Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen
produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original
drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP
format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly,
arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my
desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B,
although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are
still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves
kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a
fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the
original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality,
with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture
B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained
from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different
pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly
seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed
up.

Any comment ??



aruzinsky wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:39�am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of
stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put
them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual
landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop
to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master
copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because
that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running
XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or
take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+
MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768,
filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details
that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my
1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files,
all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG
shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those
details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in
the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic
to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking
operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before
and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth
a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 1, 9:12 am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote:



Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen
produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original
drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP
format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly,
arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my
desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B,
although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are
still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves
kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a
fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the
original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality,
with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture
B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained
from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different
pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly
seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed
up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:39�am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of
stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put
them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual
landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop
to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master
copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because
that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running
XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or
take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+
MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768,
filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details
that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my
1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files,
all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG
shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those
details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in
the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic
to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking
operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before
and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth
a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apparently the links are broken. Also, please, don't post BMP, post
small JPEG 100% crops of a problem area because I use a dial up modem.

(Didn't Steve Jobs' R&D people have postscript display in their neXt OS?)

On May 1, 8:12 am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG



The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen
produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original
drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP
format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly,
arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my
desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B,
although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are
still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves
kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a
fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the
original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality,
with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture
B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained
from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different
pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly
seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed
up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:39�am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of
stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put
them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual
landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop
to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master
copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because
that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running
XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or
take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+
MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768,
filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details
that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my
1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files,
all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG
shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those
details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in
the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic
to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking
operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before
and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth
a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Edward Rosten wrote:
That's exactly what pixels are, in every camera I've ever heard of.
The light is projected on to the focal plane at "infinite" resolution
(ignoring the lense, arpeture, etc), and the CCD integrates the amount
of light falling on a bunch of little squares. IOW, the CCD is
precisely a box filter.

The corners deliver less signal, the lens has spherical aberration and
with bayer pattern CCDs you will usually have a diffuser in the optical
path as well. As a system the pixel from most cameras won't have an
image plane footprint very close to a box.

Of course, this isn't a real image, but box filtering is quite
physically accurate for integer ratios or large non-integer ratios.

It's mostly physically accurate if your aim is to reproduce the same
effect as that of a Foveon camera without anti-aliasing filter.

It can produce stair-stepping, but then again, so can a real camera.

I'd call that a bad camera, not something to strive to reproduce in your
algorithms.

Apparently the links are broken. Also, please, don't post BMP, post
small JPEG 100% crops of a problem area because I use a dial up modem.

All are PNG files. Yes, the links are damn broken !!

If you prefer this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnExpandedKe...

, to this,

http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExpandedKern...

, then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel.

Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for
reductions because such expansion automatically provides
antialiasing.  SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding
the kernel.  This is undesirable for natural images.

On May 1, 9:24 am, pg <pen...@catholic.org> wrote:



On May 1, 8:12 am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry for this late reply.

3 example online:

A.www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG

B.www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG

C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG

Picture C should bewww.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG

The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen
produced just a few days ago.

All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program.

If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original
drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP
format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly,
arising from the brown wall.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my
desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B,
although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are
still separated from the brown wall.

However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves
kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a
fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the
original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality,
with the "Lanczos" option.

The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture
B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained
from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different
pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly
seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed
up.

Any comment ??

aruzinsky wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:39�am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello !

I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of
stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put
them online, they become blurred !!

I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual
landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop
to terragen to povray.

When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master
copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because
that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running
XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or
take 8 hours for rendering).

As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+
MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768,
filesize about 800 KB or so.

However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details
that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my
1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files,
all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG
shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those
details are GONE !!

I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in
the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect.

Now my questions to all you Gurus as below ---

1. � � � � � � �Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic
to
� � � � � � � � 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details?

2. � � � � � � �Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking
operation?

Thank you all in advance !!!

Sincerely,
Lee

Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before
and after images showing the problem areas.

You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth
a thousand words."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's hideous pixelated crap is what it is.

Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my
desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B,
although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are
still separated from the brown wall.

If you replaced your CCD with one the same size, but with 1/4 of the
pixels, you would get a pretty similar effect by box filtering and
subsampling the original image.

In article <K6mdnUnCI5jXw4XVnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Pico wrote:

(Didn't Steve Jobs' R&D people have postscript display in their neXt OS?)

nextstep/openstep used display postscript and os x uses pdf.