DSF

tony. Professionals use hasselblad to get this effect. Not a software

Sorrry Paul, you have lost me . I was originally asking Jonathan what DPI he had used for his review. Maybe using a higher resolution for his image would have given him a better result in his print resolution.

it propobly would. But if you dont have beter resolution picture then you cant do it no matter what hyperdippersuperdupersoftware.

Sorry, dont agree.

GoldRapt;21313 wrote:http://www.benvista.com/photozoompro

I haven't used that one (looks a bit expensive to me). I'm always hesitant about software that claims to be able to increase resolution because if the detail isn't there then it isn't there. All software can do is to use various interpolation algorithms to try and fill in the blanks to create an image that isn't as terrible as just doubling it up yourself. The only way to really increase the resolution of an image is to improve the hardware that took the image in the first place (i.e., the camera).

Personally, I don't worry too much about the print resolution because I let Qimage (from http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/qimage.html) handle it. Doing any conversion prior to printing defeats the object of using such software. Qimage will print at the printer's optimal resolution (720dpi or 600dpi, depending on printer).

Qimage will tell you what dpi your image is at the size you're trying to print and I would normally aim for 300/360dpi or so but experience has proven that you can get a "good enough" print from an image that's only 100dpi at the size you want to print. Lower than that and you're on questionable ground because, obviously, the lower the resolution the more work is required by the interpolation algorithm and the more work the algorithm has to do, the less detailed your image will be (and that applies to all software).

GoldRapt;21327 wrote:Sorry, dont agree.

fairenough.

JSR;21333 wrote:I haven't used that one (looks a bit expensive to me). I'm always hesitant about software that claims to be able to increase resolution because if the detail isn't there then it isn't there. All software can do is to use various interpolation algorithms to try and fill in the blanks to create an image that isn't as terrible as just doubling it up yourself. The only way to really increase the resolution of an image is to improve the hardware that took the image in the first place (i.e., the camera).

Personally, I don't worry too much about the print resolution because I let Qimage (from http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/qimage.html) handle it. Doing any conversion prior to printing defeats the object of using such software. Qimage will print at the printer's optimal resolution (720dpi or 600dpi, depending on printer).

Qimage will tell you what dpi your image is at the size you're trying to print and I would normally aim for 300/360dpi or so but experience has proven that you can get a "good enough" print from an image that's only 100dpi at the size you want to print. Lower than that and you're on questionable ground because, obviously, the lower the resolution the more work is required by the interpolation algorithm and the more work the algorithm has to do, the less detailed your image will be (and that applies to all software).

Thank you Jonathan for explaining that I could't do.

JSR;21333 wrote:I haven't used that one (looks a bit expensive to me). I'm always hesitant about software that claims to be able to increase resolution because if the detail isn't there then it isn't there. All software can do is to use various interpolation algorithms to try and fill in the blanks to create an image that isn't as terrible as just doubling it up yourself. The only way to really increase the resolution of an image is to improve the hardware that took the image in the first place (i.e., the camera).

Personally, I don't worry too much about the print resolution because I let Qimage (from http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/qimage.html) handle it. Doing any conversion prior to printing defeats the object of using such software. Qimage will print at the printer's optimal resolution (720dpi or 600dpi, depending on printer).

Qimage will tell you what dpi your image is at the size you're trying to print and I would normally aim for 300/360dpi or so but experience has proven that you can get a "good enough" print from an image that's only 100dpi at the size you want to print. Lower than that and you're on questionable ground because, obviously, the lower the resolution the more work is required by the interpolation algorithm and the more work the algorithm has to do, the less detailed your image will be (and that applies to all software).

Individual choices aside over the use of resoltion software, I think it would be interesting to run the experiment again, time allowing, with the photo printed with the file LPI output size set at 1/3 of the individual printers recomended DPI resolution. (Epsons own recommendations) I reckon you could possiblt improve the end result of the brother.

GoldRapt;21338 wrote:Individual choices aside over the use of resoltion software, I think it would be interesting to run the experiment again, time allowing, with the photo printed with the file LPI output size set at 1/3 of the individual printers recomended DPI resolution. (Epsons own recommendations) I reckon you could possiblt improve the end result of the brother.

I'm not sure that I see the advantage. The actual quality and detail was as good as I got before - as can be seen by the photo of the two mugs that look virtually identical.

And Qimage already outputs at 600dpi for the Brother which is its optimum resolution in the same way 720dpi is the optimum resolution of Epson printers.

If you can explain why there should be any advantage to doing other fiddling with the image then I'll give it a go when I get the time. As it is, I see no such advantage.

JSR;21365 wrote: And Qimage already outputs at 600dpi for the Brother which is its optimum resolution in the same way 720dpi is the optimum resolution of Epson printers.

I think I need to get myself a brother and replicate your review using the software I have Jonathan.

I've used Photo zoom pro, to be honest i didn't find it that good.. along with a few others that claim to do that sort of job, all pretty crap imho. Might be ok for mug size prints, but not for garment sized prints

Dave