Photo Resizing

Tony Palmer · Post by **Tony Palmer** » 22 Jul 2006 7:44 am

Are there any programs out there there will (basically do the impossible...!) increase the size of a very small image without losing quality?
Typical photoshop software can only increase pixels and when you start with a really tiny image, it becomes grainy immediately.
I got one that is only 80 x 96 and there's no way to view it.

Wiz Feinberg · Post by **Wiz Feinberg** » 22 Jul 2006 12:23 pm

Bingo! I just read this article about removing noise from digital photos, with Photoshop, the other day, and found it in my Firefox History. I think it may help you with your enlargement/noise issues.

------------------
Bob "Wiz" Feinberg
Moderator of the SGF Computers Forum
Visit my Wiztunes Steel Guitar website at: http://www.wiztunes.com/
or my computer troubleshooting website: Wizcrafts Computer Services,
or my Webmaster Services webpage.
Learn about current computer virus and security threats here.
Read Wiz's Blog for security news and update notices

[This message was edited by Wiz Feinberg on 22 July 2006 at 01:23 PM.]

Tony Palmer · Post by **Tony Palmer** » 23 Jul 2006 3:59 am

I don't know, Wiz, I read that whole article and I think it's assuming you basically have a good image to start with. (I don't have Adobe Photoshop on this computer, so I couldn't actually try it yet)
Remember, my example that prompted this inquiry, was starting with only a tiny 80 or 90 pixel size photo.
I think I'm looking for something that will actually "grow" pixels to fill in the blocks when a photo is enlarged beyond it's normal size.

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 23 Jul 2006 5:05 am

Well, "growing" new pixels is always what does happen when you make a small image larger. The problem is that the small image does not contain enough pixels for proper color interpolation to the new pixels, and loss of detail is the result. The unsharp mask filter is a work-around, but not a fix.

If the color information is missing from the source image, I don't know any way to supply it after the fact, unless one is a good artist.

Bill Ford · Post by **Bill Ford** » 23 Jul 2006 5:26 am

Tony,
You probably know this already, but here goes...Before doing anything to a picture, do a copy/paste and work on the copy so that if you mess up, make another copy and start over therefore preserving the original. Even if you have scanned the original, you don't have to go through the hassel of rescan. Hope this helps.

Bill

Wiz Feinberg · Post by **Wiz Feinberg** » 23 Jul 2006 6:17 am

There is a clone brush in Photoshop. You first click on an area that contains the texture/color you want to copy, then brush over the area you need to match to the first. I have used this to remove all kinds of blemishes, bad shadows on faces, horizontal scan lines, Moire noise and mottled backgrounds.

There is always a way to accomplish a task in Photoshop. It may not be easy, but it will be do-able. Maybe a combination of effects like blurring the background, cloning parts of the foreground, sharpening selected areas, and layer masks may clean up an enlarged version of the photo.

There are Photoshop user groups where you may find advanced help from photogs who have done this before.[This message was edited by Wiz Feinberg on 23 July 2006 at 07:19 AM.]

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 23 Jul 2006 6:42 am

For clarification, when I said I didn't know how to supply color after the fact, of course, I meant that as "supply accurate colors", as they would have been in a full size version of the same image - the colors that will be missing when you enlarge the small original. Lack of these colors is the reason for the resulting lack of detail after the upsampling is done.

But, absolutely, with Photoshop, you can have any color you want, whenever, wherever.[This message was edited by Dave Potter on 23 July 2006 at 07:50 AM.]

Tony Palmer · Post by **Tony Palmer** » 23 Jul 2006 7:01 am

Okay, so, so far, the best solution is to make a copy and then re-build it pixel by pixel, after enlargement, right?
I'm not looking forward to doing that, but I didn't even think of that approach.
That will probably work, as in this case, I only have one photo that requires the enlarging.
But..it would be nice to find a program that does it with one click!

Wiz Feinberg · Post by **Wiz Feinberg** » 23 Jul 2006 7:17 am

Here is a new solution to this very problem.

Imagener Photo Enlargement Extracts More Data From Images (PRWeb)

A new photo enlargement technology called Imagener by Kneson Software is helping homeland security professionals hold down costs and improve image content identification. Surveillance photos often need to be digitally improved and enlarged. Imagener enlarges and maintains image detail, allowing better identification of evidence in surveillance images. It enlarges any type of digital image—web content, old photos, cell phone photos, digital camera pictures. It uses enhanced interpolation technology to preserve quality when enlarging. [View press release]

Read this webpage.
[This message was edited by Wiz Feinberg on 23 July 2006 at 08:34 AM.]

Cal Sharp · Post by **Cal Sharp** » 23 Jul 2006 1:48 pm

The easiest way to do this in Photoshop is: Image/Image Size and then resize it. Check "Constrain Proportions" and try different "Resample Image" options to get the one that looks best. Of course, make a copy of the original before you mess with it. After you get it bigger you may want to run Filter/Sharpen/Unsharp Mask to make it a little less fuzzy.

C#
www.calsharp.com (where all the images are resized.)

Cal Sharp · Post by **Cal Sharp** » 23 Jul 2006 1:59 pm

Another sharpening PS trick is to make a copy of your original on a new layer. Then run Filter/Other/High Pass. Adjust the slider so your image is barely visible. Click OK. Set the option for this new layer to "Hard Light". (It's set as "Normal" by default.) Then adjust the opacity of this new layer to blend it with the original layer to where it looks good.[This message was edited by Cal Sharp on 23 July 2006 at 03:00 PM.]

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 23 Jul 2006 3:59 pm

You can't increase the resolution of an image. That's a Hollywood myth.

Cal Sharp · Post by **Cal Sharp** » 23 Jul 2006 4:49 pm

Oh, I don't know 'bout that... ; )

Jeff Agnew · Post by **Jeff Agnew** » 24 Jul 2006 5:11 am

Yes, you can increase resolution. The product of choice for digital photographers for several years has been Genuine Fractals. It's a Photoshop plug-in primarily intended to produce professional quality print images from the smaller sensors used in consumer digicams. But it can also produce amazing results for photos intended for the web.

GF has changed hands several times and I can't remember who owns it now. You can find it on the web, though. It ain't cheap (~$150) and wouldn't be worth it for Tony's single, tiny image. But those of you who ever need to rescue an image made years ago with a cheap camera, or who want to produce stunning prints will love it.

Wiz Feinberg · Post by **Wiz Feinberg** » 24 Jul 2006 6:31 am

The product I wrote about up-thread has three versions available, ranging from $29.95 to $99.95. They claim that their technology will allow images to be enlarged while maintaining quality, up to 300% in the economy version, and to unlimited in the top version. The middle version, at $49.95 seems to be the best and sharpest value for typical enlargements. It has a 45 day money back guarantee and might be the best cheapest solution for people who need to do enlargements of small prints. Homeland Security is using their technology to analyze surveillence photos.

------------------
Bob "Wiz" Feinberg
Moderator of the SGF Computers Forum
Visit my Wiztunes Steel Guitar website at: http://www.wiztunes.com/
or my computer troubleshooting website: Wizcrafts Computer Services,
or my Webmaster Services webpage.
Learn about current computer virus and security threats here.
Read Wiz's Blog for security news and update notices

[This message was edited by Wiz Feinberg on 24 July 2006 at 07:33 AM.][This message was edited by Wiz Feinberg on 24 July 2006 at 07:34 AM.]

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 24 Jul 2006 9:42 am

"They claim that their technology will allow images to be enlarged while maintaining quality..." - emphasis mine. And there's the operative word. The quality is maintained, not improved. You can't invent data that isn't there. They are simply blurring the edges of the pixels.

Cal Sharp · Post by **Cal Sharp** » 24 Jul 2006 12:21 pm

Here's a screen shot. The original, on the left and magnified 800%, is only 200 pixels wide. The one on the right, at 200%, has been enlarged and sharpened as described above. Not ready for the cover of Super Chevy, but obviously less pixelization.

When you use bicubic resampling in Photoshop it does actually add pixels. Not really quality pixels, but more of them, taking information from nearby pixels, I think. It's best to do this in several small steps, rather than all at once, ie 200% at a time until you get to the size you want.

[This message was edited by Cal Sharp on 24 July 2006 at 01:30 PM.]

Jeff Agnew · Post by **Jeff Agnew** » 25 Jul 2006 4:58 am

You can't invent data that isn't there. They are simply blurring the edges of the pixels.

Yes and no.

Yes, these specialized programs do invent the data, via interpolation. The relevant definition of which is: a method of constructing new data points from a discrete set of known data points. In other words, they are creating pixels that didn't exist in the original.

No, in that there is a lot more to the programs than smoothing or blurring edges, although that is typically one of the last steps.

You can picture (no pun) how this works on a basic level by following Cal's workflow. He uses Photoshop's native interpolation (bicubic resampling), which for this purpose is very clumsy. But by layering and blending only certain frequencies he can smooth out the blockiness. Is it improved over the original? No, but that's not the point of these products. Does the pic provide a larger size version at the same quality as the original? Absolutely.

Specialzed programs like Genuine Fractals and Wiz's example just do the same thing, only using extremely complex resampling algorithms and automating the blending steps.

Maybe we're just debating semantics here. Your original point about not being able to invent data that aren't there is true in a strict sense. The larger version of a pic that has been "ressed up" is by that definition articially enhanced. But compared to the alternative I'd consider that an improvement.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 25 Jul 2006 6:57 am

Okay, I see your point. What bugs me is the Hollywood trick of "can you zoom in on that license plate?" - inventing detail that isn't there in the original. It can't be done.

The sample above added no new details. It just made the existing details easier on the eyes.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b2005.gif" width="78 height="78">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog

Tony Palmer · Post by **Tony Palmer** » 25 Jul 2006 10:29 am

I readily admit to falling for that from too many episodes of CSI!

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 28 Jul 2006 10:19 am

Saw it again on CSI last night. They zoom in on a store surveillance video to pick the name off of a cash register receipt. Impossible!

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 28 Jul 2006 10:42 am

Why haven't store surveillance vidoes got better now that megapixel video is cheap? You still can't see any detail when the 11 o-clock news shows the young gentleman shooting the 7-11 employee.