> I went and read the site...
>
> http://www.hallogram.com/genfractals/?source=goto
>
> Could a couple users please comment on why it makes their life
> better/easier? As I understand it now people are likely to scan at a
> size (probably their max anyway) and then be able to 'enlarge' beyond
> that while maintaining some sense of structural digital integrity.
Cleavis
I don't have a lot of personal experience with GF, but I think there is a
lot of urban legend about it's ability to rezz up an image. How well it
actually works appears to be related to the size of the image to begin with
(I can't document it, but I seem to remember it's geared toward images that
begin over 24 MB), and more importantly, image content. It's said to work
well for images that contain a lot of hard lines, and perhaps detail, but
it's less successful for images with smooth areas, like skin.
Here is one site that at least provides some examples.
<http://www.fredmiranda.com/SI/>
This person touts their own PS action (SI) which they consider as good as it
gets. To my sensibility, of the examples shown, I like the PS bicubic
interpolation the best. All the others create areas that look unnatural, and
I think they'd really look strange if/when USM is applied. Look at the
eyeball to see what I mean about smooth areas. GF sort of freaks out in
there, and the authors SI looks like it's on the verge of going herringbone.
I personally like PS Bicubic followed by a dash of USM - and the price is
right.
Todd