|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 61
Location: Texas
|
Here's a thread were I posted back in Feb a script originally written for paintshoppro that will resize an image large enough for Alamy.
It doesn't care what the start ratio or size is. It should be easy to adapt this for other applications.
I convert my RAW images using DPP, then use PSP to upsize them and this works just fine.
I think it's the second post.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=4359
Hope this helps,
Richard.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/24/2007
Posts: 642
Location: Not far from Dunchideock
|
I just upsize in ordinary bicubic in Photoshop 7. As an experiment a couple of weeks ago I submitted ten 6Mp 10D files upsized to about 50Mb and they passed. I conclude that for the modest percentage increase involved upsizing method is (very) secondary to the quality of the original.
Tony
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/21/2007
Posts: 137
Location: Nottingham, England
|
I always shoot RAW (for stock at least) and do any upsize on conversion. Where I need to I upsize to a 100+Mbyte 16bit TIFF - then as Chuck does, do my clean up etc and convert to 8 bit TIF and uncompressed JPG (using an automated batch script in PS). I do any cropping/ straightening at conversion stage and adjust the scaling for those individually - the rest I do to a standard ratio.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,385
Location: Switzerland
|
Fennario wrote:clupica wrote:I say 18mp is borderline for the reason that David noted. In the past, people upsizing to exactly 18mp have failed on size. So I've always gone a little bit higher to ensure that the silly image uploader thinks the file is big enough. If you want to do excactly 18 mp, go ahead. Some here in the past have suggested 5050 on the longest side will work (Kumar ?), others use 5100, some - like me, use 5120, and a few use 5200. So yes, technically 18mp is not borderline, but it might fail for size - go figure.
As to maintaining the aspect ration in upsizing, it's only easier if you're using LightRoom to do the upsizing or you're upsizing a percentage. When you tell LightRoom to upsize the longest side to 5120 the resulting image will be the right size (mp wise) no matter what the starting length and width if the aspect ratio was the same as the original. This would hold true for images upsized using a percentage as well. But once you alter the aspect ratio, you can't be sure that the final size will be big enough.
Charlie Actually, what David noted is that 16.8 is borderline for those reasons he states. 18MP is well into "safe" territory, producing files that are several megabytes over the minimum (mine work out to 51.26MB). I don't see why you're recommending 5120, yet then say it's borderline, and that "if you want to do exactly 18MP, go ahead...but it might fail." What you yourself are submitting at 5120 is essentially an 18MP image. For what it's worth, I always check my batches in the Alamy SizeCheck donation ware application, and it has been 100% accurate. I've never had a file size problem, not once.
Ok, yes you're right of course. Didn't you know you're supposed to know what I meant and not what I said  Yes, 18mp isw not not borderline under any circumstance, but I can never tell what thwe exact mp is so I concern myself with size. What is marginal is 48 mb umcompressed. Andf people in the past have stated that the size checker gavce an ok and the file still failed. Why did I use 5120 ? Well 5120 gets a little over 50mb with my old D80 files; sure to pass the size minimum. Is there a hard reason to use 5120 ? No, as I mentioned, Kumar recommends 5050 and I've seen 5200 noted by Sheila in the past (I think).
I have to say that it rally doesn't matter a whole lot if you have a 5D Mark II like I have. I have still failed size oncew or twice because I cropped and thought the file was still big enough; it wasn't.
Charlie
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/7/2008
Posts: 1
Location: London
|
David Kilpatrick wrote:
I would be very interested to know if anyone is submitting Canon 1Ds MkII files directly, as the only time I had access to 1Ds MkII raws, they converted to 47.9MB final files - and interpolating up a very small amount does no good at all, it is actually better to interpolate up by 50% than by c.1% in many ways
I used to use a 1ds2 and the files come out at 47.5 mb; they fail QC without up-resing. I use a photoshop action to resize the long side to 5120 which, if uncropped, comes out spot on 50mb. there's no appreciable loss in quality.
With lower resolution RAW files (ie not with the 1ds2), you can upsize to 5120 in ACR which is the method recommended by Corbis...
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/2/2009
Posts: 165
Location: California
|
clupica wrote:Andf people in the past have stated that the size checker gavce an ok and the file still failed.
Interesting. Good to know, although I've never prepared anything below 49MB, I think, so maybe I haven't really tested the "boundary." I just look at what Photoshop states the size to be when I'm resizing crops and then use the SizeCheck software as a final precaution before uploading. So the SizeCheck software has been completely correct, but maybe once you get down to 48MB things get sketchy. Dunno.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/21/2007
Posts: 822
Location: San Jose, CA, USA
|
To all,
I did not choose 5120 X it is the closest default size in Adobe Camera Raw, it gives me a 100.4MB file in 16bit color which
drops to a 50+MB 8bit JPEG.
Chuck (still the original one and not on the list?)
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/3/2007
Posts: 54
Location: Spain
|
I use a Photoshop action for uncropped images: 5040 longest side gives me a 96.9 16 bit file (48.4 uncompressed jpeg). 4000 images
uploaded to Alamy without problem using this method.
Joe.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 3
Location: London
|
When resizing your images in photoshop from a low res file such as 6MP make a action. But don't upside it in one jump up size it in small steps until its the correct size my. I don't know how it works but the files look better at 100%, Up sizing using the resolution using pixels per inch means you don't have to batch uprights and horizontals separately just remember to keep the final image at 300dpi
Edd
|
|
Groups: Guest
Joined: 2/6/2007
Posts: 3
|
I personally, always upload to the mimmun 48mb (as required) bang on the nose, and not a penny more!
What the hell is all this “longest/shortest side” bollox?
I now see (in this one thread alone) so called regulars to this forum not knowing simple stuff.
This is REAL bad,
g
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/9/2008
Posts: 372
Location: Kent, UK
|
9ary wrote:I personally, always upload to the mimmun 48mb (as required) bang on the nose, and not a penny more!
What the hell is all this “longest/shortest side” bollox?
I now see (in this one thread alone) so called regulars to this forum not knowing simple stuff.
This is REAL bad,
g
I would be very interested to learn how you arrive at this 48mb file bang on.
Bob
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/14/2007
Posts: 599
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
bobhdeering wrote:9ary wrote:I personally, always upload to the mimmun 48mb (as required) bang on the nose, and not a penny more!
What the hell is all this “longest/shortest side” bollox?
I now see (in this one thread alone) so called regulars to this forum not knowing simple stuff.
This is REAL bad,
g
I would be very interested to learn how you arrive at this 48mb file bang on. Bob
Let's hope he/she has a simple way of making it exactly 48, and "not a penny more" . . . otherwise that would look REAL bad . . . .
cheers,
Shel
|
|
Groups: Guest
Joined: 2/6/2007
Posts: 3
|
OK, some pointers for you, although according to most I have nothing positive to add here?
So, this will be “just a pointer” (you work it out, in other words!).
Uploading more than 48mb wastes time uploading and offers more chance for a malfunction, you would have also used up more hard-drive space than necessary saving the file locally, BUT and more the point- you are just burning up Alamy’s servers by uploading more than is required (can you not see this??).
Does not a 1:1 at 4095x4095 =48mb bang on the nose?
It sure does this end,
g
And I’m not talking ‘black and white’ (b&w) here before some smartarse throws that in the pot! Although I could argue this case if one wishes.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 61
Location: Texas
|
9ary wrote:OK, some pointers for you, although according to most I have nothing positive to add here?
Does not a 1:1 at 4095x4095 =48mb bang on the nose?
Depends on who's definitions of mb you are using. Assuming the standard of 1048576, you are just under 48mb.
To me a meg is 1048576 (1024*1024), but some use 1024000.
Ofcourse if you sell disk drives, it's 1000000 
Richard
|
|
Groups: Guest
Joined: 2/6/2007
Posts: 3
|
rgbii wrote:9ary wrote:OK, some pointers for you, although according to most I have nothing positive to add here?
Does not a 1:1 at 4095x4095 =48mb bang on the nose?
Depends on who's definitions of mb you are using. Assuming the standard of 1048576, you are just under 48mb. To me a meg is 1048576 (1024*1024), but some use 1024000. Ofcourse if you sell disk drives, it's 1000000 Richard
I never covered that scenario, sorry.
You win, 
g
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 61
Location: Texas
|
9ary wrote:rgbii wrote:9ary wrote:OK, some pointers for you, although according to most I have nothing positive to add here?
Does not a 1:1 at 4095x4095 =48mb bang on the nose?
Depends on who's definitions of mb you are using. Assuming the standard of 1048576, you are just under 48mb. To me a meg is 1048576 (1024*1024), but some use 1024000. Ofcourse if you sell disk drives, it's 1000000 Richard I never covered that scenario, sorry. You win, g
If your's are passing QC using that size, then you win too
Richard.
|
|
Groups: Guest
Joined: 2/6/2007
Posts: 3
|
I very nearly checked there!
I did not check so do I win?
You tell me,
g
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 61
Location: Texas
|
9ary wrote:I very nearly checked there!
I did not check so do I win?
You tell me,
g
No. Assuming a mb is 1048576, you'd need 4096x4096 to win - right on the nose
However, how many here are submitting 1:1 images?
Richard.
|
|
Groups: Guest
Joined: 2/6/2007
Posts: 3
|
rgbii wrote:9ary wrote:I very nearly checked there!
I did not check so do I win?
You tell me,
g No. Assuming a mb is 1048576, you'd need 4096x4096 to win - right on the nose However, how many here are submitting 1:1 images? Richard.
So, and let’s get this right….
No one uploads at 48mb ‘bang on the nose’ apart from me
No one also crops, again apart from me, in all sizes I might add including 16:9 (wide screen).
I guess I will leave you lot to uploading more than is required and therefore showing abnormal artefacts (through over sizing more than necessary) and failing QC.
Yet again, I see my attempt to help is NOT required.
I wish you all luck,
g
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 61
Location: Texas
|
9ary wrote:rgbii wrote:9ary wrote:I very nearly checked there!
I did not check so do I win?
You tell me,
g No. Assuming a mb is 1048576, you'd need 4096x4096 to win - right on the nose However, how many here are submitting 1:1 images? Richard. So, and let’s get this right…. No one uploads at 48mb ‘bang on the nose’ apart from me No one also crops, again apart from me, in all sizes I might add including 16:9 (wide screen). I guess I will leave you lot to uploading more than is required and therefore showing abnormal artefacts (through over sizing more than necessary) and failing QC. Yet again, I see my attempt to help is NOT required. I wish you all luck, g
Going above 48mb is no reason to be "showing abnormal artefacts".
A lot of people, including myself, upsize above 48mb and pass QC just fine.
If someone's images pass right at 48mb, but fail if even a tad over, they are pushing the limits of something too much anyways.
Richard.
|
|
|
Guest |
RSS feeds