Author Topic: Genuine Fractals 5 (Read 3985 times)

modellocate · « **on:** February 14, 2008, 23:30 »

Slap my wrist if this is the wrong forum for this question.

Does anyone here use Genuine Fractals? Any opinion on using it for stock?

I know at least one (Shutterstock) does upsampling -- but wouldn't it be best to let the customer do this? I'm intrigued but skeptical...

http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2

Note: I have nothing to do with the company that produces the product, inserting the link for reference purposes..

Phil · « **Reply #1 on:** February 15, 2008, 01:07 »

personally I think the differences between it and bucibic smoother are pretty minimal, possibly when you are going to extremes (5x-10x) the size?

Bateleur · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2008, 01:56 »

I've seen reviews which indicate that the difference between Genuine Fractals and Photoshop in bicubic mode are so small as to be negligible.

I can't find the links at the moment, but if I do I'll post them.

I use Photoshop (7) in bicubic mode and upsize in 10% increments. I don't know if that makes a difference, but some experts say it does. I do that for Alamy, who require it, and have never ever had a problem in that area.

rjmiz · « **Reply #3 on:** February 15, 2008, 05:32 »

I would like to make a comment about Genuine Fractals.

I have done several test comparing photoshop "Bicubic Smoother" (best for up sizing)
with genuine fractals ver 5.

My conclusion: There is no notable difference.

Another method I used to compare was using PS to up size the image in 10% increments,
until the desired upsize was attained. A method I learned way back in photoshop ver 3.

My conclusion: There is no notable difference.

In my tests I used various sized images to up size, from 400 pixels wide to 2000 pixels wide.
The final resulting images ranged from 1500 pixels wide to 9000.

I noted some haloing, and loss of sharpness in all images. After all you are creating a Frankenstein image.
All jpg's degrade with any editing what so ever. Artifacts, noise, and other malady's occur with any "up rezed" image.
"Up-Rezed" is the term used to "up" the "resolution" to any image.

Best regards,
The MIZ

ALTPhotoImages · « **Reply #4 on:** February 15, 2008, 15:01 »

Agree completely with what others have already said. Tested it many times over the years and have found Genuine Fractals to be no better or worse the Photoshop. Don't waste your money on it.

madelaide · « **Reply #5 on:** February 15, 2008, 16:40 »

A colleague who has GF (I don't know which version) compard it to ClearerZoom after I said the latter had very good results. I even posted a comparison here a while ago. I have a few uprezzed images in IS and StockXpert. I don't remember all of them, but one is a 1MPix turned into 2MPix and another a 640x480 turned into a 1280x960, both taken with my old but sharp FinePix 2650Z.

Regards,
Adelaide

madelaide · « **Reply #6 on:** February 15, 2008, 16:49 »

Here is the old thread with image comparisons: http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,1528.0.html

MikLav · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2008, 12:54 »

I did some tests myself, already a year or two ago. I compared Genuine Fractals, Bicubic Resizer, and also some other tools (don't remember their names).

My conclusions are:
a) there is no notable difference if upsizing is not too big
b) when upsizing too much, the quality is not acceptable anyway, regardless the software used.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Genuine Fractals 5 (Read 3985 times)

modellocate

Phil

Bateleur

rjmiz

ALTPhotoImages

madelaide

madelaide

MikLav

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors