|
|
yes, in 99% of cases, a slight "sharpening" (like the default "sharpen" filter of photoshop) greatly improves the subjective quality of photos in display-type resolution (e.g. 500 and 800 pixel).
i don't think flickr applies any sharpening after the resizing.
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> i don't think flickr applies any
>sharpening after the resizing.
I hope. This sharpening side effect is rather due to filckrs server side image software. An originaly grained photo locks really messy after upload.
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Flickr does sharpen -- I think part of the problem is that it sharpens too much. This is something we plan on tweaking soon.
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
in my experience, something like the default "sharpen" of photoshop works really well for 99.9% of my photos (in fact i cannot remember a case where it did not work), so what i do now is that i sharpen the image in a 500 pix size, then upload to flickr.
so i assume that flickr will not apply any shapen to the 500 version since it will not resize them (i upload in 500 pixel size).
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> Stewart said:
> Flickr does sharpen
That isnt a good idea. This should be the job of the photo owners. I think most of the photos are highly optimized and dosent need any post sharpening proceedure. Sharpening destroy such photos.
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> That isnt a good idea. This should be the job of the photo owners
true when flickr displays a non-resized image.
but not true when flickr resizes the image to a spaller size. for example, if you upload your photos with a size of 2000 pixel, flickr will resize them at a size of 500 to display them in your photo pages, and in this case, flickr should do the sharpening.
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> and in this case, flickr should do
> the sharpening
I think it depends on each photo if it needs to be sharpen or not. When uploading photos this feature should be optionaly.
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> and in this case, flickr should do
> the sharpening
I think it depends on each photo if it needs to be sharpen or not. When uploading photos this feature should be optionaly.
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
in 99.9% of the cases, when you subsample (i.e. resize down) a photo and display it on a computer display, it will look much better with some sharpening.
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is it possible to re-sample?
here are the options my software provides, and I find down-sampling (ie resampling), usually works the best.
------------------------
Nearest neighbor (fast) This is the fastest resize method, but the least pleasing because it performs no pixel interpolation. Usually results in significant "jaggies."
Bi-linear (good). Computes weighted average of four pixels, based on computed position from the original source. This is slower but better than Nearest Neighbor, and considerably faster than bi-cubic.
Resample (better). Use resample to properly interpolate colors when making an image smaller.
Bi-cubic (better). Computes cubic convolution of sixteen pixels, based on computed position from the original source. This produces the most accurate results, but is significantly slower than bi-linear interpolation.
Best fit for sizing. Automatically selects bi-cubic when making an image larger and resample when making it smaller.
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
select "Best fit for sizing", it will use the best algorithm. bi-linear and Nearest neighbor are very bad, and they are generally used only to give you a visual feedback when resizing a photo interactively. you should not use those for processing your images.
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
loupiote, I gathered that much through experience myself.. my inquiry was more on finding out what flickr uses, and whether flickr would offer us options like that when we upload :)
Posted 84 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads