English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

6 answers

You can't.

You only have so many pixels to work with on a given digital image. You can either make the individuals bigger (decrease PPI) for enlargements, or you can use computer programs to "guess" new pixels to fill in based on the surrounding pixels, but it will always be only a guess, without an increase in true detail.

You CAN minimize the quality reduction using these techniques:

If you're using Photoshop, do bicubic resamples in 10% or smaller increments of increasing size, until you reach your resizing goal. You may find you need to apply a sharpening filter as well.

You can use commercial programs like Genuine Fractals as an alternative to bicubic resampling.

You may find that small decreases in quality, especially if they go along with an increase in viewing distance, to be unnoticeable.

2007-09-27 02:29:03 · answer #1 · answered by Evan B 4 · 4 1

You really can't. There are some techniques, and software that can, kind of, "fake it." But, if the camera did not capture the detail, no software can go back in time to put it there.

By way of example. If, in the background of the small image, there was a sign or poster, the text might be difficult, even impossible to read, perhaps because each letter might only be made up of a couple of pixels. Enlarging the image will only result in bigger pixels, and the text will still be hard or impossible to read.

Since cameras cannot "read" text, no software will be able to add pixels in any meaningful way to create legible text. How would the software recognize what the letter was, if it was made up of only a couple of pixels?

2007-09-27 07:59:20 · answer #2 · answered by Vince M 7 · 0 0

It depends on what you start with. If your camera only has 3 or 4 mp then your enlargement will be limited. If you used digital zoom your enlargement will be limited. If you used a high ISO, say 800, your enlargement will be limited.

If you used your 4mp camera at ISO 100 and didn't use the digital zoom you should get an acceptable 8x12, depending on what you consider acceptable.

If your camera has 7mp or higher, you used a low ISO - 100, 200 - and you used optical zoom you can make bigger enlargements.

For reference, an 8x12 print is 4 TIMES larger than a 4x6 print. Huh? 4 times 6 = 24; 8 times 12 = 96. 96 divided by 24 = 4. So any imperfection noticed at 4x6 will be 4 times more noticeable at 8x12.

2007-09-27 02:36:26 · answer #3 · answered by EDWIN 7 · 1 1

it rather isn't any longer achievable, sorry. you won't be able to amplify pictures devoid of dropping high quality, no longer in Photoshop or the different application. in case you amplify it a splash you may get away with it - yet to a knowledgeable eye the same old will nevertheless go through. The vector path is a pink herring. Vectors are rescable, however the very act of changing a raster image created from pixels right into a vector making use of a few form of vector tracing application will smash the same old. even nevertheless, you will desire to completely get away with printing them somewhat great, via fact great pictures are no longer usually inspected heavily. Say you revealed it at 120dpi, that would desire to offer you a minimum of a 25" x sixteen" - would possibly no longer be the wonderful high quality, even nevertheless it is going to do. do no longer attempt to rescale them in Photoshop - come across a printer who's attentive to what they are doing, and supply them the optimal report length you have.

2016-12-28 05:09:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Check out

genuine fractals 5
Alien Skin's BlowUp
or
Use the bicubic enlarging technique in photoshop as described above.

2007-09-27 04:24:38 · answer #5 · answered by gryphon1911 6 · 0 0

open photoshop and you will get directions

2007-09-27 02:17:38 · answer #6 · answered by madhavan n 6 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers