How do you increase image size without losing quality?

[Guest]

Thanks for reading.

I would like to enlarge an image, but when I do this it loses quality. 

This is how I have done it: image > image size > check "resample image" > select "bicubic smoother" > set my dimensions.

Many thanks in advance.

[Noel Carboni]

Perhaps you should try to better define what you mean by quality.

Do you mean it loses sharpness?  Would you expect anything different?  You can't make detail from nothing.  Think about extremes...  What if you had an image that is 1 x 1 pixel, and you wanted to upsample it to 4000 x 4000 pixels?  It's not likely to have any detail in it.

This is why while doing digital image work, first and foremost you always want to keep in mind the number of pixels in your image (e.g., the pixel dimensions, width x height), above all else.

If you have an image with a limited pixel count that you really do need to make into something larger in a way that fools the eye/brain into thinking there's more detail in it than there really is, there are a couple of sophisticated upsampling tools out there that do help...  OnOne Software's Perfect Resize 7 (renamed from Genuine Fractals), and Alien Skin Blow Up 3.

-Noel

[Guest]

I didn't know what to expect...but I didn't want to assume it couldn't be done until I knew for sure. 

But at the same time I would have never expected to be able to remove a person from a photograph either, ya know? I guess I was just hoping.

Thanks 

[pf22]

bowarrowapple wrote:

I didn't know what to expect...but I didn't want to assume it couldn't be done until I knew for sure. 

But at the same time I would have never expected to be able to remove a person from a photograph either, ya know? I guess I was just hoping.

Thanks

Hi bowarrowapple

As far as I'm aware onOne's Genuine Fractals/Perfect Resize is supposed to be one of the best out there; for what it's worth they claim to be the "industry standard."

Alien Skin's Blow Up also has a good reputation, and they've just released a new version.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and both are available on 30 Day Trial versions.

Good luck

Paul

[manojb05]

i am also searching for same, please help for same

[Guest]

So in the example of wanting to have a photo in the Facebook timeline header, and wanting to avoid a blurry image stretching to fit properly...the above mentioned software is the only way to go?

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Could you explain what the exact pixel dimensions of source and target are?

[Guest]

I have a .jpeg at 290 × 174, but I'd like it take it to 851 x 315.

[Noel Carboni]

bowarrowapple wrote:

I have a .jpeg at 290 × 174, but I'd like it take it to 851 x 315.

So have you downloaded trial versions of Perfect Resize or Blow Up yet and tried them?

-Noel

[Guest]

I downloaded Blow Up and got an error when using it as a Photoshop plug-in...

[Jeff_N]

Bowarroapple

There are some hard and fast rules that always apply...

1) The higher quality the original, the larger it can be res'd up. A file from my PhaseOne digital back has a much cleaner / tighter / higher quality image than one taken from a Canon 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, etc. I have res'd those files up to a 53 foot semi trailer size. You can stand two feet from it and it looks fantastic!!! (No Bull)

2) There always is a limit to how far you can go...

3) Viewing distance plays into the formula as to how large you can go...

4) Your ability to creatively sharpen...

5) Creativity in resing up the file...

Example:

You may get better results / higher resing by using "content aware" to isolate the important part of the image, then stretch the outer perimeter areas to give you the increased size. (First create a document the size you need. Place the original in the middle of the larger doc.)

JeffN

[Guest]

So those images that get blown up to fit a 53 foot semi trailer are originally VERY large?  I mean, I know they don't start off as thumbnails, but they have to be very large in order to be albe to be clear and sharp for billboards and trailers, etc.?

[Lundberg02]

No, they're not very large, they just have a lot of original pixels becasue they were taken with a  high res camera. Trailer size pictures are at maybe 10 ppi.

[Mylenium]

So those images that get blown up to fit a 53 foot semi trailer are originally VERY large?  I mean, I know they don't start off as thumbnails, but they have to be very large in order to be albe to be clear and sharp for billboards and trailers, etc.?

No, they aren't. As the others already have said and as Lundberg02 was again pointing out you need to understand resolution vs. absolute pixels. Large format prints have huge dot sizes in their screening yet each of those dots may only represent part of a pixel still and when you are far enough away you only see one discrete color in the given place. Again, it has to do with how human perception works. Still, doesn't mean anything for your problem - there is simply not enough to work with.

Mylenium

[Lundberg02]

How many pixels are you starting with? A fifty dollar Kodak has 4000 pixels horizontally. You can blow that up 400x if you're going to view it from more than 20 feet away. Similarly, a high res scan of a photo can be blown up.

it has to do with apparent size and perception. Read up on enlarging digital photos.

[Guest]

I will, thank you!

Greg Bremer

[Lundberg02]

You said you wanted to go from 290 x 174 to 851 x 315.  That's not enlarging. That's not even the same ratio horizontal and vertical. What the heck are you talking about? Facebook doesn't need anything like that in the first place.

[Guest]

Those are the dimensions for a Facebook cover profile photo.

Greg Bremer

WebTeknologie LLC

2356 E McNeese Street Lake Charles, LA 70607

(630) 363-2468

[Lundberg02]

What are?

[Guest]

851 x 315 -- Any search for profile cover photo dimensions returns those dimensions.

[Lundberg02]

That would be more than 8 inches high by more than three inches wide on screen , which is absurd.

[Guest]

...It is 851 wide by 315 tall

Check it out: http://www.facebook.com/help?faq=125379114252045

[Mylenium]

What you want is pretty irrational - you expect an algorithm to "invent" additional pixels and still have it look pretty in terms of human perception. I'm afraid it's just not possible and going from an image that is essentially a thumbnail to an image thre times as big is bound to have odd looking parts, inaccuracies and artifacts no matter how sophisticated the tool you use. As the otehrs said, it's relatively safe to enlarge relatively large images by about 150% and still have them look good and for print people go even further, because the print screening will disguise some sharpness issues anyway, but really, what you expect is just not feasible...

Mylenium