisticated. You can download a copy
for evaluation and decide for yourself. The digital canvas print business
would not exist if it were not for applications like Genuine Fractals.
Photoshop's bicubic and stair interpolation routines are OK for small
enlargements. When you run a business enlarging digital images is when you
discover what works and what doesn't.
Tacit is right. Tacit is inflexible. Tacit has a closed mind on the topic.
Variations exist.
Few available wide format printers are capable of using all the detail in an
original file in the first place so degrading it by a few % is not going to
result in a visibly different image. GF degrades images far less than
Photoshop does.
Lots of truth is what's said here -
The digital canvas print businessand I like the way you put your case. Also totally in agreement with
would not exist if it were not for applications like Genuine Fractals.
it, so much that I am surprised that there is not more reactions to
this post.
I am using 6 and 9 megapixel cameras. If it was not for facilities
like GF, how on earth would I have been able to do this
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p42079897.html
Dave
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Genuine Fractals
- From: tacit
- Re: Genuine Fractals
- References:
- Re: Genuine Fractals
- From: Cryptopix
- Re: Genuine Fractals
- Prev by Date: Re: Picture cleaning
- Next by Date: Re: Picture cleaning
- Previous by thread: Re: Genuine Fractals
- Next by thread: Re: Genuine Fractals
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading