xRes is now called Fireworks but before they made a web image editor it was a high end super high resolution image editor. LIke LIve Picture,Dicomed Imaginator, Barco Creator or alias Eclipse. All still better then photoshop for actual retouching even though non of them exist anymore. (well Imaginator does. www.colorave.com I believe but its more just legacy)
xRes was owned by Macromedia after they bought Fauve Software. It was then bought by Adobe. https://www.adobe.com/support/xres/ts/documents/tn3830.html
Meh is Meh.
xRes was owned by Macromedia after they bought Fauve Software. It was then bought by Adobe. https://www.adobe.com/support/xres/ts/documents/tn3830.html
Meh is Meh.
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Eichhorn, Roger <eichhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What is Meh? What is xRes?r.
Sent from my iPadMeh 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.
>>
>
