Meh doesn't need to work like that at all. Doubling to get to the close and then the final % would probably work just as well or better and I still doubt with modern scaling algorithms that it would actually matter. Mathematically doubling or even 4x scaling makes a lot more since since you aren't having to do any sub pixel interpolation. I would still bet if you just scaled and did any of these other methods and then did a difference the difference is so minute. I was going to put a feature in xRes when I was working at macromedia that did all types of different math types and it just wasn't worth the very minimal difference.
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Eichhorn, Roger <eichhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Scott Kelby, in one of his early photoshop books, suggested that one could blow up photos by a few percentage points at a time. I tried it with a jpeg file and it worked. For example, increasing the size by 5 percent fifteen times will approximately double the size of the image (2.08.) I don't l know if it will work for you, but it might be worth trying. You can solve the equation (1.0x)^n = y, for n, where x is the percentage increase for each iteration, y is the final size and n is the number of iterations.
Roger
Sent from my iPad
> On Aug 22, 2014, at 8:05 PM, "James Schenken" <jds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Oops, I calculated at 3000 pixels on the long dimension rather than 4000.
> Please make adjustments accordingly.
> Sorry about that.
>
> CPAP Therapy is a way to live.
>
>> On Aug 22, 2014, at 8:44 PM, James Schenken <jds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The problem appears to be that the image magnification is about 44 times.
>> The image resolution is about 83 pixels per millimeter.
>> So, what you get if everything is perfect is 2 pixels per millimeter or about 50 dpi.
>> That's OK if everyone is going to be 15 feet away from the image or so.
>>
>> Any chance the museum would go for a black and white half tone for a background?
>>
>> CPAP Therapy is a way to live.
>>
>
