I was wondering how would you print an image that's scaled three times its original size without making it look like crap? If you change the dpi to 300 and print it'll look like crap. Is there a way to convert it gracefully?
A:
You should vectorize your image, scale it, and if you wish you may convert it back to the original format (jpg, gif, png...). However this works best for simple images. Do you know how to vectorize? There are some sites that do it online, just do some Google research and you'll find some.
Vectorized images tend to look pretty horrible in my experience, even if it's as simple as an XKCD comic (yes, I have tried).
David Johnstone
2009-06-17 04:16:54
Vector is definately the way to go if you're starting from scratch and creating a graphic for print. If you try to convert a bitmap to a vector using some vectorize feature it often comes out looking cartoonish.
bendewey
2009-06-17 04:25:52
I forgot about the vecotorizing method. That sounds like a good idea but from what I remember, it'll produce fantastic results depending on how complicated the image is. I want to retain transperencies so we'll see how that goes. Thanks for the feedback!
wavyGravy
2009-06-17 16:26:04
A:
Changing the DPI won't matter if you don't have enough pixels in your image for the size you are printing. In the biz it's called GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
If your image is in HTML then create a media="print" stylesheet and feed a high-res image that way.
SpliFF
2009-06-17 04:12:38
+2
A:
You may have the problem of trying to add detail that isn't there. Hopefully you're aware of this.
The best way to enlarge an image that I know of is to use bicubic interpolation. If it's any help, Photoshop recommends using 'bicubic smoother' for enlargement.
Also, be careful with DPI vs PPI.
David Johnstone
2009-06-17 04:15:36
Thank you for the feedback. I'm aware that pumping up the dpi will not do anything to it. I've googled what PS can do messing with the bicubic interpolation and I'll tinker with the setting and see what I can do.
wavyGravy
2009-06-17 18:18:35
+2
A:
This is called supersampling or interpolation. There's no 'perfect' algorithm, since that would imply generating new information where there was none ('between' the pixels); but some methods are better than others in fooling the eye/brain to fill the voids, or at least not making big square boxes.
Start with the wikipedia articles on Nearest-Neighbor, Bilinear and Bicubic interpolations (the three offered by PhotoShop). A few more Tricubic interpolation, Lanczos resampling could be of interest, also check the theory, and comparison links.
In short, this isn't a cut-and-clear issue; but an active investigation field, full of subjectivity and practical trade-offs.
Javier
2009-06-17 04:18:45